Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 04:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew Gospel of Matthew

Seems to be an article attacking the concept of the Synoptic Problem, and the prevailing academic consensus about Markan Priority and the possibility (or not) of Aramaic Primacy. It was created by a new user in one of their first edits, and seems to be designed to advertise the very non-mainstream theories of one "George Howard". It probably should be mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew article that there are a few Hebrew versions of Matthew lying around, and where they come from (they are actually derived from the Greek version), but I don't really think that the highly abnormal theory that they prove that Matthew was originally in Hebrew (not Aramaic or Greek) should deserve its own article. Clinkophonist 18:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don’t see how Matthew being in Hebrew has any real bearing on Markan priority. So what if Matthew’s author translated into Hebrew or didn’t when he was copying from Mark, if that’s what people want to assume. I don’t find any reference in the article as to where in the authorship order the Gospel falls. I know I didn’t put in any reference to it. User: Shaunckennedy

• Weak keep. I noticed this article when it was first created. It seems to cover two topics. The hypothetical notion of an 'original' version of Matthew that was in a Hebrew language. And the actual fact that there are some medieval manuscripts of Matthew in Hebrew. I tried to expand the content and neutralize some POV [1]. I believe that this article may still be salvaged. Perhaps the hypothetical early hebrew Matthew portions can be removed or merged with Aramaic primacy. Then this article would focus on the existing hebrew manuscripts, and then perhaps more sources than just George Howard could be brought in to expand and neutralize content? Alternatively, I wouldn't be hurt if it was deleted either.--Andrew c 18:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean something like Hebrew manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew ? I think they should really only be mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew article; there doesn't seem to be that much being said about them in the article, except to try to advance the theories of Mr Howard. Clinkophonist 18:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• No vote for now (although probebly delete). Anyone who doesn't know should be aware we've had major problems with Matthean POV pushing in the past. Particularly of the theory of a Hebrew Authentic Matthew. It took three major AfD battles to rid us of that original research, as it was defended by a host of sockpuppets. And a user appears from nowhere and creates an article like this....--Doc ^ask? 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep, need to evaluate sources, esp. George Howard. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area. I found the article interesting and I made a few minor edits which is why this is on my watchlist. If there is a reasonable, verifiable source that claims the existence of a "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew", then this article should be kept. Who is George Howard? Does he have academic credentials? Has he published in a scholarly journal? His theory may not be "mainstream" and the "mainstream" arguments against his theory should be presented but, in general, NPOV argues that verifiable non-mainstream theories should be documented with appropriate skeptical caveats. Richard 19:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Further comment. Can you point us at the debates on the previous articles that were deleted? Why do you want this article deleted? Because you are certain there is no such thing as a "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew"? Or because you are certain that there is no verifiable source that claims there is such a thing?

If there is a verifiable source that claims such a thing (and George Howard would seem to be one) then Wikipedia should recognize this fact and other people can refute Howard's claim with other verifiable sources. Richard 02:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Dr. George Howard got many of his ideas from a Dr. Marvin Arnold, but I haven’t read anything about or by Arnold, and he isn’t mentioned that I remember in Howard’s book. I could dig it out and look again. George Howard himself is a published authority, with publications in I believe Mercer University Press, and I know that the University of Georgia was involved in the publishing of his book on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.User: Shaunckennedy

• No vote for now: my preference would be to have a page for the Shem-Tob Matthew, a page for the Munster Matthew, and a page for the DuTillet Matthew. If these are all on the same page, perhaps have it titled "The Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew" for less confusion. There is a so-called Gospel of the Hebrews, but the term "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" belongs to George Howard, who publicized a reconstructed text based on the comments of the 14th century Jewish author Shem Tob in the polemical work Evan Bohan. There is no need to exclude these materials from the Wiki (the text underlying Shem Tob's comments and the other two); only to have them properly placed and accurately described. --Peter Kirby 09:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• I vote no for deletion. I may be an avid critic of the Hebrew gospel of Matthew, but it does need a place for discussion. The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is a valid concept thought up by, among others, George Howard. The idea that Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew is by no means original to him though, and yet it is distinct from the Gospel of Matthew as we know it. I say keep it separate.

