User talk:PiCo/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:PiCo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Formal mediation

WP:Formal mediation is the way to go. Make it so, #1! Ignocrates (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I asked Keilana, but she can't afford the time commitment, given all her off-wiki responsibilities. Also, I doubt that AGK would accept the role, even if he has the time; it would probably require that he recuse himself from a case if mediation fails and this dispute ends up in arbitration. You will have to choose one of the other mediators on the list, assuming this really happens. Btw, WP:DRN is another option, but that has a higher success rate for two-person disputes. Cheers! Ignocrates (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew - draft for request to formal mediation

(The mediation process involves filing a request form - this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#File_a_request has both the form template and some current open cases. I'll follow the headings given in the template - remember that everything I write is a suggestion)

Editors involved in this dispute

RetProf - filing party
PiCo
Tgeorgescu
In ictu oculi
Ignocrates
Eusebeus
Atethnekos
Davidbena
StAnselm
Ckruschke

Articles affected by this dispute

Gospel of Matthew (main)
Hebrew Gospel hypothesis (secondary)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute

ANI, 3 February 2014 (link)
Article talk page, 26 January 2014 (link)
Article talk page, 30 January 2014 (link)
Article talk page, 30 January 2014 (link)
Article talk page, 31 January 2014 (link)
Article talk page, 1 February 2014 (link)
Fringe theories noticeboard, 2 August 2013 (link)

Issues to be mediated

To what extent, if at all, should the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis be represented in the Gospel of Matthew article?

(The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis is the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was first written in Hebrew or Aramaic and later translated into, or formed the basis of, the present Gospel)

Great start

I created a new header for comments so as not to muck up your draft proposal. Ignocrates (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In addition to Ret.Prof, Ignocrates, & PiCo, I would also invite Davidbena to the party. He indicated an interest when I raised the subject on Ret.Prof's talk page. This grouping provides a nice balance of the traditional perspective (David & Ret.Prof) and the so-called modern perspective (you & me). I'm pretty sure the atmosphere will be collegial within this group and we can get a lot done. Ignocrates (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I would also consider asking Tgeorgescu & Til Eulenspiegel to participate, or at least bring them in to comment after the sausage is made and there is a rough draft. These two guys will be at each others' throats, but they would also contribute a lot of intellectual firepower to the discussion. Of course, anyone else that wants to contribute can participate. Ignocrates (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw your note requesting feedback, so here are my comments:

Involved editors: I would add StAnselm to the list. Til made a valuable contribution to the FTN; that's why I included him. He is a very effective "change agent", and I am more interested in creating a quality article in mediation than appeasing various parties with their individual axes to grind. That's all I can think of at present, other than Mr. Retired and Mr. Vanished. Ignocrates (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles affected: Oral gospel traditions is the other big one, but we can focus on the Gospel of Matthew for now because that will bring this Aramaic/Hebrew Matthew business to a head.

Other attempts: I took Oral gospel traditions to WP:RSN and WP:FTN, but the list of attempts is fine if we confine this mediation to the Gospel of Matthew. The MC might ask why we didn't attempt to resolve the content dispute using WP:DRN and WP:NPOVN first, and we will need to answer that question. I think the answer is that we need privileged communication to keep this dispute resolution process with being used as a pinata on the way to arbitration. I'm being called away, so more to come... Ignocrates (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated: I would go from big picture to small examples. What is the central question being asked here? Should material on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew be included in the article? (It was excluded citing WP:SCOPE. There is a question of who gets to "decide" that.) If it doesn't belong in the Gospel of Matthew, does it belong anywhere? Strictly speaking, that question is not relevant if we are restricting mediation to one article. Assuming we decide it belongs in the article to some extent, the rest of the mediation will be to iron out those details. You might include the specific example you cited in that context. Ignocrates (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of mediation: The mediators will ask you for a statement of purpose; what you hope to achieve by mediation. You are asking for a definitive ruling and a binding directive in mediation. That is something the mediator won't do because they can't. Mediators don't have the community authority to bind anyone to anything. They are there to facilitate only. It's up to the participants to bind themselves to a voluntary agreement. If the involved parties can't do that, mediation fails and its on to something else. There is no such thing as handing the dispute over to arbitration if mediation fails; they are completely independent processes. I think that covers it unless you have questions. Ignocrates (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If we go through mediation and par chance I prevail, how would the decision be enforced?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no "prevailing" and "enforcement". The whole point of mediation is to reach a voluntary, mutually acceptable agreement. If you want to "prevail" I suggest we skip this mediation process and you request arbitration as the filing party. Ignocrates (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I really was not clear on that point. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof, yes, Ignocrates is right and I was under a misapprehension - there's no binding decision at the end of mediation, just mutual agreement between parties.PiCo (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Revisions

