Talk:Authentic Matthew

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


NOTE: Ril placed 3 Vfd against Authentic Matthew all of which failed. One of them got Ril blocked.

"The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Dmcdevit 07:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)"
"Concur with vote results. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)"
To understand the admin action one must look beyond the votes to what is actually happening with Ril and others.The result was the right.
Melissa and I abstained from the vote on Authentic Matthew by Acjelen but now would vote to keep his article in the spirit of good will.--Poorman 05:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:RfD 13:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC):

  • Authentic Matthew → Gospel of the Hebrews. Absolutely totally POV. Neither religious groups, nor academic ones believe the Gospel of the Hebrews to be the original version of Matthew. Nor does the redirect represent a merge. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authentic Matthew and Talk:Authentic Matthew. After the VfD reached no consensus, the article was merged into Gospel of the Hebrews, so we have to keep it somewhere anyway for Wikipedia:Copyright reasons. A web search for '"Authentic Matthew" -Wikipedia' gives 'about 456' hits, so it's clearly not one person's neotermism (to create a neologism of my own :-). I suspect #keep #2 also applies - "make the creation of duplicate article[] less likely". Noel (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep; this is not one of the rare cases in which a redirect is PoV; the existence of the theory should be mentioned (in at least half a sentence, either in Gospel of the Hebrews or Gospel of Matthew, and the redirect should point there. Septentrionalis 02:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the RfD template. User:-Ril- was blocked indefinitely pending an ArbCom ruling, and has been unblocked temporarily in order to respond to his RFAr. He shouldn't even be editing articles normally, much less returning to the obession with this article which plays a large part in the RFAr. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Supporting Mel 100%. This compromise took weeks of careful negotiation to work out - and eveyone (minus Ril) seems happy with it. The nomination was plain trolling. --Doc (?) 09:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As per above. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Mel said. encephalon 15:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finding an agreed solution[edit]

I am seeking to find an agreed solution to this article. The last VfD had a delete majority, but narrowly no consensus to delete. That must stand. However, according to precedent that still leaves merge, move or redirect as legitimate options. I am thus canvassing the views of interested editors.

Please note. Much of the original material has already been merged elsewhere. Origins of Matthew's gospel are discussed under Gospel of Matthew and Synoptic problem. Gospel of the Hebrews has its own article. No New Testament commentary or Bible Dictionary, to my knowledge, refers to a document called 'authentic Matthew'. The name is POV. For further arguments see above discussion.--Doc (?) 21:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Options (one user, one vote SVP):

1) Keep this article (however cleaned-up) here.

Those in favour:
  1. I think it is time to work together. Authentic Matthew by ed. Acjelen is a good place to begin. Option 2 would violate the Vfd Keep and land us back in trouble. Merge and redirect failed to get much Vfd support. --Poorman 23:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The VFD result was 21 votes:DELETE, 4 votes:MERGE, 11 votes:KEEP. Respecting the VFD result requires that we delete the article. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With respect this is not true. (Arn't you blocked??)--Poorman 05:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  1. I feel that the VfD vote should be respected. Yet, Doc did have some good points. Let us work together in good faith. Authentic Matthew by Acjelen is a fair treatment of the subject. R.E. Brown, 1997 Introduction to the New Testament N.Y. Doubleday studies both sides to the debate. We cannot solve this dispute but we can write an article worthy of Wikipedia --Melissadolbeer 05:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. User has already voted - Poorman is a sockpuppet of Melissadolbeer (check contribs history, and this edit where Poorman signs as Melissa) ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This issued was explained long ago. Melissa and I are husband and wife who sometimes work together. Let us show one another good will and work together --Poorman 23:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The VfD was "no consensus" and considered deletion rather than the proposal of merging. --Peter Kirby 08:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above.--Poorman 05:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it said:The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). -- Dmcdevit·t 07:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Quite right, and as I said. The result of "no consensus" is "keep (no consensus)" as there is never, at present, a "delete (no consensus)." My point is that discussion can continue. Moreover, the point is that the VfD considered deletion rather than the proposal of merging, so it does not represent a substantial discussion on the proposal, made by Doc and me, of merging this article's contents with Gospel of the Hebrews. --Peter Kirby 07:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2) Redirect this article to Gospel of Matthew - but leaving permission for someone to create an article on 'the sources of Matthew's Gospel' if they wish and change the redirect.

Those in favour
  1. --Doc (?) 21:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3) Merge this article to Gospel of the Hebrews - see below.

Please discuss before voting.

Other options

Authentic Matthew[edit]

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)[reply]

The sockpuppet Ghpbermuda already created an article at The Original Gospel of Matthew, which was a copy and paste of Melissadolbeer's version of the article. That was VFD'd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew with the result of Overwhelming delete. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense from Ril a blocked user. Ril you seem angry! Both Melissa and I repent of any way we have wronged you. Let us work together in good faith! --Poorman 05:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthaei Authenticum = Evangelium quod Hebraeorum, n'est ce pas?[edit]

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)

It was already merged before even being put up for VFD the first time. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not merged now. Do you that agree it should be? --Peter Kirby 10:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to go with Peter on this (NB -Ril- is banned from editing Wikipedia at ths time, and so his comments should be ignored). --Doc (?) 11:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Peter. As you probably know Epiphanius, who was born about 300 C.E. and was Bishop of Salamis, published the following in the Panarion: They have the Gospel of Matthew complete in Hebrew, for this gospel was preserved among them as it was first written in Hebrew script. . .They too accept the Gospel of Matthew, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone in the New Testament expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


Jerome writes in Illustrious Men that Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it.

