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]

There clearly is a serious edit war breaking out here. I think it would be a good idea for the parties to step back and take a dispassionate look. Andrevan and StAnselm, could you both state your opinions - just opinions - on what the problem is? PiCo (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions? Actually what you need to do is explain in policy terms why sourced, valid information is being deleted. Andrevan@ 09:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that Casey, as a popular book that is not specifically about Matthew, is not a particularly good example of the early date. France 2007, for example, would be much more appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Wikipedia policies being cited here. It's not either-or. Casey's book does not need to be specifically about Matthew nor does it need to be a "scholarly" work, it merely needs to conform with our policies. Do you have a policy-based reason why you believe Casey is not a reliable source that would lead to your revert? This is not a valid reason to revert my changes. Andrevan@ 10:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Came here because I saw the thread on ANI, The source Andrevan is adding seems legitimate to me. The only policy I could see coming into play, because of my lack of knowledge of the area in question is WP:Weight vs WP:Fringe. Are there many authors at all who hold to Casey's interpretation of 50-60CE, is hilighting his aramaic interpretation undue over other interpretations? SPACKlick (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is. By the way, the edit I reverted was poor in other respects. It said, "This could also represent an interpretation of the Augustinian hypothesis". Well, the "could" indicates original synthesis. Does it represent that or not? StAnselm (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You think what is what? Use complete sentences and logical ideas. I don't know who SPACKlick is but he should re-read the policies on WEIGHT and FRINGE which, as I've explained before, do not apply here. Anyway, if you didn't like the sentence about the Augustinian hypothesis, you could have just reverted the second edit which added it, or better yet removed the sentence without reverting at all. That you assume revert is the correct way to proceed is a flaw and a sign of combative, tendentious editing. Andrevan@ 10:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I think highlighting Casey's Aramaic interpretation is undue over other interpretations." StAnselm (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence doesn't parse very well. What I think you mean is that we're giving undue weight to Casey. However what you are missing is that if we don't include it at all we are violating NPOV. The policies for weight do not allow you to delete alternate POVs that you don't like or agree with. Andrevan@ 10:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: I am very familiar with the two policies I listed but as I mentioned I'm not familiar with this subject area. I suggested these seemed to be the two policies being vaguely alluded to. It seems from others' responses that is correct. I don't know whether or not these theories are minority of one or mainstream however you haven't yet defended the theory proposed by Casey as anything other than that of a single author and if it is that rare, I think the original insert overstates it somewhat. If however this is a case of wide ranging dispute among the relevant academics then that needs to be shown. Rather than snapping people's heads off please consider taking a break. SPACKlick (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casey, France, James Edwards and the adherents of the Augustinian hypothesis are not represented. It is not one author but a significant minority position. Andrevan@ 17:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To editor Andrevan: You've admitted above that you provoked St Anselm, you're now continuing to provoke editors by attacking their grammar and prose style. Take a break, you are not helping your position by your combative stance - nor are you making it likely that anyone else would want to get involved in editing this article.DuncanHill (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, please state why you think there's a violation of NPOV. Just to focus the discussion, NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." What significant view regarding the date of Matthew do you think has been omitted, or represented unfairly, or disproportionately, and in a biased manner? On the other hand, if you've changed your mind and no longer want to edit this article (several voices above are advising you to take a step back), then please remove the tag. PiCo (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained your throwing out of sources violates WP:RNPOV and WP:RS/AC. Andrevan@ 17:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to explain where you feel the existing article violates NPOV. We can get to RNPOV later if it turns out to be necessary, but for now please let's stay focused. PiCo (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not seeing how these ARE that? RPNOV is a subsection of NPOV and it's extremely relevant. WP:RS/AC says you can't cherrypick majority positions unless explicitly explained in sources that most scholars think something. We need to represent the notable minority viewpoints of James Edwards, RT France, Maurice Casey, the adherents of the Augustinian hypothesis, etc. and explain how they interact with the majority position. There is a significant minority here which believes that Matthew was written earlier, based on Aramaic sources, etc and we don't talk about this at all. It's not FRINGE, and the due WEIGHT is not 0 weight. Andrevan@ 18:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand what I'm asking. I'm asking you to explain where you feel our current treatment of the date of Matthew violates NPOV. NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Our article says that the majority of scholars hold that Matthew was written after 70 AD, and a minority think it was written before. The question is, why do you feel this fails to represent general scholarly opinion in a fair, proportional, unbiased manner? You still haven't done that. We can progress to the details of RPNOV and RS/AC when we have the basics settled. PiCo (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can pretend that I am not answering the question, but I am doing so. The reason why the current article is flawed is that it has a pro-Christian orthodoxy bias, and therefore does not represent AT ALL a significant group of minority views. The details of RNPOV and RS/AC are always relevant and you don't get to temporarily exclude these core content policies from the discussion. What we have here is the idea that Matthew was written as early as 40, 50, or 60, as appears in Crossley, Casey, and France. Casey and Edwards appear to tie this idea to the Aramaic source position. We also do not link to or mention this Augustinian hypothesis which is relevant. This is POV-exclusion and bias. Cut and dry. Question has been answered and now you need to counter or respond to it, not simply repeat yourself. Andrevan@ 18:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you're saying that the two sources we use for our statement that a majority of scholars support a post-70 date and a minority support a post-70 date are biased and pro-Christian (at least that's how I read what you say). For the statement that "Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90" we use Dennis Duling's short commentary in the Blackwell Companion to the New Testament. For the statement that "a pre-70 date remains a minority view" we use R.T. France's commentary. RS/AC says "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", which of course these two statements are. Why do you question the use of Duling and France as reliable sources? PiCo (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, why is it so hard to communicate with you? I have no problem with these sources, but other POVs exist. I am trying to add more to the article, specifically Casey, Crossley, Edwards, and a link to the minority theory's article. Why do you feel that they are not valid for inclusion? Andrevan@ 18:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casey and Crossley are included in "a pre-70 date remains a minority view". Do you feel they're not?

