Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Authentic Matthew (inconcluded)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Wikipedia.To have Ril and his bullies succeed makes me feel sick.

--Melissadolbeer 11:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


Wikipedia:No original research requires you not to use research of your own. Please also avoid using sockpuppets in the future, or at least make them less obvious. ~~~~ 16:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. The Wikipedian who uses a sock puppet may be called a sock puppeteer. Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases; Jimbo Wales has said, "There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason."The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies. Some people feel that second accounts should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are all behaving acceptably.

Melissa only used the research of others and has never used a sockpuppet.( --Poorman 08:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC) Her Husband)
Above User is alleged by ~~~~ to be Melissa's sockpuppet, although claims itself to be her husband. ~~~~ 19:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Please read article edit history to see if Ril, 81.156.177.21 etc are abusing Wikipedia
Unsigned comment by Melissadolbeer ~~~~ 16:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Historical Background

Traditional view

From the Middle Ages through the Reformation to the end of the 18th century, most Biblical scholars believed there was only one gospel of Matthew, written by the Apostle Matthew in Hebrew. It was further believed that this was the first gospel to be written. Finally, it was accepted that this gospel was translated into Greek and included in the Canon.

Synoptic Problem

Like the authors of the other gospels, the author wrote this book according to his own plans and aims and from his own point of view, while at the same time borrowing from other sources. According to the two-source hypothesis (the most commonly accepted solution to the synoptic problem), Matthew borrowed from both Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, known by scholars as Q (for the German Quelle, meaning "source"). Therefore it became accepted that the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible was

a) not written by Matthew;

b) not the earliest gospel to be written;

c) not originally written in Koine Greek.

M Source

Streeter argued 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. 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 a the primary source. Although Parker's view was hotly debated, an "early version" of Matthew was refered to in more than 25 times in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.


Twenty-first century view

With the growth of "evangelical" Christianity, the majority of Christians have reverted to the traditional view that there is only one Gospel of Matthew: the one included in the Bible, that is believed to be inspired by God and written by the apostle. This view is not widely accepted in academic circles, nor by the Jesus Seminar.

[edit] Eusebius

Please note that Eusebius is not regarded as a reliable source in this field. Eusebius is 4th century. Iranaeus (of Lyons) (possibly spelt wrongly) is a much more reliable source. He is mid 2nd century, and even though he is a church father (and thus extremely biased) he nethertheless reports on the views of his opponents, and thus gives us both sides of the case. He is also much closer to the period.-- ANON


Dear ANON,

Certainly the area of Authentic Matthew has been a controversial one. Your points are good, and I agree with the above. However, most scholars concur that the catalogue of Eusebius is an accurate reflection of the works surviving to his time. -- Melissa


Also, listing Eusebius' choice of what is and isnt heresy is not relevant to an article about the gospel of matthew/M/nazoreans/hebrews. It is only relevant to Eusebius. Other people (including Iranaeus, Origen, and Celsus) had different views on the matter. -- ANON

Dear ANON,

There are those who think that Eusebius is a great church scholar. Our point of view is not relevant. In controversial areas, even sources with which we have difficulty should be cited. That is why "the fragments" contained a variety of sources including Origen, Iranaeus, etc. -- Melissa



Likewise, your own view of the origin of the biblical canon has no place in an encylopedia. Your view, is by its very nature, a view, and therefore not factual, is original research, and also not reporting on the views of scholars/relevant persons on the matter. In addition, it is not relevant to the articles you have inserted it into, as it belongs inarticles such as Gospel of Matthew and History of Christianity and Historicity of Jesus to name but a few. -- ANON

Dear ANON,

You jump to the wrong conclusion. There is much in the article on Authentic Matthew with which I disagree. Indeed, my point of view is probably closer to yours than that of the article. That is why I was pleased when user By George merged the two articles. Also, the article on Authentic Matthew is merely a summary of the writings from the early church to now. -- Melissa



Furthermore, Jerome is widely regarded as being inaccurate in this area, not least because he can't tell the difference between the gospel of the hebrews, the gospel of the nazoreans, and the gospel of the ebionites, which are distinct. We know that he can't tell the difference because he quotes from each of these but names them all as the gospel of the hebrews. As such, it makes what he says about hebrews unreliable, as it very difficult to seperate how much of what he says should correspond to a particular one of the texts, and how much to another, and how much is a conclusion he has erroneously reached because he has conflated the three texts into one. -- ANON

Dear ANON,

There are those who agree with what you say about Jerome, but there are many who believe he is a reliable source. Therefore, his writings must be included in any authoritative article. -- Melissa


As you appear to be concentrating your contributions on the apocrypha, at the moment, I would recommend you first read "Apocryphal Gospels:An introduction" by "Hans-Josef Klauck". -- ANON

Dear ANON,

I have. -- Melissa



[edit] Jerome vs. Hans-Josef Klauck

The difficulty is that Klauck does not have a copy of the document in question. Therefore, all he has to say about it is speculation.

Jerome, who is a respected writer of his time, and whose works have stood the test of time, has the advantage of living in the time period when the document is in existence. According to the GHeb fragments, Jerome has before him a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew which he refers to as the Hebrew Gospel or the Gospel of the Hebrews, but most of his contemporaries call this document Authentic Matthew.

