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.

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 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, RS and other core policies? - Ret.Prof (talk)

Ret.Prof, Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS. A "group of user accounts working together" is six other editors working independently who feel that the article is properly weighted, per WP:WEIGHT vs. one editor filling up the talk page and trying to insert an edit three times against that consensus. There is no NPOV problem. The article already mentions the minority view; it just doesn't mention it with the words you personally like best. Ignocrates (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are the very definition of ‘chutzpah’. You take an edit that is well within Wikipedia guidelines. Then you delete it. When I object, you say the "early date" issue is a red herring. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]

See ‘chutzpah’ above! - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ret. Prof, you are essentially conceding this point and PiCo is right. Casey doesn't say there is a Hebrew Gospel. So we can't write that even if it is implied or somehow an underlying idea of Casey's unless he spells it out. If you have a source, then go ahead, there are no sources so the issue is over. This can go any way at any time but is nothing until then. Andrevan@ 07:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have carefully read through the arguments presented on this page and some very good points have been raised. I am now in the process of preparing my edit re Papias. As a sign of good faith I will not use the term “Hebrew Gospel”. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(For the convenience of editors, I'm dividing the thread "What does Casey 2014 say about a Hebrew Gospel?" in two because it began as a discussion of whether or not Casey mentions a Hebrew Gospel and ended with RetProf saying he no longer wished to support that argument. With that behind us, we're now talking about the date of Matthew - RetProf's comment, the first in this thread, leads on directly from the end of the previous thread) PiCo (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let us do things one at a time. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. With Casey a recognized WP:RS, even granting him a great importance, the book is new, and the importance of the early date in his book has yet to have time to make the impact it could given a little more time. At this time, even 50 AD (much less 40 AD) remains a minority view, even east and west. It seems reasonable that the article ought to continue to reflect that fact until it changes, if it changes. When Casey's book, or any other matters, have caused enough scholars to reconsider and move to an earlier date, that would be the time for the article to change. And if the date is important to Papias' reliability, we can only assume other scholars will pick up on that as well. But WP is reactive, not proactive. We must wait here until it happens. Evensteven (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Evensteven Casey 2014 puts the date of composition between 50& 60 ce. Where did the 40 come from?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

40 is Crossley's number, presented in the quote you provided from Casey in #What does Casey 2014 say? above. It is apparently the (or one) reason Casey gives for establishing his date of 50-60. Is that correct? 50 is still a minority view. I'm sorry if I have offended in any way, but I did not say that your edit was not within guidelines, and I did not delete it. I also did not call the early date issue a red herring. I merely said that it is not an established majority view, and that is why I think the dates given in the article must not be changed at present. Evensteven (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I was not referring to you. The 40 date was only addressed to you. Sorry! - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article says 70-110 and pre-70 date is a minority view, but Casey says 50, so it seems reasonable if Casey is a reliable source to change the first number to 50 without changing the second number. I don't see a need to call Casey out by name. If you don't agree that this is reasonable I would be interested to hear why not. Andrevan@ 08:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says Matthew is "generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110". That obviously doesn't mean everyone. Casey is one of the minority. I think there is a misunderstanding over two distinct uses of the phrase "reliable source". StAnselm (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, 50 is also the early date generally mentioned in eastern (Orthodox) sources, and there seems to be a pretty general agreement that anything earlier is likely to be greeted in scholarly circles as difficult to defend. So putting this in as an early date instead of the vaguer "before 70" (but without needing specific attribution) seems to me a tad clearer. I tend to think that the late date of 110 is rather along the same lines as 50 is for early, and have not heard of eastern scholarship suggesting something that far out. But perhaps it has a somewhat greater following in the west. It would do to examine that date (lightly) also and try to make it clearly match the phrase "generally believed". I don't think 50 falls in that category, which is why we use 70. But are there that many who seriously contend for something after 110? Evensteven (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, it would be entirely unreasonable to change 70 to 50. The sentence we have, "The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110," is based on Dennis Duling's short commentary on Matthew in the Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, and changing the year would (a) attribute to Duling something he doesn't say, and (b) be untrue, since "generally" means "by the majority", and Casey himself says it's a minority view. Incidentally, I see, now that I look at Duling, that he actually says "the range of posibility" is 70-110 - I'd support a change to that wording. PiCo (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But PiCo, doesn't that undermine the "generally" or "by the majority"? The "range of possibility" is just Duling's, yes? Does he say "most scholars" prefer 80-90? If so, let's use him to back that statement. If 50 is outside his own range of possibility, it is apparently within others', even if theirs is a minority view, and I think we can see where the borders of minority view come into play by contrast to the majority preference. Evensteven (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very good point. 90-110 is also a minority view. We should either say the range of possibility is 50-110, or just drop that bit entirely. In fact, I am boldly making a change here, which also has the advantage of removing the passive voice. StAnselm (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same sense of the literature (80-90), but I think PiCo is attempting to avoid a synthesis by almost literally quoting Duling's review. Maybe he can elaborate when he returns. Ignocrates (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like StAnslem's edit. It mostly begs these minority views and sticks with the core, which is what the intro to the article is all about anyway. If Duling doesn't suffice, it would be nice to find another summary to back this type of wording rather than the former. Evensteven (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we going with Duling , anyway? R. T. France says says the "majority view" is "fourth quarter of the first century", but then says "probably around 85" (still referring to the majority view). David Sim says the "consensus of opinion" is prior to 100, and notes that there is an "overwhleming probability" that Ignatius knew the gospel, which rules out a 110 date. StAnselm (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about Duling, but France concurs quite directly with the summary of Orthodox views in the OSB, even better than Duling. So there we have two sources, east and west. Seems pretty comprehensive to me. Evensteven (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm, that edit looks fine to me. PiCo (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An aside

