Talk:Jewish–Christian gospels

message: I don't know why the so-called Fayyum fragment should even be discussed on this page. It is not the oldest fragment of a non-canonical gospel found to this date, nor is it even certain that it is from a gospel at all, let alone a non-canonical one. Torkmusik (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's linked, if Jesus spoke Aramaic, then his Logia would be in Aramaic, and if they were ever written down in Aramaic, as opposed to being translated, that would be a Jewish-Christian Gospel. The Fayyum Fragment is generally considered a witness to the Logia. 75.0.15.91 (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The Fayyum Fragment

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) 04:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: DONE - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Re the comment that "The resulting merged article would be too long and too confused to be viable.", true, but it depends what the intention is. As I understand it
* Jewish-Christian Gospels is a fact - physical evidence, a common pool of citations in Patristic literature.
* Gospel of the Ebionites etc. is an academic hypothesis. Only the distinguishing features of this particular hypothesis need spelling out. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was able to merge the Authentic Gospel of Matthew. I have been reading through the material on the Gospel of the Hebrews as well as the Jewish Gospels. The resulting merged article would be too long and too confused to be viable. However you are right about the overlap. I think the best way to deal with the problem is to remove some of the overlap (without provoking an edit war). Probably easier said than done. Thanks for taking the time. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just that a lot of work is involved. Still needs doing... by someone 13:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging 

message: I generally like your changes. Showing the dates of the original printing is a good thing as long as the reader knows that the the book is still in print. It is important to show the reader that this debate has been going on for a long time. I also like the background you provide for the authors. 
Regarding the term "paralipomena" at first I was going to let the deletion stand. But after doing some reading, I realized that there were several problems with your edit.
#Your statement "the term paralipomena, (Greek "omitted things"), is not generally used by academics because it requires an assumption that material was actuall "ommitted", was not sourced. Also please try to take greater care with spelling. 
# The term "paralipomena" is broad enough to include Patristic citations, gospel fragments, notations from the Dark ages etc. I am aware of no other term that is both "referenced" and "broadly inclusive".
Please note I am not being picky or disruptive, and remain open to other suggestions. Keep up the good work. All the best - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Thanks, but the term "omitted things" de facto is a statement that the writer believes that A has been omitted from B. Which is an assumption. Such a point would be obvious in English and is the usual use of paralipomena in the 3 normal contexts. The only source for its use re. Jewish Gospels is Rev Bernhard Pick; what's more the term clearly was not used in Pick's day - even Pick himself titled his earlier book The Life of Christ according to Extra-Canonical Sources (1887). More importantly the term is not in scholarship. So no reason for it to be a section heading in Wikipedia. CheersIn ictu oculi (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Google Link and provide references to support your position. Sorry I almost forgot to sign. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The Google Books link shows exactly what I'm saying. paralipomena appears nowhere in this context. Schopenhauer is talking about Hinduism. Bernhard Pick (check your paper copy please) does not use the term even though it is in his title. Please restore In ictu oculi (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No reply? Just deletions? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hebrew paralipomena

message: The way we should approach this difficult topic and  write a NPOV article is:
# Fully and fairly present the scholarship  of "the Church and conservative scholars" but fully referenced.
# Then present why "critical scholars" believes this position is is not supported by the evidence.
# Any other referenced scholarship should be added.
# Try to find sources that fairly present all views. Take a broader, fuller view.
I believe when editing Wikipedia, that we must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions. The best editors are those who are so very unbiased in their writing that it is hard to tell what their POV is on a particular topic.
As this topic is so very difficult, I think it is best if every single sentence has a footnote, citing an academic source and a Google Link. Also references should be varied ie old, new, conservative, liberal, etc in order that all aspects of this topic are covered from a neutral point of view. Also keeping good humour and not deleting material until after a discussion would be helpful.  Ret.Prof (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But the one deleting modern scholars is yourself. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A NPOV article 