Jerome is able to quote from it, translate it, and evaluate it. Jerome also knows its history, that it is used by the Ebionites, and also by the Nazarenes (apparently it was the Nazarene community that made a complete copy available to him). In his time, there is still a copy in the library at Caesarea.

Eusebius has the same advantage. You and I may disagree with the way he set up his catalogue of early Christian writings, but he, like Jerome, has the great advantage of living in a time when the document in question was still in existence.

In a Wikipedia article, all major works must be canvassed from a neutral point of view and be evaluated critically. Jerome, and particularly Eusebius, have their bias and their weaknesses, but they also have access to the document in question, which Klauck does not. (See GHeb fragments at the end of the article on Authentic Matthew.)



[edit] Authentic Matthew

Authentic Matthew remains one of the most controversial areas of biblical scholarship, and therefore makes it difficult to write a fully unbiased Wikipedia article. There are approximately twenty positions regarding this work that was called Authentic Matthew by the majority of writers in the Early Church. The following are the five major positions:


1. No such thing as Authentic Matthew


Many modern biblical scholars believe that the apostle Matthew never wrote a gospel. They include such scholars as Klauck, Streeter, and the two-source theory, which states that the Gospel of Matthew was written by an unknown editor who merged earlier sources and the oral tradition.

2. Authentic Matthew existed.

This position is supported by the fact that it is cited in the theological discussions of the Early Church fathers.

3. The Gospel of Matthew is Authentic Matthew.

This position states that Matthew wrote a gospel, that is the one that we have in the Bible today. This was the majority opinion until modern biblical scholarship pointed out that the Canonical Gospel was based on Greek sources and not an eye witness account.

4. My point of view.

Matthew wrote a Gospel in Aramaic. Because it was difficult to translate into Greek, sources such as Mark, Q, etc., were used in the translation. Thus, the heavy reliance on Q and Mark in the Canonical Gospel of Matthew.

5. Different Gospels.

This position states that the Gospel of Matthew, Authentic Matthew, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Hebrew Gospel, etc., are all different gospels.


[edit] Summary

The purpose of the article "Authentic Matthew" is to put forward the information that we know in an unbiased fashion, not emphasizing any one point of view. Therefore it is important to discuss and edit but not to merely delete or redirect. Where no consensus can be reached, both theories must be put forward so that the reader is fully informed.

By the way ANON, I have read the other material you have submitted to the Wikipedia and found it to be thought-provoking and interesting. Looking forward to your "scholarly" response on Authentic Matthew. I have undone the merge submitted by By George and at present both the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Authentic Matthew stand on their own to be debated and eventually revised. -- Melissa

[edit] M

M is not the original matthew. M is defined as those elements which are not in either Q or Mark, but are in Matthew. ~~~~ 23:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point and I have added it to the Article--Melissa

Ril had some good points forcing us review the sources and revise the article.

[edit] Higher Criticism

One of the most important aspects of Higher Criticism in relation to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Authentic Matthew or The Gospel of the Hebrews ) is to recognize its limitations. Scholars have no text to study or analyze. The writings of the Church Fathers, are all we have. Yet there are quite a number of them.

Modern scholars -- the majority of whom are English or German speaking -- are studying the writings of the Early Church, which are in Greek (or Latin). Note this is not Modern Greek, but Koine Greek that was used 2000 years ago. Latin and Koine Greek are extinct languages. Thus nothing can be accepted or rejected with certainty. Therefore, Higher Critics analyzing the GHeb fragments have four general categories:

A. Highly Probable; B. Probable; C. Possible; D. Unlikely.


[edit] Clement

Clement of Rome was a leading presbyter in the early Church. He was probably born shortly before the crucifixion, and, according to Tertullian, was ordained by Peter. Many Church Fathers believed Clement succeeded Peter. His letter to the Corinthians was considered divinely inspired by many.

GHeb-1 and GHeb-2

Scholars are split about GHeb-1 and GHeb-2. Some argue that Clement is quoting from the oral tradition. It is equally ‘possible’ that he is quoting from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . It is, however, agreed that these two excerpts are not from the Canonical Gospels.


[edit] Didache

This document is a formulation of the rules of conduct for Christians. It first appeared about the year 100.

GHeb-3

This version of the Lord’s Prayer is different from the one found in the Canonical Gospels. For this reason, some believe it is ‘possibly’ from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . It is interesting to compare this fragment with GHeb-47, which confirms that this Lord’s Prayer was found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.


[edit] Ignatius

Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch, Syria, who was born some ten years after the crucifixion.

GHeb-4 This fragment from Ignatius has caused much controversy among scholars because the term “bodiless demon” is used. We know that this excerpt is not from the Canonical Gospels, nor would this term be used in Hebrew. Thus, some have argued that this fragment was written in Syriac but with Hebrew letters.

Jerome affirms “bodiless demon” is in the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . Therefore it is ‘probable’ that GHeb-4 is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew , and it raises the possibility of Syriac being used.


[edit] Papius

Papius was born approximately thirty years after the crucifixion and eventually became a bishop in Asia Minor.

GHeb-5 It is ‘probable’ that this fragment is referring to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew , as that Gospel is mentioned. It affirms that Matthew wrote it in Hebrew. However, there are problems. Papius’ five-volume work has been lost, and this fragment only survives in the writing of Eusebius. Secondly, the text is ambiguous in its wording. The phrase ‘ta logia’ has been interpreted in numerous ways, i.e. sayings, teachings, or even Gospel.


