Talk:Authentic Matthew/Archive 1

message: If you guys pause to think for a mathematical thought moment, you will realize the words of Christ are too important to the World to resolve into stationary categories determined by Wikipedians. 
 
You folks do a fantastic job, but this must use certain mathematics to be done correctly.
I do not know how your computer system sorts, but in this case we have an evolving concept that is currently a “probability system” that is quickly collapsing into one concept … one wavefunction so to speak.
It is mathematical requirement for the quantum mechanical collapse of the World’s understanding of the True Words of Christ that you create a focused, forever-branching (you should probably use a Binary Tree Sorting System) and forever-evolving Wikipedia Category called something like:
“Authentic Matthew, showing all translations from Aramaic into English for discussion threads”
or perhaps you can suggest a better title that keeps evolving.
At your service if I can be of help,
Professor Peter the Gardener (peter.thegardener@gmail.com)
Please note, that this page contained long discussion not related to 'Authentic Matthew', but rather to accusation of sockpuppeteering. Much of the material was 'cut and pastes' from elsewhere, and all regarding personalities and not substance. I have removed this material, to allow readers to clearly see the substantive debate. The material is still available in the edit history, from where my actions may be scrutinised. (To see the page, prior to my cleanup look here ) --Doc (?) 14:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

message: I don't think the term "Authentic Matthew" should be used unless the supposed citation from Jerome in which he gives it that term can be produced, in which case I think said quote should be given verbatim.  Anyone have access to the Latin of the Commentary on Matthew?
Can I propose an idea?  If we are discussing a Hebrew/Aramaic text of Matthew, then we have to drive the article from the statement of Papias, because it is the only unequivocal reference to such a thing (even though it is not clear what the relation of the text he describes is to the Greek Matthew).   Then we link to separate pages on the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazoreans, and Gospel of the Ebionites which then contain the patristic citations we have for each title?
In order, lose the opinion stuff altogether and hunker down behind a "the ancient texts say this, this and this -- there are disagreements as to what this implies."  
We could then extend the last part by specifying the various differing analyses of the data, using quotation and reference.  If anyone knows what the current consensus of scholars is, of course we don't just have an assertion, but rather a verbatim and referenced citation by a current scholar (who holds a teaching post specialising in the subject) stating "the current consensus is..." (whatever it is).
Just a suggestion.  I didn't think it contains wild and obvious falsehoods as it stands.
Roger Pearse 22:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No Jerome didn't. For a start, Jerome wrote in Greek/Latin. P.s. Mikefar is a sockpuppet of Melissadolbeer. --Ron. 11:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Jerome actually use the words "authentic Matthew"? 

message: No matter what, this topic has a long and interesting historiographical tradition. I ran across the term while reading a scholarly text and came to Wikipedia to learn more about it. Redirecting the article is akin to deleteing it. Is Wikipedia not able to discuss this like adults? See Dark Ages or Feudalism for how one deals with controversial topics in a NPOV manner. At the very least, this article should discuss the terms usage and provide some historiographical backgraound and context. Is that not possible? Stbalbach 14:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictionary of the Middle Ages, the article on Anglo-Saxon literature (see the References section for a cite). If the content has been merged than that works, either way, so long as there is dicussion of it somewhere. Stbalbach 17:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference in Anglo-Saxon literature was added by yourself . ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the reference to it in the Dictionary of the Middle Ages. It's cited in the Refereces section. Stbalbach 22:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such reference in the Dictionary of the Middle Ages article, nor is any of the cited references in the References section describing anything more specific that Anglo-Saxon literature. Indeed, they don't even use the word "authentic" once. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I own a complete set of the Dictionary of the Middle Ages. The Dictionary article calls it the "Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew". I assumed that was some kind of non-authoritative version and so pointed it here, but could be mistaken. Stbalbach 01:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NO The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew is something else entirely. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks for some reason I missed that in the search, not sure how that happened, sorry for the confusion. Stbalbach 14:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that. Well, that explains it - what you have is a reference to a medieval apocryphal gospel - your dictionary is labeling as a 'pseudo' not an 'more authentic' gospel. This really has nothing to do with the debates over the ancient origins of Matthew. --Doc (?) 08:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew is a quite distinct work and is not something that could be considered an original "authentic gospel of Matthew" but something else entirely. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks -Ril-, I couldn't exactly place it, that settles it, and (I think) ends this debate. --Doc (?) 09:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historiographical issue