@All, please read this before you get in much deeper with this guy. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I consider myself to be "in" with everyone here until they tell me otherwise. Evensteven (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was unclear; by "this guy" I meant Andrevan. I feel there is a bit of misrepresentation going on here. Andrevan is here to "mediate" whatever solution Ret.Prof wants. Ignocrates (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw you weren't directing anything at me. But I think it would be a mistake to reject whatever Andrevan is doing out of hand. There is no official mediation going on here. He is present simply as an editor. His skill as a mediator could come in handy, but it is his right to be here in whatever capacity can contribute to the article. And frankly, contentious discussions go on all over WP all the time and have gone on here before. So anything that can be done by anyone to quiet that kind of thing is constructive for the article, even if he never adds a word to it. Evensteven (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this again, but please note the missing parts of that conversation: diff1, diff2. I asked Andrevan to keep it all together on his talk page, but he refused to do that. Hence, the diffs to fill in the rest. He has made it clear that he is not acting as a normal editor to contribute content; he is here to enforce policy, and therefore, implicitly using his authority as an admin to do that. Wearing that admin hat requires that he stay "uninvolved"; however, as this thread shows, he clearly is involved in determining the specific content that is going into the article. It is considered misconduct for an admin to do that; he can't have it both ways. I'll stop with the aside now and let you get back to improving the article content. Ignocrates (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Ignocrates. I do see the "informal mediator" role. I saw earlier that that's what he's been doing in effect. I just haven't seen an abuse of authority, not in my eyes anyway. Sorry, the role he has taken can still be a help here. And I can't see anything to argue about in the edits made in the last two weeks. There is a variety of editors involved in them, too. Situation stable, I'd say. Evensteven (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliability of Casey 2014: PiCo states 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 we seem to have consensus that Jesus: Evidence and Argument Or Mythicist Myths? complies with Wikipedia policy on reliable sources.

• What does Casey 2014 say? Casey throws his support behind what up to now has been the minority position! We have seem to have consensus he has clearly put forward 50-60 C.E. as the date for the composition of the Gospel of Matthew which he supports in scholarly fashion. Casey 2014 p 90

