==Please read_Authentic_Matthew and Discuss!== Only one Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew. See- Epiphanius
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. (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7) :Jerome says *"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. . ." (Jerome, ''Commentary on Matthew'' 2) *"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). . ." (Jerome, ''Against Pelagius'' 3.2) *"'''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." (Jerome, ''On Illustrious Men'' 3) Therefore the''' Gospel of the Hebrews''' was written by Matthew. However ''Gospel of Matthew'' found in the Bible was written much later by an unknown person who edited Mark , "Q" and "M" together --melissa (two edits knitted together by Wetman without dropping any text) '''''No, Jerome is not a 100% reliable source for historic fact. In fact, its much much less reliable.''''' ==Theology of Matthew== There doesn't seem to be much about the actual theology of Matthew and what the book says in the article. Would people agree that the entry needs some coverage of this, or not? --MHazell 23:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) Yes, (See GHeb Fragments above)-Fr.Bryan :How ''close to the text'' could it stay? Could it be a ''report'' rather than an ''essay''? (broad hints eh) --Wetman 23:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) Article! (hint taken) Fr.Bryan Authentic Matthew's theology was Jewish in nature. If one reads the GHeb fragments above, one sees why the Church found it less than helpful. The Gospel of Matthew in the Bible has moved from its Jewish roots. :Well, I think that's debatable. Matthew is certainly the most Jewish of the four canonical gospels, to the exclusion of everyone else in places. And whether or not 'Authentic Matthew' (if such a document existed) was Jewish in nature isn't really the point. What this entry needs, in my view, is an NPOV examination of the theology of ''canonical'' Matthew - which involves dealing almost exclusively with the '''final form of the text''', rather than any hypothetical documents/sources behind Matthew. --MHazell 11:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::''What this entry needs, in my view, is an NPOV examination of the theology of canonical Matthew - which involves dealing almost exclusively with the final form of the text, rather than any hypothetical documents/sources behind Matthew.'' ::In other words, you want us to disregard the past two hundred years of biblical scholarship and treat ''Matthew'' ahistorically. Why would we do this? --Goethean 17:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::Well, the 'other words' aren't what I actually wrote, are they? Sometimes I lament most biblical scholarship - whatever happened to looking at the (canonical) text of Matthew itself? All these theories about sources and authors etc., and we've ended up with a Wikipedia entry (as well as a good proportion of scholarship) that tells us almost nothing about the '''content''' of Matthew! Actually, to be fair, the synchronic approach to texts is where biblical studies has ended up in recent years, so like it or not, the 'final forms' of texts are (finally!) here to stay. One does not need to junk the last 200 years of scholarship, but it desperately needs reformulating. We need an awareness of history, but historical-criticism and source-criticism alone are just not good enough. That's my point, and I'll gladly admit my bias towards synchronic approaches to scripture. --MHazell 23:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::As requested, I have now added a subsection Gospel_of_Matthew#Theology_of_canonical_''Matthew''. Text is needed, but keep in mind that it has to be a ''report'' on the theology that Church writers (including Protestants) have actually derived from ''Matthew',' not a personal essay on what ''we'' think. --Wetman 01:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) :But newly-added statements like ''" Actually, a radical Jewish sect was transforming itself into a new religion, which grew into Christianity"'' aren't going to help. The transformation, which happened over the course of the ''second'' century, was not happening in the pages of ''Matthew.'' The accomodation with Rome, which involved systematically marginalizing the Jewish Christians in Judea, was the lifework of Paul, not of the author of Matthew. The tactic is employed to move the ''church'' back into the first century: a familiar enough ambition but not good history. Why is there so much subterfuge about the earliest church? Is there really so much to suppress? so much to gloss over? so much to filter through official Catholic interpretation? How can Wikipedia stay straight with such pressures?... --Wetman 13:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) == The Early Church had many diverse competing views. == The Early Church had many diverse competing views. On one extreme were the 'Judaisers'. They were established by '''James the Just''' and believed that Judaism was the one true religion, and that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. The Ebionites and other groups of Judiasers used only the '''Gospel of the Hebrews''' and rejected even Paul’s writings. They kept all the Hebrew rituals, did not believe in the Virgin Birth or the Holy Trinity, yet maintained that Jesus was one with God. On the other extreme was''' Marcion'''. He and his followers were vehemently anti-Jewish in their beliefs. They rejected the '''Gospel of the Hebrews''' and all the other Gospels with the exception of a '''‘revised’ Gospel of Luke'''. Marcion argued that Christianity should be solely based on the Gospel of Love. The Old Testament writings should be totally ignored. He went so far as to say that Jesus’ mission was to overthrow Demiurge -- the fickle, cruel, despotic God of the Old Testament -- and replace Him with