message: ::Ret.Prof well, then let's have a discussion, as above I say that paralipomena is not used in any scholarly text, I correct to more usual terminology, and you delete without discussion. I don't know if you yourself were the person who added the word into the articles (?), nor does it matter, but the fact remains it this term not used in scholarly texts. So why are you deleting the normal scholarly terminology such as "extra-canonical sayings"? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've got beyond this now, will revist next week. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Can you give a ref? I have not seen the term used in scholarly texts relating to NT Apocrypha; none of the first six pages of Google books in your link above shows the term being used of extra-canonical sayings. Pick himself does not use it outside his 1908 surtitle. The nearest is H. Windisch "The Fourth Gospel is no collection of paralipomena" It is not used. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You gave no ref. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Paralipomena

message: Can I ask where do these GHeb-1 GHeb-2 numbers come from? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure. The numbering was there when I merged the article. I know GHeb is the standard short form when talking about the Hebrew Gospel(s). I suspect the numbering was done for convenience. I have seen it several times before ie GHeb-2  or GHeb-5 Gheb-6. However I do find it helpful.  - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I mean where do these GHeb-1 to GHeb-113 numbers (i.e. in the article) come from? The links occuring in the Google Books search you linked are to the normal GHeb-1 to GHeb-7, seven quotes, in Schneemelcher's standard edition. Despite the fact that I'm supposed to be working today I'll add in a line. I don't think you'll object. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The bogus GHeb numbers came from an anonymous user in an Internet Cafe in Bangkok aka Melissa .... the thing is the genuine Schneemelcher etc quotations are jumbled up among that list, so where did the list come from? It cites Streeter 1924, but I would have thought that's unlikely In ictu oculi (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GHeb-1 etc. ?

message: I suggest the way we should approach this difficult topic and  write a NPOV article is:
# Fully and fairly present the scholarship  of "the Church and conservative scholars" but fully referenced.
# Then present why "critical scholars" believes this position is not supported by the evidence.
# Any other referenced scholarship should be added.
# Try to find sources that fairly present all views. Take a broader, fuller view.
I believe when editing Wikipedia, that we must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions. 
The best editors are those who are so very unbiased in their writing that it is hard to tell what their POV is on a particular topic. As this topic is so very difficult, I think it is best if every single sentence has a footnote, citing an academic source and a Google Link. Also references should be varied ie old, new, conservative, liberal, etc in order that all aspects of this topic are covered from a neutral point of view. Also keeping good humour and not editing material until after consensus is reached is important.
*As there are many, many issues that are interrelated to the Hebrew Gospel and the Jewish Gospels we take them one at a time. 
*When consensus is reached, we publish our edit and move on to the next topic.
*We find an unbiased Admin. to help us though the rough patches. 
*I would suggest AndrewC. He has sorted me out several times but always in polite and professional manner. He has a knowledge of the topic and is one of the best Admins at Wikipedia. This would also discourage a return of the "sock puppets".
*Proposed agenda 
:1) Problems with references ie "laughable bad ref", 
:2) Language of composition, 
:3) Paralipomena,  
:4) Gheb numbering.
I hope this proposal addresses your concerns. All the best - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But any contributions made will immediately be deleted by yourself. I'm tempted to cite "Who appointed you over us"? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: A Proposal

message: I've tagged the article as OR. Not just the GHeb numbering system, but the whole tenor of the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I have noticed your tag spam on this and other related articles. Very inappropriate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What is inappropriate? These pages are loaded with NPOV and OR. I do not understand why you will not let majority mainstream scholarship be cited. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: OR tag

message: Can someone familiar with mainstream academic scholarship please review this deletion by Ret Prof and salvage some or all of it. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ret Prof's deletions

