This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Religious texts B‑class (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Bible B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

A now-reverted edit from earlier today, mistakenly placed on the article page, does bring up an issue with references and use of the Harvard system. I agree the system makes the set of materials in bibliographies and references very orderly and neat, but on WP, it also distances those materials from the reader, requiring extra clicks of links to access, in a manner that is not particularly intuitive, especially for a casual reader. When the material is not available online, the system also makes that fact unobvious, by just silently having no target for a click. The mobile edit we got today is evidence that I am not the only one who has been struck by these non-print-media effects. Though I have already (earlier) had one discussion with another editor who disagrees with me, it is my opinion that if online references are not available in one click, or by popup, they are therefore devalued. As a basis of that opinion, I would claim that references are not only important to editors who want to check up on sources (and can be presumed to have experience and more perseverance), but that they can be of equal importance to simple readers, on all sorts of devices, who just want to look up more information (or also to check up on sources), but who then require a fully intuitive way to do that.

This is also a current issue for me as an editor, as I have it in mind to clean up references at the Eastern Orthodox Church article, and have been considering the merits and drawbacks of the Harvard system. I expect I am not the first editor (or even community) that has dealt with the problem. Since the editors of this article have chosen the Harvard direction, which I am shying away from, I wanted to ask why, to hear comments about that decision, and reactions to my opinion and the experience of the reverted editor. I also want to ask if anyone thinks it would be best to discuss this matter at project or inter-project levels, with a mind to introducing a more consistent approach for handling references across a whole class of articles. Anyone interested? Evensteven (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be obtuse, since I don't totally understand "The Harvard System", but are you suggesting ditching all ref's that aren't available on-line? This is my interpretation of what you saying. Ckruschke (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Oh, no, certainly not. It's about how they're structured internally, and what that means for clicking to get at anything that does happen to be available online. Evensteven (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reverted editor did not know what the hypertext links in the References section were. Because they look a lot like internal wiki-links to other articles, she reasonably supposed that that's what they were. They are supposed to be in-page links to the full entry in the bibliography, but many of them did not work because the ref=harv parameter was not in the templates. This should fix all of that.

To clarify terms: In the "real" world, "Harvard referencing" refers to using in-line parenthetical author-date referencing, e.g. "The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous (Duling 2010: 298)." Of course, here on Wikipedia we have to confuse every issue, so now "harvard" is also used to refer to a template-based mechanism such as on this article which automatically links shortened references to citation template entries, whether they are parenthetical or footnotes, and using a wide variety of citation styles. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification on Harvard referencing. Yes, I'm sure you're right about the confusion of the editor. My point centers on the fact she couldn't get to what she was looking for intuitively, and in one click. Actually, though, that's two points. I would agree that omission of "ref=harv" amounts to a bug that is readily fixed. Do you feel that fixes the intuitive part? I'm not entirely sure of that myself, but would find it hard to argue against either. As for one click, well, that's my ease of use issue with Harvard references here. Do you see that as significant? I've seen references in the general technical media that indicate if you can't get to the result in one click, people won't generally go further. I don't follow that stuff closely though, and have no idea where I've seen it. Am I on track? Can anyone verify? Evensteven (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're saying is right: People browsing the internet don't generally dig deep, because they are just casually reading. We probably have the same oft-repeated reports in mind on that point.

But let's ask: How would this consideration apply here? So, there's a first choice to make: You can use parenthetical referencing, or you can use footnote referencing. Parenthetical referencing would address the issue you mention, because it usually uses links which lead directly to the full citation. Parenthetical referencing is definitely the less popular option, however. The reason is because people feel that it disrupts the flow of the displayed text. Also, footnotes are necessary for actual, non-citation notes anyway, so there is more consistency. Footnote referencing instead puts those little superscript footnote markers in, which people feel do not significantly disrupt the displayed text. For footnote referencing you can go many ways: 1) You can go for short citations throughout (as this article does) with a list of full citation at the bottom, 2) you can go for long citations throughout, 3) you can go for the first citation to a work being long and following ones being short, or 4) you can do a mix. Only 2) would fully address the issue you are talking about: One click from the footnote marker and the reader would be presented with the full citation every time. I don't think 2) is common at all, however. There's at least three reasons for this: i) It's almost never done by any other publication. ii) It creates a lot of completely useless clutter in the wikitext. iii) It creates a lot of clutter in the displayed text of the footnotes.