Therefore I am willing to support the compromise put forward by Andrevan: "The article says 70-110 and pre-70 date is a minority view, but Casey says 50, so it seems reasonable if Casey is a reliable source to change the first number to 50 without changing the second number. I don't see a need to call Casey out by name." Also this proposal has no problems with Fringe or Synthesis. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's discuss within the discussion that's going on above. StAnselm has made a chance which actually narrowed the range in the lead. That seems to be consistent with the source info for the "majority" position. I think perhaps the way forward is to talk about Casey's earlier range elsewhere in the article. Thoughts? Andrevan@ 21:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I concur with that. For the lead paragraphs, the majority position tends to be enough for clarity and orientation, and also because the minority positions stretch the range a fair distance further, which takes explanation. Evensteven (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PiCo & StAnselm... excellent work. The lead must be short and to the point! @Andrevan, I think you are moving us in the right direction. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to mention Casey at all. The article already says that pre-70 is a minority position, and that's sourced from France who's more reliable on this than Casey. (France's commentary on Matthew is a scholarly work used in most if not all universities and seminaries, while Casey 2014 is a popular work that just states an opinion without arguments). PiCo (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PiCo. The current phrasing works well. Besides, even if Casey was producing a scholarly work, it's too soon to see if such a radical viewpoint has influenced the consensus - the book was only published this year.--Rbreen (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether Casey is in or out, but if Casey is reliable and he is saying something slightly different from the established majority position, NPOV demands we mention that somewhere in the article. FRINGE will not apply if Casey is basically still in the mainstream of positions on this, and WEIGHT doesn't allow you to exclude reliable sources because you don't personally see a need to include them. I'm certainly not going to insert the new reference, but if Ret. Prof wants to clarify the 50-70 range you would probably have a tough argument to make against it. -Andrevan@ 16:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll have to re-write my earlier post in this place because I think I badly misread what's being proposed). RetProf, could we just clarify what's being proposed - are you accepting the opening sentence of the 2nd para of the lead as amended by StAnselm? If the answer is yes, what exactly are you proposing? PiCo (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casey is (was) an idiosyncratic scholar; he advocates for a view that is uniquely held by him among contemporary scholars. The only reason he is even considered a RS is that his work was reviewed by a few mainstream scholars who are heavy-hitters in this field, most notably Dale Allison. In order for Casey to get his idiosyncratic conjecture about Aramaic sources to work out, he needs an early date for Matthew (and Mark). Thus, his advocacy of an early date is not an independent appraisal of the primary literature. Rather, it is entirely dependent on a highly speculative conjecture about Aramaic source documents that is his alone. If this were a probability distribution of modern scholarship, his work is 3-sigma from the mean. Ignocrates (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have trouble convincing RetProf on that one :). But you make a very good point: being an authority on historical Jesus doesn't carry over into making one an authority on Matthew. The RS for this article are people like Allison, France, Luz, et.al. - the names in the bibliography.PiCo (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Well, Ret.Prof is also a die-hard fan of James Edwards. I would describe his work as 4-sigma from the mean (defective as well as idiosyncratic). His relentless civil POV pushing has to end somewhere, so it might as well end here. Ignocrates (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RetProf is certainly sailing closer and closer to something definitive. But let's see what he says he wants for the article. In his first post in this thread he said he wanted to change the lead, then Andrevan said we'd gone beyond that and in his next post he seemed to be proposing something in the body of the article. I'd like to see his position clarified, and a concrete proposed edit. PiCo (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it that both of you are again arguing against Casey as a WP:RS? It seems the main point of contention always goes back to this. I agree waiting for a proposed edit is a useful approach. But please, whatever your opinion of Casey, I don't consider the comments directed at Ret.Prof to be well taken or helpful. So I don't see how a proposed edit is going to help unless there is acceptance of Casey as RS. Let's please focus. Evensteven (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course. But just on Casey: sure he's an RS, it's just that he isn't an authority on Matthew, and France, Nolland, Luz, Allison, Davies, and the others in the bibliography, are. Anyway, I'm going to bed. See you all in the morning. PiCo (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casey is notable as a scholar. He has previously written scholarly books on the Aramaic sources underlying Mark and Q. These two books have been reviewed by at least two mainstream scholars (Allison, and Delbert Burkett) who have presented alternatives to his ideas. Casey's two recent books are about Jesus and are targeted to a popular audience. I don't have any trouble with any them as reliable sources. Casey was a meticulous scholar who proceeded from some starting assumptions that many in his field consider arbitrary or unwarranted. Not everyone follows the herd instinct. Ignocrates (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent; thank you both. So then it's appropriate to call him RS, and a scholar. Yet I agree that scholarly authority wrt Matthew is the critical point here. That's the thing I really dislike about all these "most"/"many"/"majority"/"minority"/"some"/"virtually all" characterizations we hear about all over WP. It really isn't a "poll the scholars or RSes" contest, nor is it a vote. Quality of scholarship must count heavily, and close, prolonged study counts for much as well. (Although "specialization" can also create tunnel vision.) So, given the excellence of awareness about Matthew scholarship we have in this community, the bibliography should be a pretty good resource from which to identify the prominent dates. I'm hearing that 70 is about as early as those sources go - so I ask, why have we been mentioning "pre-70"? Either Casey is alone there, or someone else is in that category too. That's important for establishing proper weight in the article.