message: Here:
:Extra-canonical sayings from Cyril of Jerusalem through the Dark Ages
This category of extra-canonical sayings is later and therefore less credible. They are from the Gospel Parallels [119]
    * GHeb- 101 “The doctrine of Judaism cannot be joined to the doctrine of Christ. What connection can there be between the agreement of the Gospel of the Hebrews and the agreement of the Holy Gospels?” [120]
    * GHeb- 102 The Hebrew Gospel has not “to the Holy City,” rather “to Jerusalem”.
    * GHeb- 103 The words, “without cause” are omitted in the Hebrew Gospel and other manuscripts.
    * GHeb- 104 The Hebrew Gospel reads here: “If you be in My heart and do not the will of My Father who is in Heaven, I will cast you away from My heart.”
    * GHeb- 105 The Hebrew Gospel has “more wise than snakes”.
    * GHeb- 106 The Hebrew Gospel has “the Kingdom of Heaven is plundered”.
    * GHeb- 107 The Hebrew Gospel states, “I am grateful to you”.
    * GHeb- 108 The Hebrew Gospel does not have, “three days and three nights”.
    * GHeb- 109 The Hebrew Gospel has, “Corban is what you should gain from us”.
    * GHeb- 110 The Hebrew Gospel states “son of John” for “Bar-Jona”.
    * GHeb- 111 The Hebrew Gospel states immediately after the seventy times seven: “For in the prophets, after they were anointed with the Holy Spirit,there was found in them sin speech.”
    * GHeb- 112 The Hebrew Gospel has, “And he denied and swore and cursed”.
    * GHeb- 113 The Hebrew Gospel has, “And he delivered to them armed men, that they might sit over against the cave and guard it day and night”.
In ictu oculi (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ret Prof, why did you restore Melissa from Bangkok's GHeb numbers?

message: :The common academic distinction of three Jewish-Christian Gospels reflects the standard collection of the Jewish-Christian Gospels found in Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha Vol.1 Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker, Judenchristliche Evangelien translated "Jewish-Christian Gospels" in New Testament Apocrypha. Volume One: Gospels and Related Writings, rev. edn., ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher (Louisville: 1991) 134-159. Scheemelcher, Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker, following Johannes Waitz etc., group extant sayings into three lost Gospels:
In ictu oculi (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ret Prof, why did you delete Schneemelcher

message: Some non-enthusiast mainstream editors are needed here to allow that e.g. the mainstream Schneemelcher numbering system and majority point of view needs to take precedence over Melissa from the Bangkok internet cafe and other enthusiastic OR NPOV contributions:
* Talk:Jewish-Christian Gospels
* Talk:Gospel of the Nazarenes
* Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites
* Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews
In ictu oculi (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem very agitated. Your tag spam, comments and edits are inappropriate. In fact you are scaring me a little. Please calm down. This is a difficult topic and we should work together to build consensus. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Please first propose your edits on the talk page as all of us are now doing. Generally you do good work but today has not been one of your better days. Trying to "out" the identity of a an editor because you do not like her numbering was truly a low. It is not my intention to upset you. Maybe we should take a break and cool down a little.  Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Hello RetProf. The removal of the GHeb (sic) numbering system invented by the anonymous contributor will happen anyway. There are far deeper OR/NPOV problems with these 4 articles. Even with the edits I made, adding mainstream academic content, and which you deleted in toto, the articles would still retain a heavy bias to OR, fringe and NPOV content, with mainstream/majority modern academic viewpoints obscured. The edits I made were in good faith and supported by academic sources. I still do not see reasons presented here for their deletion and would ask reasons be given. Thank you for the book recommendation of Maurice Casey's Jesus of Nazareth, but from what I know second-hand of Casey's ideas about Aramaic sources for GMark, I cannot see how they would change scholarly consensus on the Jewish Christian Gospels. Also I'm reluctant to expend further time on this subject if any sources/refs I introduce which you disagree with you simply delete. 
Rather than "compromise" simply please identify a space in the articles where mainstream scholarship can be stated without facing deletion. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

text: The talk page would be good. Then after good natured and hopefully scholarly debate, we reach consensus and post edit. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: During the formative years of Early Christianity 0 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Gospel of the Ebionites in circulation. Also it is listed in 0 ancient catalogs. Indeed there is no historical evidence from either Christian or non Christian sources that the Ebionites ever composed a gospel. The Church Fathers all state that the Ebionites only used one gospel which was composed by Matthew in Hebrew and was referred to by "most people" as the Authentic Gospel of Matthew  or less frequently the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Therefore Schneemelcher's "imaginary" Gospel of the Ebionites is a non existent gospel or as Edwards politely puts it a scholarly neologism
Schneemelcher's "numbering" has also been weighed, measured and found wanting for the following reasons. 
# It is based on scholarly neologisms
# Schneemelcher numbers are incomplete as he only cites the "fragments" as opposed to the more extensive Hebrew "paralipomena".
Finally, I may have been a little hard Schneemelcher, as 
*Wilson who translated the 1959 work into English did a poor job.
*His book was not meant to be a study of this topic but a broad survey of the non canonical gospels, of which his entry on this topic only consisted of a few pages.
*Schneemelcher himself admits the weakness of his position when he says, "Thus the number of Jewish Gospels -- whether there be one, two or three such gospels -- is uncertain, the identification of the several fragments is also uncertain and, finally the character and the relationship to one another of the several Jewish gospels is uncertain." Google Link
Therefore I strongly oppose any change to the present numbering. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 3. Gospel of the Ebionites 0/0