In the end, there's no perfect system. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify more: Even though there is the confusion with the term "Harvard", that doesn't mean you should continue it! I didn't mean to imply that "Harvard" only refers to the sort of parenthetical referencing off-wiki. It does mean that on-wiki when it is being used correctly. The use of "harvard" along with the shortened footnotes system is I believe just a vestige of how that system of templates was built out of the old properly Harvard system templates. It's still better just to limit the use of "Harvard" to parenthetical author-date referencing. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of adding a new reference: Maurice Casey, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?, A&C Black, 2014. I hope it will be edifying. He is a leading non-Christian historian who in a scholarly fashion examines the evidence regarding the origins the Gospel of Matthew. He concludes that Papias was right: Matthew did write a Gospel in Hebrew. However this early gospel was smaller and more primitive than the Gospel of Matthew we have today and there were major discrepancies between the two. It may have even been composed on wax tablets. His in-depth the study into "composite scholarship" of the Second Temple period has given the academic community much to reflect upon. He puts forward a compelling case that Matthew first composed a gospel in Aramaic and that this became the basis or fountainhead for the composite Gospel of Matthew. Before I start updating the article with material from Casey 2014, I will give others a chance to look at this new work as a sign of good faith. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure we need to include books that are written in response to blogs. At this stage I would not include it, since it is not specifically about Matthew. Anyway, the pages that discuss Papias on Matthew are unfortunately missing from the Google preview. What does he say? StAnselm (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be interested in seeing what the reviews say about the work. WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEIGHT will of course all apply to any material which anyone might seek to add tothis article, with all those determined as per WP:CONCENSUS. May I suggest that a more effective approach might be to start an article on the book itself, indicating how the book has been received by the academic community along with a description of its contents, as a first step? John Carter (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On page 90 of that book Casey says that "the gospel of Matthew is usually dated c.75-85 CE and its author is considered to be unkonwn." That exactly what our article says. Casey then gives his personal proposal, but Wikipedia presents the broad consensus, not the views of individuals. (We do mention in the lead that a view like Casey's remains a minority one). At the bottom of page 90/top of page 91 Casey outlines Papias' statement about an Aramaic Matthew an says this is "complete nonsense." I can't see that Casey's book adds anything, and it should be removed(the bibliography is for books actually used in the article).PiCo (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article have any references at all to the minority view mentioned in the lead? A Georgian (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The minority view noted in the lead is about the date: "a pre-70 date remains a minority view." It's such a very small minority view that it doesn't get a mention in the article body (you can check out the books in the bibliography). RetProf isn't so much interested in the date as the process of composition - he thinks somebody, maybe the apostle Matthew or maybe not, wrote a gospel in Aramaic which then formed the basis for our Matthew. That could have happened at any date. It's not, however, even a minority viewpoint - Casey himself dismisses it. PiCo (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PiCo Wow, did you misread Casey 2014! It is true that "the Gospel of Matthew is usually dated c.75-85 CE and its author is considered to be unknown." but Casey says the Hebrew Gospel was written by Matthew possibly on wax tablets and that Hebrew Gospel was a