Looking at the article in question, I could easily support every single place where it has "citation needed". Chris Weimer 09:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I vote for a conditional keep. I've tried to clean up some of the references. I was half tempted to delete the second paragraph of the intro that is so heavily set with citations needed, since I don't personally agree with that, but I replaced a redirect to the Gospel of the Hebrews, so someone surely has references for those statements. If not, go ahead and delete that paragraph. I don't think this article should be rolled into the Matthew page. It gives it too high of a visibility and makes it look like mainstream critics give it a lot of thought. Maybe roll it into the Augustinian Hypothesis. I added one citation needed because I know I’ve read that some people can’t see the Greek Matthew as coming from a Hebrew original based on linguistics, but I couldn’t find the reference and can’t remember if they mentioned what linguistic evidence made them think the Greek was original.User: Shaunckennedy 20:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: AFD is not a vote. Stifle (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Sez who?: What are you trying to say?

Wikipedia is not a democracy? WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy

That we should discuss rather than vote? m:Don't vote on everything

We're discussing and building a consensus (sort of) as to whether this article meets the criteria for deletion WP:DEL. True, these kinds of discussions often wind up being majority votes but that's an endemic problem with Wikipedia. Better that than an automated vote without discussion.

Richard 23:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Merge salvageable parts into Gospel of Matthew as per nom. Bridesmill 00:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and add note at Gospel of Matthew. Kimchi.sg | talk 00:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete So what if it was traslated into Herbrew. Lots of things are traslated into lots of languages. If this is kept mabe we should make an article: English Version of the Talmud. Come on. Tobyk777 01:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The real question is, was it translated into Hebrew, or was it translated into Greek? Some answer that it was originally Greek, and translated into Hebrew, others like Howard that it was originally Hebrew and translated into Greek. Choosing one is by definition POV as long as there are scholars on both sides. User: Shaunckennedy

• Strong Delete OR - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, being Hebrew doesn't make it notable, and the rest of it reads like original research. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 04:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

How is this article OR? There's a guy out there (George Howard) who has published a book pushing this theory. Now admittedly, it may be the case, as some editors above assert, that this theory is "very non-mainstream". If so, where are the sources that say so? Is there nobody out there who has published an opinion critical of George Howard's theory? I don't have a problem with an article (or a section in the Gospel of Matthew article) that lays out a popular but kooky theory and then explains why all the pre-eminent scholars of the day think it's off-the-wall. What isn't clear to me is how "non-mainstream" this theory is. Let's see some sources to prove the assertion that it is "non-mainstream".

--Richard 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've only even read about one criticism. http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html The same site also hosts Howard’s rebuttal to the critic. http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol04/Howard1999.html There should be enough information there to show anyone who is not willing to check the book out of their local library that it is not, as has been claimed, original research. User: Shaunckennedy

• No vote, leaning on keep, as it appears that the article has been rewritten since nomination. -- Simon Cursitor 06:58, April 25, 2006 (UTC)

May I draw to the administrators' attention that the above vote is not as I remember editing it, and has, I believe been edited, at 06:58 this morning -- Simon Cursitor 07:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Following Andrew c I've reshuffled[2] the text so as to reduce the prominence of the "Hebrew primacy" hypothesis and thereby make it more neutral. It needs more work, such as citations and perhaps a bit more neutrality, but so do many articles and such weaknesses are not by themselves a ground for deletion; my feeling is that the article is acceptable in its present state. Lambiam^Talk 07:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• No vote. An apparent re-writing.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not original research, but dependent on the published work cited, which was published by Mercer University Press, which is a minor university press but a university press nonetheless, thereby establishing notability. Bucketsofg 20:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The three manuscripts are notable as is Howard's book. Though, in my POV, it has been effectively debunked. Most of the material on Aramaic primacy should probably go in the Synoptic Problem or Date and Authroship of the Gospel of Matthew. Eluchil404 01:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you still have access to the research that you feel debunks Howard? If you do, I think it would be great to add that to the article.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaunckennedy (talk • contribs) 13:12, April 27, 2006 (UTC).

• Delete and merge. Worth covering in an article dedicated to Matthew or Hebrew gospel in general, but appears to be a lot of OR and a POV-fork per WP:NPOV.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by In1984 (talk • contribs) 23:34, April 29, 2006 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.