message: I do agree that it would be a mistake to renew the old edit war between User:-Ril- and User:Melissadolbeer of six years ago (or for that matter six months ago). Therefore I am going to delete the numbering that you object to. From now on let us work for consensus in good faith! I would suggest reading Maurice Casey's Jesus of Nazareth to gain an interesting perspective of the challenges that confront us. Truly wishing you all the best in your editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello RetProf. The removal of the GHeb (sic) numbering system invented by the anonymous contributor will happen anyway. There are far deeper OR/NPOV problems with these 4 articles. Even with the edits I made, adding mainstream academic content, and which you deleted in toto, the articles would still retain a heavy bias to OR, fringe and NPOV content, with mainstream/majority modern academic viewpoints obscured. The edits I made were in good faith and supported by academic sources. I still do not see reasons presented here for their deletion and would ask reasons be given. Thank you for the book recommendation of Maurice Casey's Jesus of Nazareth, but from what I know second-hand of Casey's ideas about Aramaic sources for GMark, I cannot see how they would change scholarly consensus on the Jewish Christian Gospels. Also I'm reluctant to expend further time on this subject if any sources/refs I introduce which you disagree with you simply delete. 
Rather than "compromise" simply please identify a space in the articles where mainstream scholarship can be stated without facing deletion. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

text: The talk page would be good. Then after good natured and hopefully scholarly debate, we reach consensus and post edit. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise 

message: ::However I do feel bound to restore the deletion of the  tag, it says on it "please do not remove" and it's important that the page be marked with its present problems.In ictu oculi (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am truly sorry that our compromise failed. Restoring 'numbering material' material. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's your Wikipedia after all. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag deletion undone

message: The article continues to be overweight with OR and single source theories. Whether mainstream scholarship is right or wrong (how would any of us editing know? myself included) majority mainstream scholarship is what an encyclopedia article should be reflecting. Propose that the article be edited to
*(i) the first subheading before the 3 gospels be a section on identification of 1,2,3, or more texts:
***Standard view
***Other individual theories by date of author***
*(ii) removal of Melissa from Bangkok's GHeb numbering and replacement with the standard academic GHeb etc. numbering.
*(iii) remove invented terminology / terms / names / labels there are not found in academic texts and replace with standard terminology with footnotes. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Having waited for someone else to come along, I have removed the spurious GHeb numbers invented by a Wikipedian. The article still remains POV and overweight to the "controversial" (his own publisher's webpage) theory of J. R. Edwards (2009). So tags should remain. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Conventional majority view and standard sources needed

message: Please note that in the article, I have added some references that show that  Philip Vielhauer and Schneemelcher once were considered the "standard" but this is no longer the case. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fringe theory pushing reverted Other editors please keep an eye on this.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This editor is making edits similar to Professor Peter of the Divine University from 2005. Not that I draw any conclusion from that. But in any case this is Edit warring. The fact that 3 or 4 writers question what is in mainstream encyclopedias, dictionaries etc is not a reason for deleting the mainstream view. The minority views (of which there are several) are already mentioned. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The material Ret.Prof added in support of the lost Hebrew Gospel theory I've restored under the relevant headingIn ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: RE Standard View