major source or fountainhead of the Gospel of Matthew. Do you have any authority that challenges Casey 2014 or that says that Casey adds nothing to biblical scholarship? - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN requires that the burden of proof lies on the person seeking to add information, which in this case would be you, Ret.Prof. You could more effectively meet the demands of policy and guidelines by showing that this proposal has received favorable consideration from others, which would be required to show it does not qualify as FRINGE. The easiest and most effective ways to do that would be to start or develop separate articles on the books or hypotheses if they qualify as independently notable first, and then propose additions to this broader article. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter I plan to wait a week to let everyone read the book. If editors only read snippets or previews they can get confused as did PiCo. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Casey says is that some of the Q and M material in Matthew could have come direct from Matthew the apostle. That hardly makes Matthew the apostle the author of the gospel of Matthew. In any case, this is just Casey's hypothesis - we have to reflect majority views and significant minority opinions, and this is neither.203.217.170.26 (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real comments to make on Casey himself, just one on authorship. For the sake of understanding the primary sources, it should be said that authorship, especially within the Church, was not strictly viewed as an individual activity. In certain cases, authorship was individual. But in others, where the intent of the writing was to serve the Church in its community functions (such as the production of holy writings which served to teach, some of which were later examined for entry into the Biblical canon), or later yet, the writing of church services or rubrics, such things were especially subject to common review, approval, and at least editing. St. John Chrysostom is said to be the author of the most commonly-used Divine Liturgy service, Pope Gregory I the author of the Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified Gifts, and most certainly neither was sole author. Their close association with the development and contribution of essential portions, even the heart of the services, and the high recognition and respect for their saintliness all contributed to their acclamation as "author". It's honorary (from our point of view) because the authorship is not single. It was a work of the Church in the earlier view, with the honor of recognition for contribution bestowed where most suitable. In light of this kind of tradition, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Apostle Matthew had some sort of direct participation in the composition of the Gospel, but ultimately it too was a work of the Church. Papias' writings should be examined with regard to meanings that do not translate into the modern era well. I don't know if Casey does that, or does it well, but whatever scholarly sources we draw on for the article should be looked at to see how carefully the research has explored this matter. Over much time, much text, many manuscripts and artifacts are all lost to material corruption, war or strife, vagaries of death or other lost memory, and so on. Just as perishable is the context of the time, the sense of how things were, and were done. Consider that we recognize that today better than we have in some times of recent past, and how it is driving historians to gather the recollections of those who fought in WW2 before we have no one living we can actually talk to about it. We know that when that time comes, we will have lost something. How much more, then, we have already lost since 70 AD, and how much more careful we must be in the way we look at what remains. That goes for us as editors as much as anyone. Evensteven (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Anon User: You are right! What Casey 2014 argues is that Papias was correct and Matthew did compose an article in a Hebrew dialect and that this "Hebrew Gospel" was the "fountainhead" for the Greek Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible. In other words:

• The Hebrew Gospel >>>> composed by the Apostle Matthew.
• The Greek Gospel of Matthew>>>> a composite composition which used a lot of authentic material from the Hebrew Gospel.
• Finally, Casey notes that there are discrepancies between the Greek Gospel of Matthew and the Hebrew Gospel composed by the Apostle Matthew!

It is really important not just to read the preview or snippet view of Casey 2014. You may not agree with Casey, but his scholarship answers a lot of questions. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ret Prof, can you please link to previous archive discussions of (1) Maurice Casey and (2) "fountainhead" / Papias raised by yourself on this Talk Page over the past couple of years. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see diff. More to follow. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another diff Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I am not sure I am understanding the question. To my knowledge Casey 2014 has never been discussed? - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ret.Prof: Your apparent refusal to directly respond to the rather clearly-made request is unfortunate. The request clearly referred to Maurice Casey and his body of work, of which the latest work is only one piece, but likely consistent with his earlier work. So discussions of his body of work, if it is consistent with his later work, are very possibly relevant. Also, I think it would be very useful if you provided information on academic reviews of his most recent book to help establish how well or poorly it was received. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PiCo What do you think of Casey 2014, re dating the Greek Gospel of Matthew between 50 and 60 CE. In any event the gospel is undated and nobody can be certain. We must work from a NPOV - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I suspect that the Orthodox Church and its scholars are probably more inclined to be sympathetic with the earlier date (back to 50 CE) than most groups, because they sometimes draw on traditions that have been largely forgotten in the west. Yet even so, the Orthodox Study Bible, produced by a convocation of such scholars in the US, makes only a passing nod to that early a date, and offers that it is "more likely" to have been written sometime after 70 CE. In addition, they mention the years Matthew spent in Antioch within the "strong, mixed community" of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Though the OSB doesn't say so, this could have been a time of collaboration about the gospel, a cross-checking of accounts and testimonies, and other such activities that I have heard postulated from other sources. The OSB does state that St Ignatius, bishop of Antioch from 67-107 AD, is one of the earliest witnesses to the existence of this gospel, which might imply completion (or at least advanced drafting) by 107. So back to dating, I would say that Orthodox support for 50-60AD should be characterized as fairly weak at best. If Casey is definite about wanting to date it then, Orthodox writings are unlikely to provide much more than occasional individual support. Evensteven (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ret.Prof, what would really be helpful to everyone here is page numbers and exact quotations (in complete sentences) from Maurice Casey's new book on any statements he made relevant to Papias that you are considering for inclusion in the article. Even better would be a comparison to statements Maurice Casey made in his previous books (page numbers and exact quotations only, please) so that everyone here can compare them. That would be vastly preferable to reams of editorial commentary about your interpretation of what Maurice Casey means. It's also a lot more helpful and constructive than telling everyone else to go read the book. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. The following is from Casey 2014 p 90 "... I therefore conclude that Crossley is right: Mark's Gospel was written c. 40 C.E. Dates of the synoptic Gospels: The Gospel of Matthew. The Gospel attributed to Matthew is usually dated 75–85 C.E., and the author is considered to be unknown. I have proposed that it should be dated 50–60 C.E., and that its author was an unknown Jewish Christian..." Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the characterization that "support for 50-60AD should be characterized as fairly weak at best". It's not an idiosyncratic view, but one shared by a very small minority of scholars at this point. Ignatius' references to a putative Gospel of Matthew have been studied extensively. They refer to passages in what we now call "Special Matthew". There is not a single example of synoptic passages that overlap with the Gospel of Mark (that I am aware of anyway). There are many early examples of sayings material (Clement I, Didache, Justin) that are "Matthew-like" and show signs of coming from an oral tradition. Ignocrates (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An early date for Matthew is a minority view, but a date of 40 CE for Mark is downright eccentric. This review of Casey 2014 is useful.PiCo (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A date of 40 would make the publication of Mark concurrent with Caligula's attempt to put a statue of Jupiter in the Temple. See the Olivet Discourse for more info on Mark's Little Apocalypse. "Eccentric" would be putting it mildly. Ignocrates (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Evensteven: You are absolutely correct about understanding the primary sources! Now read the following and compare it to what Casey 2014 says about Papias!

Preface to the Four Gospels, 383 CE: From Jerome to Pope Damasus I will now speak of the New Testament, which was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the Apostle Matthew, who was the first in Judea to produce a Gospel of Christ in Hebrew script. We must confess that as we have it in our language, it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead.

LETTER 19: Pope Damasus (To Jerome) To his most beloved son Jerome: DAMASUS, Bishop, sends greetings in the Lord. The orthodox Greek and Latin versions [of the Gospel of Matthew] put forth not only differing but mutually conflicting explanations of the saying 'Hosanna to the son of David'. I wish you would write...stating the true meaning of what is actually written in the Hebrew text.

LETTER 20: Jerome (Reply) “Matthew, who composed his Gospel in Hebrew script, wrote, 'Osanna Barrama', which means 'Hosanna in the Highest.’”