In Against Pelagius Jerome writes "In the Gospel of the Hebrews, written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script, and used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel of the Apostles, or, as it is generally maintained, the Gospel of Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea)..."

Thus what the Church Fathers are saying is that there is only one Hebrew Gospel which was written by Matthew and often called the Gospel of the Hebrews, because it was popular among Hebrew Christians. This was different from the so called Greek Gospel of Matthew that made it into the canon.

Even I have trouble believing them, but I do believe that what they wrote should be reflected this article ( and if necessary rebutted). (Note the French scholars J.Carmignac and M.Dubarle have contributed to this thesis.) --Poorman 07:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)
I might get into trouble with my wife Melissa, but you have won me over!--Poorman 07:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Second Issue[edit]

In the meantime, whatever happens to the article, there are currently two versions, which of them is more suitable




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?
  1. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Other

This will be irrelevant in a few days, if we have merged this material into Gospel of the Hebrews. --Peter Kirby 08:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can the refs be supplied?[edit]

I want to echo Peter Kirby's request. Let's do something constructive. What do Brown, Streeter and Porter actualy say? Do these sources check out? Can we have page refs, so that those with access to the literature can verify or otherwise? If these secondary refs can't been defended, then they must be deleted, and this article is in real trouble. --Doc (?) 23:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wayyyyy ahead of you! I've found an Amazon Search Inside for the one, and some more info for the others. I've also added a "critique of" book which will no doubt be worth checking out as it will challenge that other writer's facts. So you can check the one book right away. I couldn't find "The Gospel Before Mark" on Amazon, and that strikes me as very suspicious as they list a million fragillion rare and out-of-print books, even ones without ISBNs. I'll have a look around some other places for it later, but I'm wondering if the name is either wrong or, heaven forbid, it's fake. GarrettTalk 00:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Garrett, this is useful, but you are slightly missing my point. That these books exist, I don't doubt. In fact, I've read both Streeter and Brown in the past. My question is, what do they actualy say about Jerome and 'Authentic Matthew'? Do they metion it at all? Do they back up all the assertions of this article? This is one of the weaknesses of WP - you can chuck a lot of refs to books at the bottom of things - and it is unlikely anyone will ever check that they actually back up the article. These are not books on 'Authentic Matthew' not even on 'real canonical' Matthew, so if they say anything it will be an aside. We need chapter and verse - and we need someone to get down to a university library and confirm it. --Doc (?) 01:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to the library tomorrow and can check both Brown and Streeter. Pierson Parker's The Gospel before Mark exists and was published in 1953 by the University of Chicago Press, but no library I currently have access to has a copy. I read through Birth of the Messiah in its entirety only a few months ago, and it certainly does not agree with the ideas advanced by this article. Brown might have something to say about Jerome's authentic Matthew theory. Ideally it would be good to know exactly what parts of this article are based on which books, and specific page references would also be helpful. - SimonP 01:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
No I saw the point, but my solution is the best I can do without travelling out to Massey and reading the books myself (no time). With the Search Inside you can probably find that info right now, but unfortunately it's only the one book. :( GarrettTalk 01:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Brown[edit]

Comment. Please let me know the page numbers in R. E. Brown so I can look them up. --Peter Kirby 08:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Good point! R.E. Brown, 1997 Introduction to the New Testament N.Y. Doubleday studies both sides to the debate. On pages 208 to 210 he explains that the majority of Biblical scholars agree that Canonical Matthew was not written by Matthew but is a much later composition written in Greek.

Brown makes three observations that point to an origional Hebrew Gospel of Matthew:

1) In antiquity there was a Hebrew Gospel used by Jewish Christians. Jerome and others believed it to be the Semetic origional.
2) Although contested, some scholars firmly believe in Matthaei authenticum (see G.E. Howard 1987 The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text GA:Mercer)
3) Still other scholars say they can reconstruct Matthaei authenticum

Yet Brown points out problems with Matthaei authenticum and ends by saying, whether some where in the history of Matthew's sources, one of the twelve [Matthew]played a role we cannot know. However it would not be prudent for scholarship, 1900 years later, to facilely dismiss as complete fiction or ignorance the affirmation of those ancient spokemen of long ago.

Question: Would this be a good ending to Authentic Matthew by Acjelen? --Poorman 05:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research[edit]

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)[reply]


  • For what it's worth, both I and Doc are considering merging with "Gospel of the Hebrews," not the previous proposal of deletion of all the content. --Peter Kirby 06:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vfd Result[edit]

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)[reply]

I will be merging the material, with your comments and help[edit]

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)[reply]

Reference check[edit]

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)[reply]


Yes,what you have said is true, but what I have said is also true. Now let us give Peter a chance to see if he can pull this into a good article. As a show of good faith I am redirecting to Gospel of the Hebrews.--Poorman 23:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC) P.S. I also have trouble with "Matthaei authenticum." used by Jerome because it implies that Canonical Matthew is not authentic. Every good wish and blessing--Poorman 00:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article recreation[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Authentic_Matthew&oldid=1136539445"