[edit] Polycarp

Born some thirty years after the crucifixion, Polycarp is an important link to the Apostolic Age. A strong defender of Orthodoxy, he seems to have been aware of the Gospel of the Hebrews written by Matthew.

GHeb 6-7 These quotes are ‘possibly’ from the oral tradition or possibly from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . Scholars are not certain as to their source.


[edit] Barnabas

A Levite who became one of the earliest Christian disciples at Jerusalem, the writings of Barnabas are an important window on the development of early Christianity.

GHeb 8 It falls into the ‘possible category’ for most of the same reasons mentioned above for GHeb 6 & 7.


[edit] Justin

Justin was born 67 years after the crucifixion in Samaria of non-Christian parents. He defended Christianity from the attack by Judaism, wrote an apology of Christianity to Emperor Antonius Pius, and was martyred for his faith. He is an important and reliable witness to the development of the early Church and the New Testament corpus.

GHeb-9 and GHeb-10 It is ’probable’ that these fragments are from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . The Church Fathers explain that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Apostles. Justin cites as his authority the “Apostles of our Christ” and the “Gospel of the Apostles.” (See GHeb-55) Also, Jesus being ‘begotten’ at His baptism is unique to the Hebrew Gospel.


[edit] Irenaeus

This great defender of Orthodoxy in the early Church has much to say about the Hebrew Christian Sect called the Ebionites. He argues that their beliefs are closer to those of the Jews than Christians. Born some eighty years after the crucifixion, his writings are considered reliable by most scholars of ancient and modern times.

GHeb-11 Here Irenaeus states that the Ebionite community uses only the Gospel of Matthew! Other Church Fathers confirm what he writes, but say the Ebionites only use the Gospel of the Hebrews, making it ‘probable’ that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew. It is highly unlikely than he is referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel (see Epiphanius and Eusebius).

GHeb-12 Irenaeus states that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews in their own dialect. Biblical scholars agree that Irenaeus cannot be referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel, which has been shown to be composed in Greek by a person other than Matthew. This raises the ‘probability’ that Irenaeus is referring to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .

GHeb-13 (See GHeb-11)


[edit] Pantaenus

The first head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria, Pantaenus had extensive knowledge of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-14 This excerpt explains why those who were associated with the school of Alexandria had such extensive knowledge of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. This document acquired by Pantaenus could not have been the Canonical Matthean Gospel, which was written in Greek by an unknown redactor. Therefore it is ‘probable’ that GHeb-14 is referring to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.


[edit] Tertullian

Tertullian was born in Carthage, studied law, and converted to Christianity.

GHeb-15 Some scholars say that this quote is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. However, the evidence is scanty and therefore must be placed in the ‘possible’ category.


[edit] Hegesippus

A contemporary of Irenaeus, Hegesippus was a master of Syriac and Hebrew. He was familiar with Jewish oral tradition as well as Hebrew Christianity, and, more particularly, the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-16 This fragment directly cites the Gospel of the Hebrews and is therefore in the ‘highly probable’ category.


[edit] Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria was the successor of Pantaenus, and thus had access to the Gospel of the Hebrews as Matthew originally wrote it in Hebrew script.

GHeb-17 and 18 and 19

These three will be treated together, as they are from the same work, the Stromateis, and refer to the Gospel of the Hebrews. Waitz and others assign these fragments to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the evidence suggests that it is ‘probable’ that they are correct. From Clements’s text it would appear that these teachings are familiar to Clements’s readers. ‘Seeking until one finds’ and ‘seeing God in your brother’ are themes developed in the Canonical New Testament. Also, it is clear that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew , or it least its teachings, were known to the writers of the Gospel of Thomas.


[edit] Origen

Origen is considered one of the greatest scholars of the Early Church. He had an extensive knowledge of Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . He spent most of his life in Alexandria, but later resided in Caesarea, which is where he died.

GHeb-20 This fragment cites the fact that the gospel in Hebrew script was written by Matthew. Most scholars put it into the ‘highly probable’ category.

GHeb-21

This fragment was developed in the ‘Judgment’ of the Gospel of Matthew. However, because it so strongly reflects the poverty theme of the Ebionites, it probably originated with their oral tradition and it is only ‘possible’ that it was ever part of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .

GHeb-22 Origen cites this fragment as being “of the Hebrews” and since there is no evidence to the contrary, it is ‘highly probable’ that he is correct. This fragment is very important to literary scholars, as this story is found in the Canonical Matthean Gospel. The Matthean redactor treats his Hebrew source in the same way he treats his Marken source. It is tightened, simplified, and unnecessary details such as “scratched his head” are omitted. It is made less Hebrew in nature, for such terms as “sons of Abraham” are omitted. So is the word ‘frates’. According to higher critics, this proves that the quotation originated fred the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .

GHeb-23 It is ‘highly probable’ that this fragment is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew , as Origen cites it as his source and there is no evidence to contradict him. It is apparent from GHeb-23 that the Gospel of the Hebrews is well known to the Christians at Origen’s time and is causing theological problems that need to be dealt with. Still, the use of the phrase “if any accept” shows that they are not the majority, or maybe they are, but they simply see GHeb as a threat to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the virgin birth and the maleness of God. Spong and others have argued that “these doctrines” were developed later in Church history. Higher criticism points to GHeb being composed in Hebrew, for Hebrew has the Holy Spirit as female while Latin and Greek do not. Finally, the Holy Spirit being female and the mother of Christ became more and more abhorrent to the Roman Catholic Church and is an important factor in the Gospel of the Hebrews being excluded in the Canon.