Incidentally, you've got the Aramaic source hypothesis wrong: Edwards thinks there's an Aramaic gospel behind Luke, not Matthew, and Casey doesn't think any Aramaic gospel ever existed (he thinks there were some Aramaic verses in the Special M and Q material). But that's just by way of clarification, please address the point about why you feel Casey/Crosley aren't adequately covered by the statement from France.PiCo (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has Crossley written much about Matthew - as far as I know his major work has only been on Mark. He doesn't seem wedded to a very pre-70 view.--Rbreen (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from that link that Crossley dates Matthew "close to 70 CE (before or after)." Of course, an early Mark doesn't necessitate an early Matthew. PiCo (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary editing break

(Added the break to make editing easier) Andrevan, since the NPOV tags are yours, I think it's reasonable to ask you to explain and defend them. That's what this thread is about, please don't be quite so defensive. So, following on from what's been said immediately above, I understand it that you feel that "sourced, valid information is being deleted" (to quote your first post in the thread). Presumably this is a reference to this edit of yours in the Setting and Date subsection (your edit in bold):

• The majority view among scholars is that Matthew was a product of the second generation of Christians, those active after 70 CE, although some hold to a pre-70 date.REF Davies/Allison|2004|p=127 /REF 'For example, Maurice Casey, who has been a proponent of an Aramaic source for Matthew REF An Aramaic Approach to Q : Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. /REF, believed it was written in 50-60 CE. REF Maurice Casey, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?, A&C Black, 2014. pp 90 & 93-96 /REF This could also represent an interpretation of the Augustinian hypothesis (i.e. Matthean priority versus Mark).

You feel (correct me if I'm wrong) that this must be mentioned in the article because Maurice Casey is a reliable source.