But given Casey's recognition as meticulous, one question I'm not clear on is how closely and meticulously he examined this composition date for Matthew in his research. I don't think it's enough just to look at his conclusion. It's important to see how intermingled that date is within his other theses, and how much attention it receives among those considerations. Especially because his scholarly area was outside the "Matthew expert" arena, it may be that he has some insight to offer to those inside that arena, because of related matters they might not have considered in the same light. On the other hand, it may not be that significant to his work, and his whole book may then have been peripheral to this matter. I think it's quite early to know anything beyond an initial reaction to the book here and there. It will get continuing attention (or it won't) in unknown measure. This community can get a feel for all these questions, but in the end, there's not a lot we can do about the need to wait for more thorough looks. Criticisms or possible shortcomings are quicker to get to print (like sugar to digest), while scholarly challenges or insights take more time for everyone to absorb (like protein). What we want to know is the nutritional content, and the metabolism can't say yet.

So I return to my opinion that it's too early to enter Casey into the article. The jury is out. Evensteven (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Casey is the author of An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and over the years has written extensively about the Gospel of Matthew. He is a "leading expert" on the Historical Jesus. Indeed, it would be fair to say Maurice Casey, is one of the most important Historical Jesus scholars of his generation. Casey 2014 pp 93-96 in a meticulous and scholarly fashion puts forward solid arguments for dating the Gospel of Matthew between 50 and 60 CE. Although he is not the first to support a date as early 50 CE for the Gospel of Matthew there is none with a more solid reputation! He is a reliable source and to delete his scholarship because a handful of User Accounts have a different point of view is a clear NPOV violation. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ret.Prof, the statement that Maurice Casey "has written extensively about the Gospel of Matthew" is bullshit. Casey is one of the few advocates for a chaotic model of Q, and the only one who sees a substantial Aramaic component to that model. The extrapolation of his work on a source document to a commentary on Matthew is a leap of transitive logic. It's also insulting how you link to puffery that's used to sell books (puff1, puff2) as though it is an obvious historical fact. How do you live with yourself doing these kinds of things? Just wondering. Ignocrates (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a bit confused now. I just went through Casey's book on Aramaic Q (2002), and Burkett's review of that book (2009), and I don't see anything about a date for Matthew, early or otherwise. It seems like Casey is merely citing the dates from Crossley's work in his popular books on Jesus, saying in effect, "Crossley argues for this early date, and I agree". If that's the case, we should be evaluating Crossley as a source rather than Casey. Ignocrates (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm have you read Casey 2014, pp 93-96? In any event sorry for upsetting you. BTW Have you ended your break. Your tags are really, really confusing! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your excerpted quotes is meaningless, and I don't have time to hit the library right now. Btw, I'm not upset. And why are my tags and break or lack thereof a topic for this page? Ignocrates (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you finally read Casey 2014, pp 93-96 you will see that I am solid ground. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC) PS as for the above, I do not believe it is "puff". Casey is truly a recognized scholar![reply]

The argument could be made that James Tabor is a truly recognized scholar, but his book The Jesus Dynasty is fringe. So "recognized scholar" does not imply "cannot write fringe books". In Casey's case, it is not fringe, it is minority opinion, so it does not pass WP:UNDUE, an essential part of WP:NPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. And where to draw the line with respect to WP:UNDUE can only be determined by WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the above. We seem to agree that Casey is a reliable source and he argues for a 50-60 date. The issue is one of weight. Does this diff work? Note, I am flexible as to the wording and as to the location of this material in the article. However to delete Casey 2014 totally would be a NPOV violation. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't work, because it puts words into R.T. France's mouth. You have yet to prove that we need Casey.PiCo (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(For everyone's information, RetProf proposes replacing the clause "a pre-70 date remains a minority view," sourced to France, with "a 50-60 date [3] remains a minority view.[4]" where [3] is Casey and [4] is France - it seems to ascribe to France something he doesn't say, it's a synthesis, and it's completely superfluous. PiCo (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright violation