[edit] Eusebius

Of all the scholars of the early Church, Eusebius is probably in the best position to give us reliable information about the New Testament corpus and the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . The reason for this is three-fold: 1. Eusebius was born 227 years after the crucifixion of our Lord. This puts him in the best period of time to know extensively about the early Church writings. A hundred years earlier and one is too close to see the entire picture objectively. A hundred years later and one is too far away from the events.

2. He was baptized at Caesarea. This mean he was living in the right place and at the right time to give us the best possible information regarding the New Testament corpus that had been developing over the past two centuries. In the city where Origen had resided and taught at the end of his life, Eusebius was heir to the scholarly material collected by Origen and his predecessors.

3. He was the Church’s first comprehensive historian. Over his life he wrote a meticulous, detailed and extensive history from the time of Jesus to his own time. It can fairly be said he was the Josephus Flavius of Christianity.

Eusebius catalogues all the Church writings of the first two and a half centuries of the New Testament corpus with a view to their authority and reliability. Many of the works he wrote extensively about are no longer in existence, including the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .

GHeb-24 It is ‘probable’ that this was from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .

GHeb-25

This is an authoritative source that the Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew before he left to preach to other nations. Since modern Higher Critics and Epiphanius agree this could not be the Canonical Matthean Gospel, and that only the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew in the Hebrew language, this excerpt ‘probably’ refers to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .

GHeb-26 This shows clearly that Eusebius knows of both the Canonical Matthean Gospel, which is in Greek, and the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew , of which Hebrew Christians are especially delighted.

GHeb-27 Eusebius makes a very important correction. Irenaeus states that the Hebrew Ebionite community uses only one Gospel, which he calls the Gospel of Matthew. Eusebius knows the confusion this can cause. Therefore, he corrects GHeb-3 and GHeb-5 by changing the name of the original Hebrew Matthew to the Gospel of the Hebrews. From Eusebius on the Greek Matthean Gospel written by an unknown redactor is often called the Gospel of Matthew by the Church and the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is called by many the Gospel of the Hebrews is . Confused?

GHeb-28 Scholars place this in the ‘possible’ category due to its lack of detail.

GHeb-29 It is ‘probable’ that this quotation from Eusebius is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew , as Eusebius knew that it was the only Gospel used among the Hebrew Christians written in Hebrew script.


[edit] Didymus

Didymus was a disciple of Origen. He was also the Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Therefore, he had access to the scholarly works collected by his predecessors, Pantaenus, Clement and Origen. Thus he was familiar with and had access to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-30 It is highly ‘probable’ that this reference is to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, as we know Didymus has access to it and he cites it as his source regarding people with two names. It is also obvious that the people to whom he is speaking have full knowledge of this Gospel and recognize it as authoritative. What we cannot know is what aspect of this Gospel makes him believe that Matthew was not called Levi, or why he would consider the Gospel of the Hebrews more authoritative than the Gospel of Luke.


[edit] Epiphanius

Epiphanius was the Bishop of Salamis, Cyprus, and spent most of his life battling heretics. The Panarion is particularly helpful in understanding Hebrew Christianity during a time in which the Church was moving away from its Jewish roots.

GHeb-31 Epiphanius was probably the first to write of the Hebrew Christian community called the Nazarenes. They had a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews, written by “Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly preserved among them as it was first written in Hebrew letters”. Thus, it would appear they added little of their oral tradition to this Gospel, making it quite reliable. According to Epiphanius, the community of the Nazarenes existed in Beroea, Syria. This group began when the disciples moved from Jerusalem, for they believed that Jerusalem would be destroyed.

According to the Panarion Chapter 29, Epiphanius states that they were not Jews, but Hebrew Christians. The reason the Jews resented them was that they had been Jews of Hebrew stock but preach that Jesus is the Messiah. Except for the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, no other Gospel is mentioned by Epiphanius, and he certainly does not allude directly or indirectly to the Nazarenes composing a Gospel.

GHeb-32 This states that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew in Hebrew and was the only Gospel to be composed in Hebrew. This confirms what literary critics have suspected. The Canonical Matthean Gospel was not composed in Hebrew nor did Matthew write it. Rather, Matthew wrote only the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-33 – 38 All these excerpts are taken from the Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew. There is no doubt of this as one reads Panarion Chapter 30.

The problem is that Epiphanius alleges that the Ebionites adulterated the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Literary analysis has not been conclusve.

Of particular interest is GHeb 35 (see also GHeb10) for it solves the mystery of the Letter to the Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "Today you are my Son; I have become your Father"

Only the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew has the word "today". Therefore the Letter to the Hebrews was based on the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew for the Gospels in the Bible do not contain the word "today".