I and the majority of editors feel this is faulty reasoning, and I'll run through the reasons:

• Casey's view is already represented in the first sentence, "...some [experts] hold to a pre-70 date." You haven't explained why you feel Casey's view needs special mention (not necessarily Casey, but his view).
• Adding some 40 words about the minority position when the majority position is covered in 20 is undue weight.
• We come now to the use of reliable sources. "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability," but Wiki policy states that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. ("While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.") In other words, the mere existence of Casey's book does not mean it must be included. (His view, as distinct from his book, is already included).
• You say that " throwing out of sources violates WP:RNPOV and WP:RS/AC." This is not so.
  • WP:RNPOV relates to popular beliefs and practices - "what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, [as well as] how such beliefs and practices developed". Our article is entirely about the history of how a religious text developed. As such, the question of individual motivation, beliefs and practices doesn't arise.
  • WP:RS/AC says that "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." This is not relevant to the question of whether Casey's book should be mentioned in the article. (Incidentally, we do use direct explicit sourcing where we say that a post-70 date is the majority opinion and a pre-70 date the minority).

Now a slightly different matter. Your rejected edit states that Casey "has been a proponent of an Aramaic source for Matthew." This isn't quite true. Casey believes that fragments written in Aramaic are to be found embedded in the Q source and the Special M source, and also in Mark. Fragments are not sources. The sources of sources, but not in themselves sources - rather like your grandfather not being your father. The comment about the Augustinean hypothesis seems to be entirely your own.

If, after reading the above, you take off the tags, I think that would be the best outcome. If, on the other hand, you remain convinced that policy has been breached, then we have to proceed to arbitration. PiCo (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now here seems like a few reasonable points. I think you are right that there was nuance lost in my edit, probably due to my limited background on some of this. The point about Aramaic source documents being sources of sources and not themselves sources is going to require me to read more of Casey to see what he actually meant about that, but as I told StAnselm, the pieces of my edit were severable and reverting it outright was the wrong approach. WP:RNPOV applies since we are dealing with "beliefs," beliefs about who wrote Matthew, the relationship with Jews, etc. are certainly at play here, as is the Christian bias. RS/AC applies because you can't paint Casey et al. with the brush of others unless they appear explicitly. What does seem clear is that the article treats the existence of the minority position that Casey apparently holds regarding the timing of Matthew as though it is "covered" in the idea that a "pre-70 date is a minority," when in fact we seem to have an entire group of people who have specific ideas about what that pre-70 date might be and how it relates to the order of the gospel-source-writing as it were. 50-60, or even 40, is totally different from pre-70, and has a whole set of different implications. This depth is glossed over and does not appear in our article. Since this is the part of my edit that seems on solid ground, let's discuss that, and I will try to figure out what the story is with the Aramaic sources in the meantime. I think it's clear that there's more depth to the pre-70 idea that is being lost. I do not think we can remove the NPOV tags, nor is there any basis for arbitration here. Mediation could certainly still be useful, obviously another mediator would be needed since I am now a participant. Andrevan@ 08:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some policy matters: Due Weight and avoiding unintended impressions

Just thought I'd clarify a policy point. On 14 September one editor reverted this passage which had been added to the "setting and date" section, with the edit summary that it was a point of view that had not gained academic traction:

"A minority position advocated in 2014 by Maurice Casey is that Matthew was composed earlier, in 50-60."REF Maurice Casey, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?, A&C Black, 2014. pp 90 & 93-96 END REF

The original poster then put this comment on that editor's user page:

"Your revert is on dangerous footing. The statement is properly attributed to a reliable source. "Traction in the academy" is not a policy."