This is lifted word for word from France "a pre-70 date remains a minority view" A pre-70 date for Matthew remains a minority view, but one which has been strongly supported," This is not acceptable! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the blatant POV pushing: "remains a minority view, but one which has been strongly supported". Distorting the meaning of a reliable source in not acceptable at Wikipedia! We can and must do better! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think further argument is going to be fruitful. What should we do? PiCo (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We have resolved a number issues. However help from Andrevan would be useful. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have not come close to resolving the central issue, which is your determination to have a minor, popular book shoehorned into the article. Andrevan is present here simply as another editor, not as a mediator, and so far, to be frank, he/she has been a rather controversial figure. I repeat, I see no point in continuing with this apparently endless process of back-and-forth, and I believe something more is needed. I'm asking other editors if they agree, or if they wish to keep on slogging through the swamp.PiCo (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a slog. We do have a serious disagreement. However we agree that Casey is a reliable source. That means his material is in. The next issue has to do with weight and and wording. This is not only to avoid copyright concerns but solve NPOV concerns. I am willing to be flexible. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RetProf, there are hundreds of reliable sources, and merely being one of that number doesn't mean Casey's automatically in.PiCo (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, Andrevan is a respected Mediator, Bureaucrat & Admin. He is a non Christian so has little or no bias. His only concern is Wikipedia. Therefore, he can be of great help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ret.Prof, this is nothing to do with Christian bias, non Christian bias, or any religious preconceptions whatsoever. It is simply about the consensus of scholarship. It doesn't matter what people's beliefs about religion are here - my impression is that there is a wide range - but about acknowledging the scholarly view of the subject. My impression of what you are saying - feel free to correct me if I am wrong - is, "people here are reverting my edits because they see me as having Christian bias, but now I have found a non Christian who agrees with me, so that should be okay". But it's not personal, and it's not religious. It is simply a concern for application of proper standards. I am sure that Wikipedia is the chief concern of us all.--Rbreen (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PiCo, I don't agree that Andrevan is here as an ordinary editor, based on what he told me here. He is here as an admin, and therefore WP:INVOLVED applies to his oversight of the article. I personally don't care if he mediates, as long as "mediation" doesn't mean shoehorning Ret.Prof's preferred version into the article. As far as next steps for me, it's a fools errand to keep playing this game. Let me know if you want me to prepare a case for arbitration, and I will do that and file it. Otherwise, I'm done here. Ignocrates (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you may be wondering why I believe Casey 2014 is so very important. Many other scholars have over the years argued for an early date for Matthew. It is not just that Casey is a respected historian. It is that he is a non-Christian. Therefore, he has no bias toward an early date (as some conservative scholars). He has done an excellent job of weighing the evidence and coming to a scholarly conclusion! Please read Casey 2014 pp 93-96! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we agreed this minority position doesn't belong in the lead section as this would ascribe it undue weight. I have added it to "Setting and Date." Please consult writing for the opponent. If you disagree with my wording please be bold and modify it, but if you remove this POV altogether you are dangerously close to POV-pushing, and certainly edit warring. The issue of Christian bias in sources is also quite relevant here. Andrevan@ 16:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, I don't think there is agreement that Casey's is a minority position. I think we're seeing arguments that it is a fringe position, or at least that it is not prominent enough within the academic community to warrant mention in the article. On the other hand, Ret.Prof has argued "many other scholars have over the years argued for an early date for Matthew." Perhaps if we had a few more names of those who have argued for an early date, it would be easier to settle the weight issue. Evensteven (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what a FRINGE position is. Fringe is flat earth type stuff. The source is more than sufficient. This edit warring is on dangerous footing. I will do some poking around in the literature to shore it up, but this article ownership is in stark violation of policy. Andrevan@ 22:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evensteven, the list you're after is here. StAnselm (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, StAnselm. Andrevan, I did not say I thought the 50 date was fringe, but that some arguments bordered on saying that. Davies/Allison was published in 2004, and without listing Casey produced a substantial list for dates before 70 (going back even to 40), a list they called "a weighty minority" that was "presently" "pushing" for a date earlier than that of the majority. I do think that effectively undermines any implication that nobody is in that pre-70 camp anymore. It looks to me that 50 is as good an early date as 100 is a late date (post-100 ranks with 40 on this list!). Well, I am less familiar with these names here than others are. But if I were to begin an in-depth investigation, I'd be looking primarily for why these scholars disagree as to the dates. Dates may easily underpin other arguments being made, and represent only a small surface of differences of approach, to the gospel, and to related Christian studies of many kinds. In any case, I still see no reason now why 50 should not be mentioned explicitly as an early date, whether or not Casey is used to back that date. Anybody care to make a case against Davies/Allison? (I'm assuming not.) Evensteven (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the main arguments for a pre-70 date are that (a) it is written as if the temple had not yet been destroyed, since there is no mention of it as a past fact, but only as a future prophecy, and (b) it is written before the Book of Acts, which appears to be written before Paul's death in c. 67. A push back into the 50s would normally be because of a belief in Matthean priority. StAnselm (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that fits my guess. The Orthodox Study Bible is very sparse in its comments about the dating, but there are two elements that often come up in these matters. The first is that the early church was much concerned about apostolic testimony in writings being considered for adoption as scripture, and was particularly insistent on that for the gospels. Hence, when it identifies Matthew as the gospel's author according to church tradition, it is done with affirmation of how seriously the early generations would have been in verifying that authorship. Of course, as I have said, authorship did not exactly mean the type of individual authorship we think of automatically today. They would have been looking for Matthew as (at least) the primary source for the unique material from which the text was generated, and probably for his blessing upon the final text as well. So all that does point to first-generation involvement, perhaps also with second-generation Christians.