[edit] Jerome

Born 298 years after the crucifixion, Jerome is reputed to be one of the great scholars of the Church. Since the 8th century he was considered to be a Father of the Church and Pius XII found him to be an indisputable witness to the mind of the Church in dealing with the Word of God. Literary scholars agree that he is our greatest source of information regarding the the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Jerome explains that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew letters for Hebrew Christians. The library in Caesarea acquired the original work, of which Jerome knew or might even have seen. Yet it was the Nazarene community of Beroea that gave him a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Jerome translated this copy from Hebrew into Greek and thought of GHeb as being authoritative. However, it must be noted that Roman Catholics and Protestants view Jerome’s works very differently. Roman Catholics view him as if he were some kind of SAINT (quite literally), while many of the Protestant writers have called his work into question. Some Protestants not only maintain that Jerome’s works reflect a lack of scholarly intellect, but go so far as to say they show a lack of Christian integrity. It is maintained that he falsified information and that he even lied about translating the Gospel of the Hebrews into Greek. The historical evidence shows that Jerome enjoyed a good reputation among his contemporaries, had a superior intellect, a Christian education and a deep commitment to the scholarly truth. Today, the writings of Jerome are generally considered to be authoritative.

GHeb-39 The phrase “our bread of the morrow” indicated that this fragment had Hebrew origins, or possibly even Syriac. It further illustrates that Jerome believes that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the "authentic" Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. It is ‘highly probable’ that it was part of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew because of GHeb 47.

GHeb-40 This fragment was written in Hebrew script. Since Epiphanius states that only the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, Biblical scholars would place this in the ‘probable’ category.

GHeb-41 Probable. GHeb-42 ‘Highly probable’, as the Gospel of the Hebrews is cited. (See discussion on “bodiless demon” in GHeb 4.)


GHeb 43 and 44 It is ‘highly probable’ that these excerpts were part of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Jerome says that this is his source and he is dealing with a problem that arises from the Hebrew language. More importantly, he spends considerable effort to explain away a female Holy Spirit. This indicates that both he and the reader recognize the authority of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

To Jerome, a female Holy Spirit, a Jesus with two mothers (Mary and the Holy Spirit), and the concept of the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary making her with child are clearly disturbing. Yet Jerome feels he cannot dismiss the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as spurious.

GHeb-45 ‘Highly probable’ – The Gospel is cited.

GHeb-46 ‘Highly probable’ – GHeb cited as source. It should be noted that GHeb 46, 48, 57 and 58 all attest that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was translated from Hebrew into Greek.

GHeb-47 ‘Highly probable’ as the Gospel is cited by Jerome.

GHeb-48 See GHeb-46, above. It is also important to note Jerome maintained this Gospel is “authentic” Matthew.

GHeb-49 Epiphanius maintains that only Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. This excerpt seems to confirm this fact. Thus, it is ‘probable’ GHeb-49 is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.


GHeb-50 ‘Possible’.

GHeb-51 ‘Highly probable,’ as Jerome cites this as his source.

GHeb-52 ‘Possible.’ No gospel is actually cited by Jerome, but see GHeb-53.

GHeb-53 ‘Probable,’ if one accepts that only one Gospel was composed in Hebrew letters.

GHeb-54 ‘Probable,’ if there is only one Hebrew Gospel.

GHeb-55 ‘Highly probable.’ This citation clears up many problems. It affirms that the Gospel in Hebrew script is indeed the Gospel of the Hebrews. It also states that this Gospel was written by Matthew. It further states that there is a transcript of the Gospel of the Hebrews in the library at Caesarea as well as at the Nazarene community. It is clear that although Jerome and others refer to the Gospel of the Hebrews as Authentic Matthew, the Hebrew Gospel, etc., that they have only the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in mind.

Jerome mentions that the Gospel of the Hebrews is sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Apostles. This is not the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, which has nothing to do with the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-56

‘Highly probable,’ for the Gospel is cited as the source.

GHeb-57 ‘Highly probable.’ This confirms that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew script, for the Hebrew Christians.

NB: Here it should be noted that much confusion has been caused by the term “Jewish Christian” which is an oxymoron. Judaism is a religion that accepts the Old Testament but does not accept Jesus. Christianity is a religion that accepts the Old Testament and Jesus. Hebrew, on the other hand refers to one’s language, culture, even ethnic origin. Thus, there are Hebrew Gospels, Hebrew Christians and Hebrew Jews, but never Jewish Christians nor Jewish Gospels. Sloppy semantics seem to be a major source of difficulty.

A second error of semantics takes place when GHeb 57 is translated as “permitted me to copy it.” Some scholars then argue that there is no evidence Jerome went to the Nazarene community to copy it, thus the conclusion is inevitable that it was not the Nazarenes who communicated knowledge of this gospel to him.

Sloppy semantics makes it sound as if Jerome was only given permission to go there personally. Actually, the permission was broader than that. Here it is important to go to the original text and study it carefully.

GHeb-58 See GHeb-46.

GHeb-59 ‘Possible.


[edit] Burnett Hillman Streeter

  • Burnett Hillman Streeter, The Four Gospels : A Study of Origins. - He shows that Canonical Matthew was "probably" NOT written by Matthew in Hebrew.

[edit] P. Parker

  • P. Parker, The Gospel Before Mark - He raises the "possiblity" that their was an Authentic Gospel of Matthew . Thus he provides a meeting of the minds between old and modern writers.

[edit] *R. Brown

  • R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah. - After reading Brown one comes to the conclusion the this Wiki-article is a true and objective reflection of what we know of the Authentic Gospel of Matthew spoken of by the Church Fathers.