Authorship, especially within the Early Church, was not strictly viewed as an individual activity. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, not again. Please review the controversy documented at Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 10#Primary Sources before you waste everyone's time with this, again. You cannot parse the words of WP:PRIMARY to find a meaning no one else sees which allows you to use primary sources as though they are secondary sources. You can state primary sources, but you cannot analyze, summarize, or interpret them in any way. That would be WP:OR. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I would leave the parsing to the reliable secondary or tertiary sources. I would only examine those sources to get a personal feel for how thorough they are in this regard. Reliable sources of a different bent must be allowed here and presumed reliable, whatever our personal regard for their reliability may be. And, of course, that goes both ways. This perspective may account, in some cases, for why reliable sources disagree, or at least see the balance of things in a different light. But this matter goes beyond what has actually been ventured here at this time. Evensteven (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree too. "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." If we use any primary sources in the article, we will take care to see Wikipedia Policy is strictly followed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good. What I hope we don't see now is an OR exposition about the Gospel of Matthew (as a subject) and what these primary sources mean (to Ret.Prof). If you want to talk about what Casey said as a source, why don't you start by explicitly documenting what Casey said in complete sentences (i.e., not sentence fragments lifted from Google Books) along with page numbers, per my suggestion above. I see your quotation about the early date (c.50 to 60), which is a minority view. What about the rest of Casey that relates to the primary sources above? Ignocrates (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we must take care when editing material from primary sources. Also, because of the lack of a decent preview for Casey 2014, I think it is important to get a copy of the book. Sentence fragments lifted from Google Books will not work! - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ret Prof, you were asked to link above to your previous advocacy for representing Jerome/Papias as reliable sources, yet you only provided one link. In my memory you have made multiple returns to this article pushing this every time. Can you please provide complete links to all your previous attempts to get this into the article. I am thinking also that perhaps we need to notify every single editor in all those previous attempts who has prevented the additions you wish to make to this article over the past few years. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Iggy Now with both you and John Carter interacting on this page, are either of you in violation of your respective bans? - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a protocol to follow with respect to my I-ban. That's all I need to say about it here. Ignocrates (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see they are interacting usefully with you, Ret.Prof, not knocking up against each other. I would ask for the results of that malformed discussion/arbitration to be reopened and reviewed if it meant that two of the most active early Christianity editors could not input on such a basic subject as Gospel of Matthew. The editor stock of WikiProject Religion in general has been whittled down to a handful of editors able to weigh academic modern sources, just because two of those editors bumped heads in another topic area (Ebionites I recall?) it would be damaging to the encyclopedia to say that neither of them can now input on the Gospel of Matthew. This article is high visibility religion article under constant pressure from persistently reoccurring WP:FRINGE views - even such as those promoting medieval rabbinical translations of Latin Matthew as lost Hebrew originals and so on - that excluding two competent editors would make ensuring WP:RS WP:WEIGHT content considerably more difficult. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the words of support. There is no problem here, nor will there be. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you have worked things out! - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RetProf asked me (two threads above) for my opinion/views on Casey's argument for an earlier date for GoM. This is both a response to that question and a few observations and thoughts on Casey's 2014 book "Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?" (hereinafter Casey 2014)

First, so far as Casey 2014 deals with GoM, he's repeating word for word what he wrote in his earlier book, "Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching", published in 2010. This is quite normal scholarly practice, but it's worth noting that Casey 2014 isn't new work. (I've highlighted a single key phrase in both links, but it's the entire section that's repeated).

Second, both books are popular works, not aimed at a scholarly audience - Casey was concerned at the growing Christ Myth movement and wanted to counter it with a book for the general reader. This is also worth bearing in mind: Casey isn't making an argument about the composition of GoM but about the historicity of Jesus.

Now for what Casey says re GoM and its date and author:

• "The Gospel of Matthew is usually dated c. 75-85 CE, and its author is considered to be unknown" (page 90) This is what our article says, so I don't see that we need to change anything because of this.
• "I have proposed that it should be dated c. 50-60 CE..." (p.90, same link). Our article already says that a date earlier than 75-85 is a minority opinion, and the mere fact that Casey supports the minority isn't a reason to change our article.
• "...and that its author was an unknown Jewish Christian who may or may not have been called Mattai" (p.90, continuation of the above). This speculation is found in other sources (I mean scholarly books) as well, but it's only one of several and I don't think it needs a mention in our article. Of course, that's a personal call on my part and anyone is welcome to argue a contrary case.

RetProf keeps saying that Casey 2014 supports or advances the idea that an Aramaic Gospel of Matthew forms the "fountainhead" for GoM. This isn't actually true. In fact Casey says this:

• After summarising the Papias/Eusebius tradition that Matthew compiled the sayings/logia (oracles) in a Hebrew language" (bottom of p.90): "When applied to our Gospel of Matthew this tradition is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognised." (top of page 91). This is pretty much what our article says, though we use more restrained language.
• He then asks how the tradition could have arisen, and answers: "[O]ne of the Twelve, who was a tax collector, (wrote) down material about Jesus during the historic ministry", and that "[s]ome of this Gospel's Q material and some of the material unique to it (i.e., the "Special M" material) resulted from Matthew the tax collector's material being transmitted (and) translated..." (Page 91). In other words, when Casey talks about a "fountainhead" which is authentic Matthew behind the GoM, he's talking about some of Q and M (not even all of Q and M), and not a lost Aramaic/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
• Casey 2014 never uses the phrase "Hebrew Gospel", nor the phrase "Aramaic Gospel" - please tell me where you got the idea that he believes such a thing existed?