the Supreme God of Love whom Jesus came to reveal. This position, he said, was supported by the ten Epistles of St. Paul that Marcion also accepted. His writing had a profound effect upon the development of Christianity and the canon. A third major group in the Early Church were the '''Gnostics'''. Gnosticism has as a basis ‘gnosis’, the secret, revealed knowledge of God. If the '''Gospel of the Hebrews''' was the basis of the Judaisers, and the '''Gospel of Luke''' the foundation of Marcion, then the '''Gospel of Thomas''' was the '''Gnostic Gospel'''. The Apostle Thomas did not write the Gospel of Thomas, and Eusebius in his catalogue of Early Church writings put this work in his ‘spurious’ category of rejected works. Higher Criticism has shown the Gospel of Thomas was originally composed in Greek and was a secondary Christian source based on the '''Gospel of the Hebrews''' and '''Gnostic writings'''. It is comprised of a list of quotations from Jesus, and in many ways resembles ‘Q’. '''''No. (a) Demiurge=gnosticism. the demiurge is an entirely gnostic concept and only occurs in gnostics. Therefore if marcion believed in the demiurge he was gnostic, leaving only 2 groups rather than 3. And you have forgotten the Paul/Gentile group. (b) Eusebius is not a reliable witness. There is absolutely no way of knowing whether the apostle Thomas did or did not write the Gospel of Thomas from the extant texts, trying to draw one or other conclusion in this matter is making an assumption about (i) the other works and (ii) thomas. (c) The Gospel of Thomas has NOT been shown by higher criticism to be a secondary source. In fact, quite the opposite - it is far more likely that a gospel such as Hebrews, or Matthew, took the Gospel of Thomas, and Mark, mixed them together and fleshed it out, than it is that someone went to all the effort of stripping out the sayings from one of those gospels and made them totally abstract rather than retaining small parts of the gospel such as "he said this in bethany when ... happened".''''' == The Emperor Constantine == The Emperor Constantine wanted these divisions within Christianity ended. During his time many works, from the '''Gospel of the Hebrews''' to the '''Gospel of Thomas''', vanished. Yet it is hard to erase history. The '''Gospel of the Hebrews''' can be found in the writings of the Church Fathers, while the '''Gospel of Thomas''' was discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. From the time of Jesus to Constantine, there was much debate among the early Christians. Studying the writings of the early scholars and knowing of their biases can help to see the Jesus of History more clearly.--Melissa :'''''No. They were still around in the 6th century when the Gelasian decree was drawn up declaring them heresy.''''' ==That "M Source",Streeter== In a revision of 06:12, 19 Feb 2005, User:Fr.Bryan added the seemingly knowing remark "Some believe the author also used the M document." I surmise that this is a hypothetical document similar to the "Q_Gospel" invented to explain some characteristics of ''Matthew'' not otherwise accounted for. I can find no reference to an "M_Document" however. Presenting such an obscure hypothesis without a word of disambiguation is not very reader-friendly. Now that we are all fully aware of how ignorant we are, might we have some illumination here, and a brief entry at the redlink? --Wetman 20:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Nope, never heard of it. --Goethean 20:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Anyone else read of an "M Document" source? --Wetman 20:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Wow, there's nothing on Google, except for about 15 mirrors of User:Fr.Bryan's comment. --goethean 21:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) '''''I have heard of M. It is an extension of the Two-source_hypothesis. Basically, M=the bits not in Q or Mark. Likewise L exists for luke. It is essentially whatever the source for things like the infancy stories was. Whether it existed as a text or just as oral heresay, or was just made up totally, is a different matter, but essentially it is extending the principle. M is widely known in the theory, it isn't a wierd thing, its just a bit pointless as its like saying "that source that isn't Q or Mark, and has the random bits matthew adds" - it hasn't got much to distinguish it, unlike Q, which is unusual in being mostly just sayings, and it was only used by Matthew, so isn't that significant. If you check out google, there is hardly anything about the "Acts of Thecla and Paul", but it is known to exist.''''' :Well, the statement stands above, though I've removed it from the article now. To judge from his talk page the original contributor seems to have been disaffected with Wikipedia. --Wetman 00:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :People talk about an M that's a hypothetical source for what's unique to Matthew, just as they talk about an L that's behind what's unique to Luke. Sometimes people refer to the "Four-Document_Hypothesis"--Mark, Q, L, and M--rather than the "Two-Document Hypothesis"--Mark and Q. Josh Cherry 01:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) There's your redlink. That's your cue. A new article subject. Then the "people" you're referring to are following Burnett Hillman Streeter, ''The Four Gospels : A Study of Origins'' (1924), which— I understand— multiplied the hypothetical sources, inventing a separate "source" for every unique passage. So that's the "M Document" eh. Isn't that somewhat obscure, not to have a little disambiguating context? But perhaps you'd set the statement into enough context to make sense to the ordinary Wikipedia reader and return it to the article... --Wetman 04:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I wouldn't say the topic is obscure. Any New Testament scholar would know what you meant by "M", and it's