I regard this as important for two reasons. First, "academic traction" is indeed a policy - it falls under discovering and assigning due and undue weight. Second, warning another editor on his user page about "danger" can be misinterpreted - it should be avoided. We need all the editors we can find, and we shouldn't be warning anyone like this. PiCo (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due weight pertains to the proportional representation of a point of view in sources. It does not distinguish between academic and popular sources, or traction within the academic community subsequently. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." Our problem is that there is a viewpoint that appears in a number of sources which we are glossing over entirely. I've noticed there are a number of outdated or otherwise unaccepted yet significant minority theories regarding the composition of Matthew: Augustinian hypothesis, Griesbach hypothesis, Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, Q+/Papias Hypothesis. Due weight is not no mention. We need to give a brief explanation and link to these in the main article. WEIGHT means we don't go in depth, but still mention them. Casey's (and Edwards') theories are echoes of an earlier tradition that needs relevant discussion here. They were clearly better-accepted in the past so a historiography of the viewpoints regarding Matthew's composition might make sense if this emerges in the source material. What we are doing now with recency- and academia-bias is a synthesis, which also has the effect of creating a Christian bias. As to my talk page comment's appropriateness, it does not pertain to this article so is better discussed on my user talk space, but suffice it to say "dangerous footing" involves bad logic and revert-happiness being anti-wiki, and not a threat to block or ban. Andrevan@ 19:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to ignore who of all editors of this article has the real (fundamentalist) Christian bias. Just because one atheist scholar supported a theory championed by Christian fundamentalists, it does not make it the official view of atheism. Bart Ehrman is an atheist and in his popular books he sought to render precisely what is consensual among Bible scholars in respect to the books of the Bible. You may want to read some of his popular books. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Evaluating claims and Notability vs. acceptance. Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context – e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." – but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight.... Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. Casey and Edwards are two leading academics, not wacko prognosticators on some fringe website. Their views are in a long-standing historical tradition as documented in our separate articles. The main article deals with this and needs to cover this. Andrevan@ 02:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read this editorial in the context of Casey and Edwards and see an image of WP:RANDY. When you don't know anything about a subject, there is a tendency to weight all sources equally. This is the "indiscriminate aggregation" of sources that Nishidani put so well at ANI. Casey is an Aramaic specialist who has never written about the Gospel of Matthew. He wrote a book on possible Aramaic sources underlying Q, which, according to the two-source hypothesis, is a source document for Matthew, and he wrote two popular books about Jesus. Likewise, Edwards has not written about Matthew. He postulates a Hebrew source document underlying parts of the Gospel of Luke. Shoehorning these sources into the Gospel of Matthew at any cost is only meaningful to a religious fanatic desperate to push a POV and his/her enablers. Ignocrates (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have literally had four years of disruption by an editor who has openly declared his intention to use "passive resistance" for the "good of Wikipedia". This is a textbook definition of tendentious editing. It's time to put these chronic behavioral issues to rest via arbitration. I'm letting everyone know well in advance in order to have time to prepare their statements. Ignocrates (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was about four years ago that I was told that you were going to run me out of Wikipedia. It has been four years of harassment, personal attacks, insults and belittling. You have followed me to every topic I have tried to edit. You even harassed me on my userspace. You have also bullied everyone from DavidBena to Andrevan. My response has been "as follows". Your newest threats re arbitration are really, really inappropriate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with making sweeping statements like this one is that you have to back them up with evidence. There will be plenty of time for that later. Ignocrates (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't take up anymore article talk page space discussing this. Please check my user talk page periodically for updates. I think this is the most open and fair way to proceed. Ignocrates (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way the article reads is a total misrepresentation of what France says! It is blatant POV pushing! He believes the early date for Matthew 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) 12:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the context of France's comment (indicated by the footnote) is "strongly supported by arguments", rather than "strongly supported by people". And obviously he thinks that because he is arguing for a pre-70 date. StAnselm (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an edit summary this is inadequate. You can't 'date' Matthew from Mark, and the link is indirect, consisting of weighing the pros and contras of 'priority', which means, determining which was earlier. That Mark looks earlier doesn't help us 'date' Matthew, in any other sense than saying the latter is 'later'. But when ('dating')is something determined by internal analysis of Matthew. Nitpicky? Yes, but that's how scholarship works.