Casey's ideas on the nature of Q and M are not the academic mainstream. Both are thought to have been in Greek, and M is thought not to have been a single document but a mix of oral and written material circulating in the author's community. Casey advances no evidence that Matthew the apostle wrote anything, beyond offering a hypothesis that could explain Papias.

Wikipedia has to represent mainstream academic opinion plus significant minority views. All in all, I can't see that Casey has anything that we need to include in our article. PiCo (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the exact quotations provided here, I find this summary of Casey's new book (and previous publications) convincing. Sadly, this book was his last rodeo. There are too few competent Aramaic scholars as it stands. If anyone has more to add to PiCo's informed opinion, please contribute. Otherwise, I think it's time to form a consensus and move on. Ignocrates (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misread Casey. I will give it a couple of days for others to get a copy of his book. I will also re read it myself to see if I have made any mistakes. Then with the help of the mediator we will try to sort out our differences. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an appeal to mediation is particularly helpful. Ret.Prof, please explain how PiCo has misread Casey. StAnselm (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@everyone, I would highly recommend read the section Reliability of article: Papias of Hierapolis. Perhaps some of the information provided can better help solve this current issue. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say both books are popular works, not aimed at a scholarly audience. Do you have any sources to support this position? @Andrevan: If this was a popular book, would it cease to be a reliable source? - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casey says himself in his Preface that his aim is refuting mythicism - see the first para of page viii. As no scholars accept the mythicist argument, and as he talks about writing in response to blogs and to the popular mythicists Price and Doherty, I think it's safe to say his target audience is the general public. But Casey is a reliable source, based on his academic record and the way other scholars treat him with respect. PiCo (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Casey is a reliable source, but believe he is writing for both a scholarly audience and the general public. - Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan:Can a group of user accounts preclude a reliable source and overrule NPOV?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They can if the WP:CONSENSUS is that a user is constructing a WP:SYNTHESIS, yes. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: I think the mediation process was very helpful in regard to FRINGE and RELIABLE SOURCES. Building upon this solid foundation will help us compose a good article written from a NPOV. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope you answer my question before we get to that point. StAnselm (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pico and Ignocrates and StAnselm have all inputted now on Casey. I share Pico and Ignocrates conclusion that the result this time is the same as last time (times). Ret Prof there is no support for your proposed use of Casey, or indeed any source, to bolster claims for that reading of Papias/Jerome in this article. And I would note also that previous discussions noted that the main relevance of the reliability (on any subject) of Papias/Jerome is it the reliability sections of the Papias/Jerome articles. I suggest you now give this subject and the Gospel of Matthew a rest for 12 months. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When getting ready to challenge the context of "When applied to our Gospel of Matthew this tradition is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognised." (top of page 91), I noticed a big NPOV blunder by both PiCo & Ret.Prof. I will be off to the library and will address NPOV problem shortly! - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem, repeatedly you tell us your POV and then that you are off to the library to find sources that support the POV. If one of my undergrads did that I would mark his essay an immediate zero before even seeing it. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot wrong with this interaction. The questions to answer here are whether the proposed sources are reliable sources and what they say. Then we can address how to reflect this in the article. Are the sources reliable? What do they say? That's all to discuss. Above I see discussion as to whether Casey is popular or scholarly. If we've conceded that Casey is reliable but simply feel Casey is popular, then we can simply write: Casey thinks X, although this is considered popular by proponents of Y such as Dr. Z. A different problem is whether Casey is actually talking about a proto-Gospel of Matthew, or if Ret. Prof is reading too much into some of the implications of what is possibly a general overview - this falls under "what does the source say?" If you aren't contributing to answering these core questions, the condescension is unhelpful and skirts civility. Andrevan@ 09:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will put off my trip to the library re The Pontifical Biblical Commission and comply immediately with our "informal" mediator's request. There are two important edits that I feel must be made to fix the NPOV problems with this article. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, we're not discussing whether Casey is popular or scholarly - he was a professor - but whether this particular book is directed at a popular audience or a scholarly one. And I've said it doesn't matter - he's a reliable source. No one is saying anything different. This is a red herring. PiCo (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RetProf, you don't need to tell us what the Pontifical Bible Commission said in 1911, you need to to tell us where you find a reference to a Hebrew Gospel/Aramaic Gospel in what Casey said in 2014.PiCo (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Reliability of Casey 2014