message: :Like this? Is that the kind of headline you want with each new breath on the talk page? Dear Ret Prof. Turning your dramatic NEW HEADLINES/DIVIDER lines into Bold for each new post as here isn't "changing your wording", I was actually doing you a favour in making you look less hysterical. Just as a minimal matter of etiquette you shouldn't be setting up inflammable shout lines as a new subject every time. Just question and reply like everyone else. 
::Back to the subject at hand:
::Question - You have deleted what you yourself recognise is the mainstream academic view. Why?
::This, right or wrong is how standard mainstream scholarship sets out the JGs, and Wikipedia users have a right to see standard mainstream scholarship, even if it is wrong.
:1) The Gospel of the Nazarenes ("GN") - GN 1 to GN 23 are mainly from Jerome; GN 24 to GN 36 are from medieval sources.
:2) The Gospel of the Ebionites ("GE") - 7 quotations by Epiphanius.
:3) The Gospel of the Hebrews ("GH") - 1 quotation ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, plus GH 2-7 quotations by Jerome.
::You just recognised that this is the mainstream academic view, so why did you delete it?
::In ictu oculi (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: {{{icon|[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|alt=|link=]]}}} Can we please have a grown up conversation?

message: Mainstream view found in standard SBL type works removed again. I'm a little bit tired of restoring it.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This ongoing edit war is getting us nowhere. Therefore as a token of good will I am going to unilaterally step back from this article. Wishing you the best, Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of majority scholarly view

message: Suggest the article needs some structure.
Lede
* 1 Several Gospels or one Hebrew Gospel?
SCHOLARSHIP
o 1.1 Several Gospels view
o 1.2 Unified Hebrew Gospel view
* 2 The Gospel of the Hebrews
* 3 The Gospel of the Nazarenes
* 4 The Gospel of the Ebionites
* 5 The Gospel of the Apostles 
* 6 The Canonical Gospel of Matthew --- why is this even here?
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE
* 7 Jerome on the Nazarenes' and Ebionites' "original Matthew" -------- PATRISTIC EVIDENCE 1. JEROME
* 8 Waitz' division into 3 Jewish Gospels, and Schneemelcher's numbering ----- move up to 1.1
* 9 Other sayings of Christ --- relevance?
o 9.1 Patristic citations --- move to PATRISTIC EVIDENCE 1. JEROME
WIKILINK
o 9.2 The Fayum Fragment --- relevance?
o 9.3 Sayings recording by Justin Martyr --- relevance?
o 9.4 The Oxyrhynchus Gospels --- relevance?
o 9.5 Extra-canonical sayings from Cyril of Jerusalem through the Dark Ages ---- PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.CYRIL
In ictu oculi (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the material on Gosp. Heb with the lead from the article itself, and deleted several sections that dealt with gospels not normally counted as Jewish-Christian (Matthew and Gospel of the Apostles). PiCo (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: *
*
*
*
*
*
Here is a list of 2GH advocates (although Klauck equivocates more than he advocates). Petri Luomanen (2012) offers a step-by-step critical review of the 3GH hypothesis of Vielhauer & Strecker that is devastating. He argues their entire conjecture is based on a logical fallacy because they started with a predetermined hypothesis of what they hoped to see and forced the data into it. This Bayesian approach only works if you are sure the prior information is true. It's the same logical fallacy that befell the Q project, which Mark Goodacre demolished with The Case Against Q, i.e. Given that Q existed --> lots of words --> we therefore conclude that Q existed. Ignocrates (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2GH 

message: *
I added the 7th edition of the New Testament Apocrypha (in German) to Further Reading. Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha (2nd ed.) is current up through the 6th German edition. This article depends upon  Schneemelcher as the critical text (also the Gospel of the Ebionites article), so this is not a small deal. For example, the Judaikon readings from the marginal notes of manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew are included in brackets in the Gospel of the Nazoraeans. Ignocrates (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Testament Apocrypha 7th German Edition 

message: ; New Testament Apocrypha 2nd German Edition
*
; New Testament Apocrypha 1st German Edition
* 
No article on this topic would be complete without mentioning the contribution of Hans Waitz, who first published the 3GH in the New Testament Apocrypha 2nd German Edition (1924). The New Testament Apocrypha 1st German Edition (1904) mentions only two Jewish-Christian Gospels: the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Ebionites. Ignocrates (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Testament Apocrypha 1st and 2nd German Editions 

message: I changed the order of presentation to alphabetical order instead of using the V&S order. GE is a stand-alone topic, so it makes sense to cover this first. GH/GN should be covered sequentially since the relationship between them is uncertain, and GN may ultimately turn out to be a construct of modern scholars. Ignocrates (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed the order of presentation