This article is basicly sound. And is mere reporting the work done over the years. There is no part of this article which is original research.

--Poorman 07:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] moved from main page

No Original Research

This article is now a fair summary of Biblical Writers from olden times to now! Just because you quote writers from long ago does not make it original research.

Rewrite by--Poorman 05:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


Please read discussion page with care.

Please take time to read before voting.I have tried to answer all Ril's questions.

--Poorman 06:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC



QUESTION

Why was the following deleted:

It was deleted because you mixed it with votes. It shouldn't be here still but at least it is under the discussion section now and doesn't get in the way of the VfD which is going on. gren 12:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA ABUSE Ril, 81.156.177.21 etc.etc.

Our "Angels" have been observing Ril, 81.156.177.21, Cheesedreames, Fishsupper, Lir, Doc. etc. for some time. His rude style and poor writing give him away. He has abused many articles been blocked many times but keeps reinventing himself.

RIL et al - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves.

and


WARNING: This article is being watched due to sock puppet and other abuses by Ril, 81.156.177.21 etc---Watcher1- 00:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Having just looked at the edit history, this is more important then the article itself.Indeed the edit history clears mellisa from what Ril has said. I would ask for a full WIKI INVESTIGATION INTO RIL AND 81.156.177.21.

--Poorman 07:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More Ril Abuse

Don't edit whole page to distort truth. I am not a sock puppet but a new wikipedia user. What you are doing is wrong...scary. I need help.

[edit] Violated

This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Wikipedia. To have Ril and his bullies succeed makes me feel sick.--Melissadolbeer 11:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from main page (more)

[edit] Wikipedia:No original research

Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.

You might like to read the whole of WP:NOR. It requires that one of the following is true
  • the ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal
  • the ideas have become newsworthy: they have been independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).
Neither of these are true for your article. It is original research.~~~~ 19:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] yet more extensive comments moved from vote

1. A large source text: Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.

2. Eusebius: Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue. Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue. However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius. I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.

3. Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,

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. (On Illustrious Men 3)

He further wrote,

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

(Commentary on Matthew 2)

Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH. What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article. What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.

Wikipedia:No original research Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.

Sock-puppets: See Melissa's response to sock-puppet allegations

--Melissa

[edit] Google

The debate about the authenticity of whichever Matthew is fascinating and all that. I really believe this sort of information should go into an encyclopedia. The question as I see it is about the format, for instance efforts to clean the page up. In particular, the question to be decided is, should there be a page concerning "Authentic Matthew"? Apparently some Wikipedians have been laboring the article. I've noticed that the page is linked all over the place, to anything related to the canonical Matthew, whether its authenticity is discussed or not, often as an imbedded and parenthesized "see also", and even on pages related to authenticity in general or simply the letter M. But if some members are overzealous, it doesn't make sense to punish the Wikipedia for their efforts. Should Authentic Matthew exist in some form?

To answer that, it makes sense to weigh other sources on the subject. Curious, I also wanted to see others' opinions and eccentric theories. But the problem with a Google search is that there are so many mirrors, and the phrase "Authentic Matthew" appears in so many Wikipedia articles, that it's difficult to find independent webpages. Pages were filtered with the minus directive to exclude wikified sources containing "GNU", "disambiguation" and "external links", and specific wiki pages with unrelated information like "morse code". The result? There is one page voting in favor, on the topic of infidelity or something. There is a repeated article that uses the words "authentic Matthew" in the correct context. In neither case is the A capitalized. There are some other biblical pages in which the two words do not refer to a missing gospel, and many in which punctuation separates the two words. And there is a bunch of other stuff like apparel.

This didn't seem right, so I found a couple of really thorough sites on the synoptic problem and searched them using "site:" in Google. Lots of authentic stuff, lots of Matthews, but otherwise no luck. Apparently, Wikipedia has more to say about "Authentic Matthew" than the rest of the web. Now it's time to cast my vote! Davilla 05:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments moved to talk on 17th at 8:44

1. A large source text: Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.

2. Eusebius: Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue. Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue. However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius. I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.

3. Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,

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. (On Illustrious Men 3)

He further wrote,

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

(Commentary on Matthew 2)

Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH. What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article. What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.

Wikipedia:No original research Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.

Sock-puppets: See Melissa's response to sock-puppet allegations Please note that my response seems to have disappeared: can someone get it back?

--Melissa

Your "response" was an inappropriate use of Wikipedia article space, so it was deleted. Try something like User:Melissadolbeer/Response to sock-puppet allegations, which is allowed. ~~~~ 07:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] more talk 17th June 11:48

[edit] Reply to VFD

As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof.

  • A large source text: Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.
  • Eusebius: Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue. Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue. However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius. I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.
  • Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
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. (On Illustrious Men 3)

He further wrote,

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

(Commentary on Matthew 2)

  • Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH. What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article. What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.
  • Wikipedia:No original research Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).
  • The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.
  • Sock-puppets: See Melissa's response to sock-puppet allegations Please note that my response seems to have disappeared: can someone get it back?

--Melissa --Melissadolbeer 08:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Your "response" was an inappropriate use of Wikipedia article space, so it was deleted (by someone other than me, b.t.w.). Try something like User:Melissadolbeer/Response to sock-puppet allegations, which is allowed. ~~~~ 07:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved to talk 16:18 on 18th July 2005

As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof.