The second concerns the Jewish/Hebraic flavor of the gospel itself, imagery used, Aramaic expressions, details of Jewish religious observances, a Jewish style to the forms of argument. One can even consider the Old Testament quotations, how they appear to be taken from the Masoretic text (or something like it), rather than drawn directly from the Septuagint. Yet it was written in Greek! That may be one reason Orthodox look hard at the time of Matthew's residency in Antioch, where there was a mixed Jewish/Gentile Christian community. And again that business about authorship, if not required to be restricted to an individual, provides some suggestions of community involvement directly with Matthew in producing a Greek text he may have had difficulty producing all by himself.

Certainty about the details is gone, lost to history, leaving my statements as speculative. But I see nothing in the eastern traditions that is outside the bounds of the dating by western scholarship. I expect there would be some Orthodox reluctance to accept theories that rely too heavily on second-generation authorship though, depending on what is meant by authorship. Evensteven (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What it comes down to is that there's a fundamental misunderstanding here of the role of a minority POV, which must be reflected to maintain the NPOV of an article, versus the idea of a fringe position. An example of a fringe position on Biblical scholarship would be New Age, ancient astronaut/UFO type stuff. The fringe is not just something slightly different from what most people think - it's crazy stuff! As we've established the source is reliable and part of the fold on this, and all reliable sources are valid for inclusion - "too old" could be a case but "too recent" certainly not! The way these sources are reflected may need qualification and appropriate (non-zero) weight in a subsection or other article) provided they don't otherwise violate a policy. In this case we are talking about an equivalent logical construction with a different date range! It is not for us to cherry-pick the narrow set of POVs which reflect the orthodoxy within Christianity. You all arguably have conflicts of interest and are pushing POVs here unless you can explain to me why this reliably sourced, 20-years-distinct POV is somehow not reasonable to include. Now, as I mentioned, I don't know anything about Christianity and am an atheist. However what I have understood from this mediation and interaction is that we are dealing with a POV-centric, possibly pro-Christian and maybe anti-Eastern Orthodox or anti-Semitic consensus which will certainly not fly.

Quoting from WP:RNPOV: Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as Rev. Carlin) believe This and That, and also believe that This and That have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days; however, influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work) certain sects — calling themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists — still believe This, but instead of That now believe Something Else."

Quoting from WP:RS/AC: The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Therefore I would say we need to invest in a significant overhaul and re-representation of these minority positions in a variety of articles!Andrevan@ 06:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

France is a much better representative of the pre-70 position. It seems that the consensus is not to mention Casey. StAnselm (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not either-or - we can, and must to meet our NPOV prerogative, include all appropriate reliably sourced info. Casey even has his own article. He is notable, reliable, and the edit warring is seriously problematic. Andrevan@ 08:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please stop your edit warring. You should obtain consensus here first. The key word is "appropriate" - as discussed at length above, Casey is not an appropriate source. StAnselm (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I just provoked you into it, but we are both edit warring now. The difference is, I have an argument and the means to pursue the accomplishment of policy-driven goals. You need to explain why the source isn't appropriate using the Wikipedia policy pages, not simply your opinion. You say this is discussed at length above, but in fact there is no discussion at all of my proposed edit per se nor why the source is inappropriate outside of opinions. I have explained some of this above, but you are simply blinding reverting, not contributing to the discussion. If you and your sock/meatpuppets keep this up I will have no choice but to pursue other means. Yes that is a threat - a threat to engage in the mechanisms which enforce policies like those quoted above. Andrevan@ 09:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]