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani; The dating of Matthew according to the Marcan hypothesis has been the established scholarly approach to Matthew for at least the last century. It looks like a oversight that this page has not included a short section on this topic. you may contact other editors such as @Andrevan@ if this subject of the established Marcan hypothesis is not known to you. The quality of writing at this page, which you mention, is not at peer level quality by Wikipedia standards and it should be improved with a short section on the Marcan hypothesis and the introduction of the question of the harmony of the canonical Gospels with Matthew. FelixRosch (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you actually read the article. I'm familiar with the scholarship. Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani; Your comment suggests that the section written regarding the Marcan hypothesis is not literate and that you are aware of what the Marcan hypothesis is. Why are you removing the reference to a book length study regarding the centrality of the Marcan hypothesis to dating Matthew? FelixRosch (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because if one reads the section 'Sources' and clicks through it, everything you added can be followed up via the links. It's ironical that privately I happen to be writing an article precisely on this topic, and it deals with many sources precisely on the ordering of both gospels, from John M. Rist's、On the Independence of Matthew and Mark, Cambridge University Press,(1978) 2005 to David Neville,Mark's Gospel--Prior Or Posterior?: A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order, Sheffield Academic Press/Continuum 2002. Touch anything in this area and you open up numerous controversies, and to avoid complications, good editors focus on a neat, simple yet comprehensive outline of the topic. Since the text states that there is a consensus that Mark precedes Matthew, we do not need expansions here on that. You need an expansion when there is no consensus, and controversy rages. There is a respectable if minor opinion, retaken up in recent decades, that Mark doesn't necessarily precede Matthew, and a short note to that effect would not encounter any opposition from me. Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani; The edit you propose is even more difficult since it is far from the opinion represented by both E.P. Sanders in the British school and Martin Hengel in the German school more recently than your citations. The point of my edit also differentiated existing manuscripts from the scholarly reconstruction of estimates based only on fragments and secondary sources. If you wish to bring in a counter-Marcan hypothesis source (it is not the mainstream scholarly version) perhaps you can think of a way to introduce it by way of discussing scholarly reconstruction of dates from fragments. The short section which I proposed with commented support from @Andrevan should not be deleted, however, since the article does not adequately address the question of existing full manuscripts, dating estimates based on fragments alone, and any important interpretations of the Marcan Hypothesis for Matthew research. FelixRosch (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several hundred books and articles are published touching on these issues every year. Naming one or two scholars gets one only into a citation game that draws the text away from fundamentals. I don't have a decided 'opinion' on priority. I made a suggestion, and did not push an edit. I don't even see the point of you citing E. P. Sanders, in your view 'of the British school' (?), or Hengel as 'more recent' than the books I named, among many. Hengel died in 2009, Sanders is a rough contemporary of Rist. And none of them can be said to be at the cutting edge in contemporary terms. There ar few hobbies I enjoy more (as much as least as Sanders enjoys his favouritee book in world literature, the Letter to the Galatians) than reading manuscript research in the area of Greek, but none of that is helpful to a general article on Matthew (or the others), and once you get into it, the complications are immense and beyond the average reader (and editor). We are writing an encyclopedia, and stay at the generality you get in recent works like Hatina on Mark and Gurtner on Matthew in Craig A. Evans (ed.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, Routledge 2014 (see pp.248-261). Neither divagate on 'existing full manuscripts'. That stuff must go into articles like Canonical Gospels or Development of the New Testament canon. It is supererogatory here.Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see you here Nishidani. What have I gotten myself into this time? :0) Ignocrates (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What it's about is that Felix added a huge amount of text to the article, got reverted by me, and then reverted my revert. Then Nishidani reverted him again, which brings us at last to the Talk page. Nishidani was quite right to revert him (but I would say that, of course), as the addition was redundant where it wasn't irrelevant and badly written throughout. Why Felix feels he needs to jump into an article under active dispute resolution I don't know.PiCo (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you two learned stakhanovites haven't wholly abandoned wiki. I know it's tough and exhausting at times but, nihil illegitimus carborundum, as Cicero no doubt said in his drunken sleep. Felix. All three of us have a history of disagreement ,but our reciprocal challenges have left many articles significantly improved.Nishidani (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation at dispute resolution is open