  • A large source text: Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.
  • Eusebius: Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue. Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue. However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius. I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.
  • Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
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. (On Illustrious Men 3)

He further wrote,

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

(Commentary on Matthew 2)

  • Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH. What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article. What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.
  • Wikipedia:No original research Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).
  • The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.
  • Sock-puppets: See Melissa's response to sock-puppet allegations Please note that my response seems to have disappeared: can someone get it back?

--Melissa --Melissadolbeer 08:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved to talk 07:40 on 19th July 2005

As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof.

  • A large source text: Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.
  • Eusebius: Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue. Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue. However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius. I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.
  • Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
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. (On Illustrious Men 3)

He further wrote,

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

(Commentary on Matthew 2)

  • Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH. What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article. What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.
  • Wikipedia:No original research Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).
  • The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.

--Melissa --Melissadolbeer 08:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Ril

One of your comments on the main page is:

Doc glasgow (above) has a PhD in New Testament (i.e. one of the Peers that Peer Review would involve), and says it is original research, and is a collection of scraps from other articles put together solely to push one POV.

I don't have a Ph. D. and I've never even read the complete Book of Matthew. Can you explain, to someone at my level of knowledge, how an article could be both "original research" and "a collection of scraps from other articles"? If it uses information from other articles, it seems that there's (at a minimum) some material that's not original research. That's why my current vote is to keep the article and weed out the original research.