covered in introductory texts, various one-volume references, and articles is the likes of ''Bible Review''. But this article sure didn't help. I'm not the person to write Four-Document_Hypothesis, but I'll see about mentioning M here with some context. Josh Cherry 12:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) The text now reads "Some believe that a third source, referred to as M and also hypothetical, lies behind the material in Matthew that has no parallel in Mark or Luke." Some believe that good sentences never begin "Some believe." In this case, is it Streeter 1924 behind that smokescreen? There's a fundamental misconception at work: hypothetical source documents are only required when ''two'' texts inexplicably repeat identical material, ''and'' when neither seems to depend on the other. Material unique to a document requires no preceding document: compare the principle in logic called Occam's_Razor. An "M Document" simply as mentioned violates normal critical principles. Something must be muddled here: no one would have printed this as it presently stands. --Wetman 04:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Easy there, my aquatic friend. I'm not sure why people talk about M and L sources since the authors of Matthew and Luke could presumably have composed, from scratch, the portions of their gospels that are unique. But they do. It's mainstream scholarship. I'm just reporting that. Josh Cherry 05:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::In which case, M and L would be "the bits Matthew and Luke made up, respectively", and still useful to distinguish and study. :::Those original bits are not presumed to come from pre-existing documents in the real world. Shakespeare had sources for ''Hamlet''. The rest of ''Hamlet'' is not attributed to an "H Document" because one does not ''unnecessarily'' multiply causes. This just can't be what was intended, because it wouldn't have got to print without someone noticing that it violated ordinary logic and basic scholarly principles. We must have a crossed wire somewhere. --Wetman 23:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC) I hope this will be helpful-Melissa '''The Priority of Mark: The Four Source Hypothesis''' Scholars kept trying to refine the theories to explain more of both the similarities and differences in the Synoptics. That search led B. Streeter (1924) to modify the Two Source Hypothesis by expanding the number of posited sources. He rejected the idea of an early form of Mark, and saw Matthew and Luke using the canonical Mark as a source. Yet, for the material unique to each of those two Gospels, he also posited a separate source that he labeled M for Matthew and L for Luke. In other words, Matthew had access not only to Mark but also to his own M source, while Luke also had access to Mark but also to his own L source. Both Matthew and Luke depended on Mark, but were written independently of each other. He agreed with the earlier Two Document theory that both Matthew and Luke had access to a sayings collection (logia or Q) unavailable to Mark, but also posited that the L and Q sources were combined first into an early version of Luke that was later combined with the material from Mark to produce the canonical Luke. This became known as the Four Source Hypothesis. The four original sources were Mark, L, M, and Q, with Matthew using Mark, M, and Q while Luke used Mark, L, and Q. Through the remainder of the 20th century there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's hypothesis, such as Parker (1953) who posited an early version of Matthew (proto-Matthew) as the primary source of both Matthew and Mark, and a Q source used by Matthew and Luke, with Mark also providing material for Luke. :I've already stated the case, but perhaps it didn't fully sink in: "There's a fundamental misconception at work: hypothetical source documents are only required when ''two'' texts inexplicably repeat identical material, ''and'' when neither seems to depend on the other. Material unique to a document requires no preceding document: compare the principle in logic called Occam's_Razor." These are axiomatic when dealing with texts and sources. Without applying these principles of logic, an imagined source can be "posited" behind every unique phrase: do you see the difference? No matter either way. --Wetman 09:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC) ::The text provided by Melissa is helpful for knowing and understanding what actual scholars argue and believe about this, and how the term "M" is used. Hence it is relevant to what the article should report. Your "case" is your personal take on it, and not so relevant to the article. Perhaps you believe that you have refuted Streeter with your invocation of Occam's Razor, but until you've convinced the world of Biblical scholarship of their "fundamental misconception", that doesn't matter for the article. I think that if you reread what you wrote you will see that it is presented in a patronizing manner, as though anyone who would continue to talk about what scholars like Streeter said after seeing you throw Occam's Razor around would have to be mentally deficient. Josh Cherry 13:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :I'm sure the average Wikipedia reader has understood my general point about unnecessary multiplication of source documents. Perhaps some reader who has more fully digested and understood Streeter's thesis will be able to present it in a way that does it better justice. --Wetman 06:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC) ''Searched the net again, and hope this will be helpful--Melissa'' 12.''' R. Brown,''' The Birth of the Messiah: A commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (NY: Doubleday, 1977) and The Death of the Messiah (NY: Doubleday, 1994). For Brown’s discernment of a three-part "format" in the infancy account of birth, flight, and