For all three editors above; @Nishidani, In the above note I had assumed that you knew of the extensive discussion on the dating of Matthew currently taking place here [1], and that the edit posted was in agreement with Andrevan's noted there. @Ignocrates, The purpose of this edit was for readers to gain a clear picture of the difference between existing manuscripts on the one hand, and scholarly estimates of dates in the absence of manuscripts on the other hand in a "Background" section which currently does not exist on this page. The editors here [2] at dispute resolution know the difference, readers generally cannot be assumed to know the details of the "art" of estimates as a general rule. @PiCo, The poor wording you indicate in your reference is adapted directly from the FA for "Jesus". If you feel the FA at "Jesus" is illiterate and ready for a de-listing then you can nominate it for de-listing. A short section of this Background here is still justified in some form if you have a suggestion. Note that this is Background of what manuscripts and dating practices are for Matthew; it was meant as a short supplement to the discussion of "majority estimates, minority estimates, and fringe estimates" currently taking place (as they should) at Dispute Resolution, and not to replace them. A short edit for a small Background section would be useful for readers. FelixRosch (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this edit was for readers to gain a clear picture of the difference between existing manuscripts on the one hand, and scholarly estimates of dates in the absence of manuscripts on the other hand.

I simply don't understand what this means.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani; It's not clear where the ambiguity is here. There exists no autograph of the complete Matthew Gospel from the first century in existence. There is no autograph of the complete Matthew gospel from the second century in existence. There is no autograph edition of the complete Matthew gospel from the third century. By scholarly inference, then, it is only an estimate (or best academic guess) of when such a complete Matthew gospel may have first come into existence based only on fragments of the Gospel or quotations from the Gospels found in contemporaneous works in the first century or second century AD. This difference between actually having an early complete Matthew gospel in hand today, and not having one which requires estimating a date for when a copy (which no longer exists) might have been written is a distinction lost on the average reader of the article. This ambiguity can be clarified in a short Background section for this article. FelixRosch (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no autograph of any ancient book, neither are there autographs, with one possible exception, of Shakespeare's works. I thought this is obvious. If you read Homer, or Plato, or Chaucer etc., you are reading what editors redact as the probable form of the text when it left the writer or composer's hand. Even if you had an autograph, it would give no sure date for its composition, and to think that the lack of an autograph means we must make inferences as to its date from external sources is meaningless. Internal criteria are fundamental to dating: a half a century ago in English courses at University level, you were given 10 anonymous passages arching over 4 centuries and told to date them, and it was expected that you should get within 10-20 yrs of their actual known date, purely on stylistic grounds. You were also asked to identify the author in each case.

To a textual critic, the following is incomprehensible:-

There is no autograph (copy) of the complete Matthew gospel from the second century in existence. There is no autograph (copied) edition of the complete Matthew gospel from the third century.

The autograph of Matthew once existed, sometime in the 2nd half of the Ist century C. It is absolutely meaningless to speak of 'an autograph of M from the 2nd or 3rd century', for the simple reason that the unicum of an autograph disappears the moment it is copied for circulation, which must have happened with all of the Gospels (as it did to all other surviving ancient books), and the moment it was copied (and subsequently translated into Coptic, Latin, Armenian, Syriac, Georgian, it no longer existed, but rather 'Matthean manuscripts' each with its tradition of distinctive changes caused by things like scribal homoeoareton and dittography circulated. It's even more complex than that because an ancient writer can make an autograph, have it copied, then reetouch his earlier draft, and circulate that in copies. Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani; The sense of my edit is clarified parenthetically and I think was already known to you. The distinction is still an important one to clarify for readers. When you state,"sometime in the 2nd half of the Ist century C," this leaves all the questions currently being debated at Dispute Resolution which I urge you to participate in. You will need to indicate how you construct your 50-99AD date, a very broad range. Your point here was previously to note arguments for Matthew predating Mark based on scholarly estimates and academic speculation. Such a view would meet sharp response at the Dispute Resolution page. The average reader is not aware of the issue of "estimates" and "speculatively" reconstructed dates, nor do they know why they are extensively debated. A short Background section clarifies why the estimates take place, and why they are so extensively debated since they are based on only fragments and contemporaneous reports. Why object to a short Background section which clarifies this for readers. FelixRosch (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't address the points I raised about your odd notion that 'autographs' have anything to do with dating.