Incidentally, the first person from either side who uses the word "sockpuppet" in this section of the talk page will be required to go edit Encarta for a month. Let's have at least one little corner of this mess that sticks to the issues. JamesMLane 08:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Basically, the original research stems from the manner in which the scraps are drawn together, designed to assert a POV (that Gospel of the Hebrews IS Gospel of the Ebionites IS Gospel of the Nazarenes IS the original form of Gospel of Matthew), which is almost universally discredited in the field. ~~~~ 20:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That would suggest that merger into the main article isn't justified, because the theory doesn't merit extensive attention there. Instead, the main article could mention the theory, or perhaps just give a "See also" listing for this article, and this article could summarize the theory while quoting a named source for the assessment that it's "almost universally discredited in the field". JamesMLane 01:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
The theory was one made by Jerome, the other articles mention that. It has been universally discounted by academics. There is no modern notable case for it being accepted, therefore describing it with anything more than a passing sentence is original research. ~~~~ 08:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any connection there. Phlogiston theory is universally discounted these days, but we can write about it without doing original research. See Wikipedia:No original research#What may be included in articles (OK to include a claim with "few (or possibly just one or two) adherents"). The point about a theory being discounted isn't that it thereby somehow becomes original research, but that its subminority status affects how much prominence it should be given. If it's "almost universally discredited in the field", that means it doesn't deserve exposition in the main article. It can have a "See also" link to its own article, though, just as Phlogiston theory is listed in the "See also" list in Combustion. Of course, the separate article, in addition to presenting the theory, should note that it no longer has any currency; ideally, there would be an account of how and why the experts came to decide against it. JamesMLane 09:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, but Jerome didn't present it as a thesis. Jerome presented the information he knew, conflating the books together, which (in the opinion of the vast majority of academics in the field) was quite likely to have been an innocent mistake due to lack of information. This is not the same as Phlogiston theory at all, which was set up as a serious rival, rather than someone going "chat is the french word for talking", which is clearly not something to be written about, even in the french wikipedia, because "chat" is the french word for "cat". ~~~~ 18:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Can you support that what Jer. wrote on the authentic Gospel of Matthew has been universally discounted by academics. How could they do that with out a copy of the doc? --Kendea
The above user is a sockpuppet of Melissadolbeer. ~~~~ 18:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Bzzzzzt! Off to Encarta with you, Ril. You can't say you weren't warned. JamesMLane 18:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
You can't say you have any authority to make such a demand. Please note, I am not Ril ~~~~ 19:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
My authority to make the demand can be summarized as follows: j/k. You are right that I'd overlooked the distinction between Ril and -Ril-. I apologize to both of you. I suggest that whichever of you registered the name second should change user names. JamesMLane 08:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I wanted the name Ril, as its a nickname my friends use, someone had already taken it so I took -Ril-. Ril is apparantly someone's sockpuppet (according to the arbitration committee), and has been permanently banned, so it isn't really an issue, other than that I should not be confused with them. ~~~~ 13:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
No. That's most likely just a lie to avoid the VFD's result. ~~~~ 06:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
N.b. only the arbitration committee can "adjourn", suspend, or postpone VFDs, and only then by an injunction. There is none, so this VFD must close at the normally allocated moment. ~~~~ 06:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • While I hope nothing but the best for your mother-in-law/mother, and fully support adjournment of any arbitration (none of which is presently extant) for such a reason, I would like to ask (i.e., demand) that any conflict of interest discussion of arbitrators be left to any relevant RfAr discussion. As yet, I have not seen any indication as to why Theresa should be excluded from voting in an RfAr between you/se and -Ril-, but should such evidence be presented in the proper forum, I would expect Theresa to recuse herself, without prejudice, from voting. In light of that, if you're attempting to cast Theresa in a negative light here, you'll receive no kudos (although the same cannot be said for your negative characterizations of -Ril-, who seems to have something of a vandetta against you, for whatever reason, which I expect to be explained COHERENTLY and WITH COMPLETE CITATIONS HERE as soon as he makes it back to this page. Tomer TALK 08:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I was personally considering proposing to remove the VfD tag on this article, as well as proposing a one-month editing ban on both User:-Ril- and the various editors whom -Ril- claims are sockpuppets of whomever. This article is clearly at the core of a much bigger argument between at least two editors, and as such, their relationship needs to be worked out before anything constructive can EVER take place wrt this article. Meanwhile, I think going forward with a vote on whether to keep or discard this article will negatively/positively reflect on n/either party in what is clearly a conflict of much greater scope. I move to suspend this vote until such time as the relevant RfAr is resolved. (Without prejudice, I also vote to take both parties, but especially -Ril-, out behind the woodshed for a sound spanking. This entire mishegas is utterly unseemly, and does nothing but serve the best interests of those who hold the entire WP project in disdain.) Tomer TALK 08:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • N.b. You may NOT remove VFD tags until a VFD is closed.
      • Which is why I didn't. Tomer TALK 17:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • This move to "suspend" VFD is purely a callous one by Melissadolbeer because she doesn't like the way it is going, and I have nothing but contempt for such behaviour seeking to abuse VFD's process. It is my opinion, that a more likely truth is, that Melissadolbeer, a school teacher, has a holiday booked, it being end of term, and will be unable to sockpuppet during that period, consequently requiring suspension so that this does not detriment her position. Articles can always be put to Votes for Undeletion once the VFD is complete, there is no reason to suspend it.~~~~ 16:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Not exactly correct. VfU is only a move to put the article back on VfD if the article is determined on technicality to have been deleted improperly. That said, I still think you do yourself and your "side" a great disservice by arguing with the sockpuppets and by running around behind everyone who votes "keep" like a tattle-tale, asking them to change their vote. I note that you have not run around behind everyone who votes "delete" telling them all about your "problems" with the socks, etc., and thanking them for their vote. From where I'm sitting, it appears far more likely that the reason all the socks are showing up is to have additional names fighting against the vitriol you've unleashed. It looks to me like you've created a problem editor by the fierceness of your onslaught against hir. Tomer TALK 17:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment and suggestion to closing admin. This debate has resulted in more heat than light. However, it does actually matter, since references to 'Authentic Matthew' have been inserted into other, more important Biblical Studies articles, giving it an unmerited prominence (and IMHO distorting WP's presentation of the discipline). I have some knowledge in the field - and I had intended to set down my thoughts for others, but I withdrew rather than poke a stick in a hornet's nest of sockpuppetry, accusations, flaming, and trolling (by whom I leave for others to judge).
A proper informed debate on the article does need to happen and reach a resolution -'freezing' it for long, whilst it might (??) cool individuals, does Wikipedia content no favours! I'd suggest that this current nomination be terminated (quickly) and another begun (soon), in which -Ril- on one hand and Mellisodobeer (and associates) on the other are each invited to make a statement then withdraw (on that basis I'd chip in my bit too) - and then some disinterested party (not -Ril-) monitor the debate. --Doc (?) 08:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
This is the sanest and sagest suggestion rendered to date (including my own several "contributions" even). The POV-warriors who have brought this finally to VfD should be permitted to say their piece and then SIT DOWN AND LET EVERYONE ELSE SPEAK. Tomer TALK 09:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • This article should not be deleted until we find out who is in the wrong. ALSO NOBODY HAS SAID ANYTHING BAD ABOUT Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) EXCEPT THAT SHE HAS HELPED RIL IN THE PAST. --Jlchan 11:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Above user is a sockpuppet (ZERO PRIOR EDITS) ~~~~ 16:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody says anything bad about Theresa because everyone's scared of her. She can reach you wereëver you try to hide. Run!!! Quick!!! Here she comes!!! Tomer TALK 17:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The relevance of the article is independent of "who is in the wrong" for edit wars of the article. However, I concede that for fairness, it may be necessary for a "disinterested party [to] monitor the debate" and avoid edit wars of the debate itself. (Am I correct that deletions objected to are primarily the same single chunk of material repeatedly moved from this page to talk?) Davilla 13:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
N.b. VFD procedure does not contain procedure for a "rebuttal section", but it does specify that extensive discussion goes in talk.
N.b. In the same edit, Melissadolbeer's sockpuppets are also deleting all the comments marking users as sockpuppets (e.g. user has n prior edits). It is standard procedure in VFD to mark suspected sockpuppets, due to lack of prior edits, as such. Removal (by Melissadolbeer's socks) of such comments can only possibly serve to attempt to hide that the users are sockpuppets, which is pretty much conclusive evidence that they are. ~~~~ 17:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment to closing admin. This is a VFD. A set of votes. Once a user has cast their vote, their presence is unimportant. The purpose of VFD is to determine consensus. Neither Melissadolbeer, Me, or sockpuppets, need to be present for this to happen. Even if we both find ourselves in a warzone (I am currently somewhat trapped inside a police bomb cordon resulting from today's london explosions - the coffee is nice though), I see absolutely no reason why this should prevent other people from being able to vote, which is all that VFD is about. There is no reason to suspend or postpone this - it does not require me, or melissadolbeer, to be present. This is about determining the will of the community, and not that of me, or melissadolbeer. ~~~~ 16:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)