Ok, revisions to the draft:

Involved editors: a few names added. Hard to decide who's involved - don't want too many, nor to leave anyone out. I guess we need to canvas after we have this draft sorted out.
Articles affected: Added Hebrew Gospel hypothesis as secondary article affected. RetProf, you realise that adding this means you'll have to argue why the secondary article isn't sufficient in itself for this topic? Or to put that the other way, why the coverage of HGH in the main article isn't already adequate?
Other attempts. No change. On DRN I guess we could say that so many editors have been involved over such a long period that it's unlikely DRN could add anything at this stage. On NPOVN I think nobody has disputed the neutrality, and it's more a due weight question given the existence of the secondary article, although some say it's a fringe issue, but in either case I don't think neutrality arises.
Issues to be mediated: now has a bullet point identifying a single issue, the extent to which Hebrew Gospel hypothesis needs to be covered in Gospel of Matthew. I cut all the rest because it give the position of one party (the filing party) - the committee will ask for positions and arguments in due course, so this is premature.
The purpose of mediation: I don't see anything about that on the Requests for mediation page - see this request for mediation on something relating to India that's been accepted by the committee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/India_Against_Corruption. I guess our purpose is to seek a solution to the issue, but that's sort of obvious. Anyway, nothing now about binding decisions and so on.

Please let me know what you think - @Ret.Prof in particular, are you happy with that statement of the issue? Are you aware that it means you'll have to argue that the article as it exists gives inadequate coverage to the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis? PiCo (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments on the revisions

I started a new section to keep the comments separated from your revisions. Ignocrates (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Involved editors: The key identifier is to ask the question: If this person chose to not participate or withdrew from mediation, is there any point in having a mediation? By that criterion, Ret.Prof and In ictu oculi are involved editors for sure. I would say I am not involved; I'm willing to contribute but mediation is not pointless if I don't. You might want to group editors in that way.

Articles affected: I have a big problem with this. At least half of an article on a historiography of scholarship on the Gospel of Matthew will be to review the testimony of the Church Fathers (by scholars of course, not just pasting in primary sources). There's nothing hypothetical about a scholarly review of documents that anyone can read (assuming you are adept at Koine Greek and Latin). That could be accomplished by an extensive rewrite of the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis article I suppose, but it could also be a new article.

Purpose: I know a statement of purpose is not required by the mediators. However, if no one can agree on the purpose for being there or the definition of "success" the mediation will fail.

That's all I have. I would rather move forward quickly with something, even in rough form, to find out if the involved editors are even on the same planet on this issue. We may come to the conclusion that an attempt at mediation is pointless because half of them with sit on the sidelines with their arms crossed and disavow the whole process. Ignocrates (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish to add here that I fully support User:Ret.Prof's amendments and revisions to existing articles on the subject of the Gospel of Matthew and/or Hebrew Gospel. On a different talk page, I posted a link to Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's lecture on the original New Testament Mss. The gist of Dr. Erhman's message in that video, repeated time after time again, is that "the original New Testament MSS do not exist." This is crucial in understanding the current texts of our N.T. Gospels, and how they may have developed - either by way of translations (with scribal errors or omissions), or later recensions and/or interpolations, etc. etc. Ehrman's view on Papias is well-known, but his view can do little to cancel the understanding of great men like Jerome who wrote: "Matthew, also called Levi, an apostle after having been a publican, was the first to compose a gospel of Christ in Judea in Hebrew letters and words for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. But who afterwards translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilius the martyr so diligently collected." - Jerome (On Illustrious Men). These words, my friends, cannot be slighted by any scholar who is worth his salt. The secondary sources which support this view, no doubt, have taken this statement into consideration – albeit, the opinion is disputed by scholars. Although Aramaic is no longer a spoken language in Israel, it is still a literary language, read daily by Jews. Any scholar who knows Aramaic and who studies the Greek N.T. can tell you that, in the Greek evangelion (Gospel) of Matthew, there are telltale signs of a translation, such as when he translates verbatim and quite innocently Aramaic idioms. Idioms are never meant to be translated verbatim! The Greek writer also often gives a free rendering, or loose translation (paraphrase), of the vorlage (parent text) which he used to make his translation, just as we can see by Jesus’s quote of Hillel the elder in Matt. 7:12, and where we can compare his words with Hillel’s original words copied down in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 31a), and who actually said: “Whatsoever is hated by thee, refrain from doing the like of which to thy neighbour. This is the entire law.” (Aramaic: דעלך סני לחברך לא תעביד. זו היא כל התורה כולה). While Tobit (4:16) who was earlier than Hillel repeats a similar theme, it is clear that Jesus was quoting from his older contemporary, Hillel, by virtue of his concluding with his exact same words. Obviously, some Aramaic words were misunderstood by the early Greek translator. For example, the words "Simon the zealot" (Aramaic: שמעון קניי) were misunderstood by the Greek translator as meaning "Simon the Canaanite." See: Matt. 10:4 - cf. Luke 6:15. Had the original copy of Matthew's Gospel been written initially in Greek, it would have been impossible for a copyist to write Canaanite (Greek: Kananaios) for a word whose vorlage (master copy) had written there in the original Greek, Ζηλωτής (= Zealot). The change is too radical. There is, however, a phonetic similarity between the Aramaic word for "zealot" and the word "Canaanite." Davidbena (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