I said 'presumably'. I don't think any of these questions of dating can be determined. You hav a choice between strong, good, mediocre and bad conjectures, none of which is verifiable, as is the norm in ancient history. All you have is likely stories constructed according to given conventions, which vary from scholar to scholar and school to school. My opinions have no relevance. The article, I repeat, is about Matthew. Your argument is about the whole Gospel canon, not about Matthew, and ipso facto should be put on a page dealing with the transmission of the Gospels. The general reader has been adequately informed in the source section about scholarly consensus, and a minor view. It can be tweaked. There's no need for extra luggage. I could do even worse, and demand that I be allowed to divagate for a paragraph on the differences between the Alxandrine, Western, Ceasarean and Byzantine textual transmissions, and their interrelationships regarding the readings in Matthew. It's far more important than just mentioning the Codex Vaticanus. It's when I saw your suggestion highlighting that that I realized the potential mess we would get in, because name that, and you need to name the other manuscripts, and you get immdiately section bloat.Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani; You appear to be over-reading my simple comment that the oldest known version of the complete New Testament is the one at the Vatican from a copy well after the Nicea Councils. Mentioning the oldest version of Matthew currently in existence is appropriate for an article on the Gospel of Matthew. A small Background section could adequately cover this, without including every variant version, just the oldest complete one still in existence. FelixRosch (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not overreading, but seeing, between the lines, that you don't know the subject. My impression is that you are completely out of your depth with the topic and its complexities. There is no such thing as a 'complete New Testament'. The Codex Vaticanus, dear fellow, lacks quite a bit of stuff, not least Apokalypsis, and several canonical letters. If you take just the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus's two versions of Matthew, there are six hundred and fifty six textual disagreements between them. Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the above is sourced reliably it belongs in the article. What is "section bloat"? Wiki is not paper. If we split off additional extra articles they should be linked in the text. Andrevan@ 00:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, Felix's edit was uninformed and badly written,but at least he provided one. You've been asked to do likewise at the DRN.PiCo (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've examined the content of Felix's diff, and rewritten it as what he probably intended to write, had he been more familiar with the topic. This works out as:-

Autographs do not survive for ancient books. They survive in scribal copies propagated over time. In the process of recopying, variations slipped in, different regional manuscript traditions emerged with multiple streams of transmission, and corrections and adjustments were made, for theological reasons or to iron out incongruencies between copies or different translations into numerous languages. The editions of biblical and other ancient texts we read today are established by collating all major surviving manuscripts, using also the evidence from citations of them in Patristic writers, in order to produce a version which, by the consensus of scholars of textual criticism, most likely approximates to the form of the lost autographs.^[1] In the case of the New Testament, the oldest exemplars of relatively complete manuscripts are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus.

There's no need to bloat the text with volumes of academic links, when the substance of the requested edit is obvious, or can be quickly glanced at by interwiki links in the text.Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's probably what Felix meant, but it has no direct relevance to this article. As you say, readers should be given a hyperlink to the relevant article. PiCo (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Sorry for the tedium, but translating it into the above form shows why it is unnecessary, because obvious.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User: Ignocrates ! User: Ret.Prof ! Both of you appear to be stubbornly ignoring the clear statements of User: Guy Macon, the dispute resolution moderator. You are both talking about arbitration and the timetable for arbitration, as if dispute resolution and arbitration can run in parallel. You appear to be ignoring Guy Macon’s clear statements that he isn’t planning to moderate content dispute resolution while other remedies are in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignocrates: Is there a reason why you still think that arbitration will be necessary? Have you concluded that dispute resolution will not work, or that you will cause dispute resolution to fail, or have you decided that Ret. Prof will cause it to fail, or is there some other reason why you both think that arbitration will be in order and why you have decided that it has to be scheduled to get a timely resolution before the arbitration election? What will you be requesting in arbitration? Will the benefits to you of arbitration exceed the risks to you of the boomerang on arbitration? Ignocrates: Please re-read your 24 September statement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGospel_of_Matthew&diff=626923016&oldid=626921939 and let us know whether that really is what you mean. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is my reading, and Guy Macon can correct me if I am mistaken, that Guy Macon will shut down dispute resolution if the discussion of arbitration continues. One likely eventual outcome in that case could be that the content dispute resolution could be archived, and resumed after the arbitration is complete, minus any parties who were topic-banned, including for failure to cooperate with dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this case does go to arbitration, two likely outcomes are discretionary sanctions, a form of draconian restriction on editing, and topic-bans. While it does appear to me that arbitration is likely, everyone should be trying to avoid that last stop by other remedies, rather than insisting on factoring it into a timetable. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that considerable progress has been made in dispute resolution. More progress can be made if certain editors will, at least for the time being, stop dragging their dislike of each other into the arena. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I probably would avoid shutting down a DRN case just because arbitration is being discussed, but I would ask those discussing it to delay doing that. It only takes one to stop a conversation.