return, see Birth, pp. 110-113. For Brown’s characterization of the social setting as "ethos" see Death, p. 1345; for his definition of popular narrative, Death, p. 1304, n. 41; for his description of "folklorist" features in Matthew, see Death, pp. 60-62. Brown sees a connection between this ethos and the later gospel of Peter; for his discussion of the gospel of Peter in relation to this, Death, p. 1345. Although we cannot address it here, this stratum also contains the anti-Pharisaic sentiments in the Gospel. The special material of Matthew is, of course, usually termed the '''M source'''. '''Senior''', among others, would attribute this "special material" to the evangelist himself. If we accept '''Brown’s''' source theory, we have a situation in which the intertextual narrative struggle is positioned between the Mark Source and the '''M Source'''. ::Just to retain the duly critical outlook concerning R. Brown's scholarship see e.g. Peter D. Howard, ''The Tragedy in the Work of Father Raymond Brown, S.S.'' (1999?) http://www.cin.org/archives/apolo/199906/0190.html; Dave Armstrong, ''The Modernist, Secularist Historicism of Raymond Brown and Brian Tierney'' http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ323.HTM ::Portress 08:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC) ---- The article as it stands makes somewhat obscure references to "Streeter" and "Parker (1953)" without much to indicate who Streeter and Parker are. It's possible to get a vague sense of Streeter and Parker from this talk page, but a casual reader shouldn't have to look here. Perhaps someone more up on Biblical scholarship than I am could expand or clarify these references? --Josiah Rowe 12:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC) :Since no one else seems to have stepped up to the plate, I expanded the references to Burnett_Hillman_Streeter and Pierson_Parker, based on this and this. Now, perhaps a real Biblical scholar (that is, not me) can create pages for those redlinks? It'd be greatly appreciated. —Josiah Rowe 02:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC) == Title: suggest to restore "according to" == The Greek – in the case of all four Gospel accounts – has ''kata'', Latin ''secondo'', both meaning ''according to''. In other words ''[The] Good News according to ...''. There is a lively discussion as to the ''genre'' of the Gospels, hence their precise title, while not original but very early all the same, may be considered significant. (It is easy to see, why one often encounters ''of'', even in scholarly writings ... it is 9 characters and 1 space shorter, and rolls better off the tongue.)Portress 03:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC) ::As you suggest, the applied titles are simply a convention. A Wikipedia reader who enters Gospel_According_to_Matthew is already redirected to the page. The link "What links here" at the left of the article page will show you the links that would need to be fixed, before you moved on the the other gospels, in order to maintain consistency. Then you'd be renaming the ''Gospel according to Thomas'' too? And ''Gospel_of_Peter''? The "according to" is a rather specific assertion, which doesn't always hold up to critical analysis. --Wetman 04:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC) :::Dear Wetman, No – what I did suggest was that the often encountered English "shortcut"-references to the canonical Gospel accounts are sheer laziness. A mistake does not eventually become correct because many keep on repeating it! Secondly, the redirection needs to be from "Gospel of Matthew" to "The Gospel according to Matthew", unless Wikipedia wants to look stupid (sorry, that's me assuming that Wikipedia intends to give preference to accuracy over sloppiness and that all its contributors share this lofty aim). Thirdly, I note that you object to ''kata'' as being a "specific assertion"; but may I recommend that you take up that argument with the near-contemporary koine speakers responsible for the earliest "inscriptions"/titles (and perhaps also with the early koine-to-Latin translators who rendered ''kata'' with ''secondo''). Unless you want to argue that the titles of the canonical Gospel accounts were composed in English? – As regards your question concerning the apocryphal gospels, I have not seen them in the original language and therefore cannot comment on the accurate English rendering of their titles/superscriptions. – What pray is the purpose of these your comments other than wasting time and computer space? Why accuse me of the desire to "''re''name"? And must I explain to you the difference between "the message according to Wetman" and "the message of Wetman"? And do I need to impress upon you the need for the integrity of a scholarly reliable translation, and that exegesis is an entirely separate task? Portress 00:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC) == Encyclopedic? == Is detailed commentary on each verse in Matthew encyclopedic? Perhaps this is something for Wikisource rather than here? -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) Good point--Melissa If commentary is placed elsewhere, it would be in wikibooks, not wikisource. Wikisource is for the texts only. --Peter Kirby 22:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC) ==Not good enough== In the statement '' It should also be noted that the prominent liberal theologian Dr. John Robinson, concluded that Matthew's Gospel was written as early as 40 A.D'' we are told that Dr Robinson was prominent, that he was "liberal" and we are given his dates. We are told that it should be noted, but we are not told ''how'' he came to his conclusions. This mark of authoritarian training also disfigures Soviet science. --Wetman 06:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC) :Even worse, the statement mischaracterizes Robinson's views. Stephen C. Carlson 01:20, 2005 September 2 (UTC)