I concur with PiCo that "Casey is a reliable source, based on his academic record and the way other scholars treat him with respect." He is a "leading expert" on the Historical Jesus and deals extensively with the origins of the Gospel of Matthew. Indeed, it would be fair to say Maurice Casey, is one of the most important Historical Jesus scholars of his generation and Jesus: Evidence and Argument Or Mythicist Myths? complies with Wikipedia policy on reliable sources in every way.

What does Casey 2014 say?

Casey throws his support behind what up to now has been the minority position! He argues for an early date for the composition of the Gospel of Matthew i.e. between 50-60 C.E.

The following is from Casey 2014 p 90

... I therefore conclude that Crossley is right: Mark's Gospel was written c. 40 C.E. < DATES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS: THE GOSPEL ATTRIBUTED TO MATTHEW > The Gospel of Matthew is usually dated c. 75–85 C.E., and the author is considered to be unknown. I have proposed that it should be dated c. 50–60 C.E., and that its author was an unknown Jewish Christian...

My edit is diff. Note, I am flexible as to the wording as long as the article is written from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casey 2014 is a reliable source and clearly argues for a composition date between 50 CE - 60 CE. This is very important to historians as it means the Oral period of transmission could be as short as short as 17 years. It follows that the Gospel of Mark was composed around 40 C.E. It also means that Q source and M source were early. Therefore I stand solidly behind my edit. diff I believe PiCo was wrong to delete it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to actually place a certain date of composition because multiple sources have different theories of composition. On average, a date between 50 — 110 CE would be the timeline of composition for the gospel. I see 65 — 70 or 75 AD and 85 — 100 or 110 CE, but I would not place the date according to one scholar's view. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the 50 - 60 date is still a minority view...but with a notable scholar such as Casey now backing it...it has become an important minority view! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still a minority view none the less, and there are many notable scholars. Simply this, the date is not going to be based on a minority or one scholar's point of view. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, PiCo was not wrong to delete it. The talk page discussion is a virtually unanimous consensus (minus one) for keeping the original date range, yet you tried to force your version into the text anyway. That makes three tries now against consensus. Ignocrates (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? Can a group of user accounts working together overrule NPOV and RS and other core policies? - Ret.Prof (talk)

What does Casey 2014 say about a Hebrew Gospel?

RetProf, you don't need to tell us what Casey says about his preferred date for Matthew, we already know. What we need is where you find Casey talking about a Hebrew Gospel.PiCo (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean you are in agreement with my edit re the earlier dating of the Gospel of Matthew?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. The article already says that an early dating is a minority opinion.PiCo (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then we have a NPOV disagreement for Casey's support of the 50 C.E.- 60 C.E date is very, very important to the reliability issue of the Gospel of Matthew. Readers should be aware of this scholarship from an important historian! (Who is a reliable source) Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no NPOV disagreement. Your suggestion is that we say, in effect, "a minority of scholars support an early date, and so does Maurice Casey," but there can be no reason for giving Casey a special mention. Where is your evidence that Casey talks about a Hebrew Gospel? PiCo (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Hebrew Gospel is concerned you have made some good points and I am having second thoughts. I may just leave the article as is. However as far as the early date for the Gospel of Matthew I feel I am solid ground. See discussion above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ret.Prof, the discussion began on 3 Sep 2014 with this diff about Casey 2014 and a Hebrew Matthew. Now, after repeated, unanswered, requests for source information, you seem to be having second thoughts. Should we close this discussion about a Hebrew Matthew and focus on the question of an early date for Matthew? Ignocrates (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we should focus on the question of an early date for Matthew. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we are putting the Hebrew Gospel issue to rest. Surely the early date issue is a red herring also. There are lots of excellent scholars who hold to an early date, but it remains a minority opinion. The fact that Casey has published a book which opts for an early date makes no real difference to that. StAnselm (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]