If someone actually files a case at arbcom, ANI, etc., I usually ask the venue they filed at to reject or delay taking the case until the DRN case is resolved. The other venues usually respect DRN and grant my request. In areas where immediate action is required (copyright or BLP violations) I put the DRN case on hold. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw my name pop up, so I am responding here. I just recently became aware of Guy Macon's post to the DRN talk page, and responded to him there. Of course, we are going to give DRN every chance to work. I'm not going to discuss arbitration any further here, or at all per Guy's request until we take DRN as far as we can go (hopefully to a successful resolution). Robert McClenon, thanks for weighing in. You appear to be genuinely concerned, and I appreciate that. Ret.Prof previously bugged out in the middle of his own formal mediation, so this disappearing act is nothing new. We will get through it. Ignocrates (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the essay "Determining the Date of Matthew" by Donald A. Hagner in Jesus, Matthew's Gospel, and Early Christianity ed by Daniel M. Gurtner et al ISBN HB 978-0-567-50085-4, published by T & T Clark in 2011.

According to page 76, "'Everybody knows' ... that Matthew was written in the 80s.... This is a matter of critical othodoxy." It mentions other proposed dates, including one proposal in a 1912 book placing it a few years before or after 70. It also indicates other proposals made since the mid 1980s roughly since Graham Stanton's "The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel," published in 1985, which lists the then current proposals. Among the proposals mentioned on pp 76-78 of Hagner's 2011 essay, are proposals placing it as early as 40, 50s or earlier, mid to late 50s, 58-69, late 50s-early 60s, circa 60, 60s (2 different proposals), 65-67, and before 70.

Page 78 discusses a proposal placing it in the 90-100 period.

Page 82 discusses a proposal placing it at some time after 70.

Therefore, I think that recent scholarship can be said based on this material, to have a fairly clear acadmic consensus for around the 80s (as a "matter of critical orthodoxy") and other recent proposals placing it some time between the 40s and the end of the first century. I could check Stanton's essay as well when I find it but I doubt that it will expland the period of proposed dates much. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute resolution moderator, User:Guy Macon, has said at the dispute resolution noticeboard that it appears that there is disagreement, and that moderated dispute resolution will end and an RFC instead will be used to obtain consensus. The issue appears to have to do with exactly what to say about the 50-60 AD theory. What are the two or three proposed wordings to be offered in the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ret.Prof indicated on his talk page that he now supports the compromise wording agreed to at DRN, so this dispute comes down to Andrevan against ??? the world apparently. Andrevan has already indicated at DRN that he will not respect a consensus no matter how well it is established here (please read his opening statement at DRN). Therefore, I'm not sure what it will accomplish as far as dispute resolution. I still think it's a good idea to have one though. The more participation and transparency the better. Ignocrates (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than lay out the "two or three proposed wordings to be offered in the RFC", I recommend you open up the RfC first (you have to tag the top of the page). There's no point in preemptively choosing what the proposals will be. Let's let the community have their say. Ignocrates (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with simply opening the RFC without having the alternatives identified is that the RFC fills up with comments. Although RFC does stand for Request for Comments, it is really used as a Request for Consensus. The problem with an RFC that doesn't have alternatives is that it becomes extremely difficult to close. What can be done is to open a preliminary RFC to request statements and note that a new RFC will be issued shortly. Is that what Ignocrates wants? Before I do that, what is the apparent-consensus position and what does anyone else think it should say? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's do it your way. I assume Plan A is to abide by the compromise wording we just achieved at DRN. What is Plan B? Ignocrates (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's dispute over the 50-60 AD date - Ret.Prof was the one worried about that and he's accepted the consensus we reached at DRN. Andrevan's concern is different. PiCo (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we're not having an RfC over the date, I wouldn't bother because Andrevan's "concern" is too nebulous to define as discrete proposals. Frankly, by the end of DRN, it appeared to be tendentious, at least to me, with the ownership issue over the tags being like a dog pissing on a fire hydrant. Ignocrates (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]