David, PiCo is asking if you have any comments on a second draft of his request for mediation. That's all we care about right now, so that we can begin the mediation process. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates, I have no further comments nor changes on a second draft of PiCo's request for mediation. Davidbena (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ignocrates, I thought about dividing the editors into two groups as you suggest, but I think it won't work - it's just impossible to decide who's essential. Tgeorgescu, for example, opened the ANI case, but he hardly ever comments on Talk and doesn't seem to be an active editor. It was Eusebeus who suggested seeking a topic ban. In Ictu was exasperated on the Talk page but no more than you.
I don't quite follow your point about articles affected - in the first half you seem to be objecting to the adjective "hypothetical" applied to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, but that's the title of the linked article. I've added a brief explanation of the hypothesis in case that's what you mean.
@Davidbena, thanks for joining in.
@Ret.Prof, so that we can move forward quickly, are you happy to file a request with the committee? PiCo (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

PiCo, let's go with your suggestion of Hebrew Gospel hypothesis as the alternate article. I think your list of 10 editors is fine too. Tally-ho! Ignocrates (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Good. Now @Ret.Prof? PiCo (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This is has been one of the worst months I have ever spent at Wikipedia. The ANI experience is not a good one. I have been pounded to a bloody pulp and I am truly exhausted. I'm taking a break, but I will be back. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Should Ret.Prof's "stepping back" from formal mediation be interpreted as a statement that he has no interest in mediation? If walking away from ANI without a scratch causes this much exhaustion, I wonder what arbitration will be like, where there will be no "stepping back". Ignocrates (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

PiCo, please leave this draft in preparation of a request for formal mediation accessible on your talk page. We may resume this discussion if/when Ret.Prof returns, and in any case, this attempt at mediation will need to be documented for a request for arbitration. Failing a resumption of mediation, I'm pondering whether to file a request for arbitration myself. I'm going to pose that question in a new section. Ignocrates (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ignocrates, do not try to "interpret" my taking a break. I am an old guy who is tired of all the conflict. I need a rest. Nothing more! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Move to arbitration?

If formal mediation fails to get off the ground because we can't even reach a consensus over whether to file a request for mediation, that still counts as a failed attempt at mediation in my opinion. The question is what, if anything, to do next. The only remaining options are do nothing, and carry on as we have for over 3 years, or file for arbitration and take our chances. Any thoughts about filing for arbitration and who should be the filing party? Please discuss. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have put the question to Tom Paris. Ignocrates (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed yesterday that you raised some concerns about mediation. (See above) Are you having second thoughts? Do you now feel a move to arbitration would be better? In any event, please do not read anything into the fact that I am taking a break. I am an old guy who needs a rest...that is all. Thanks for all the good work you do! Cheers! - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on your comments yesterday about "prevailing" and "enforcement", I'm concerned about a lack of good faith during the mediation process, assuming we even get there. Ignocrates (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Lack of good faith! Now you are being unfair. You brought up that stuff. Several of us had believed Formal Mediation would be binding. Now I am starting to get ~~pissed off~~ upset at your ~~bullshit~~ behaviour! Sorry for language. Probably a sign I need a break! However I feel I being unfairly harassed for taking a break after a terrible ordeal. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You asked me what my concerns are, so I told you. There is nothing more to be inferred from my comments. Ignocrates (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes a break is just a break

Please do not go reading all sorts of stuff into my taking a break. I do not like conflict. I found the ANI brutal. I am exhausted and need a break from all the conflict. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I let Tom Paris know about your decision to not engage in mediation in case he wants to take a different action at ANI. Ignocrates (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof, I don't intend to take this anywhere without your cooperation. I will say you "do not like conflict" (that's your comment on your own Talk page), and that you found the ANI brutal. And what are you doing? You're avoiding confrontation by running away, or "taking a break" as you put it. That's not what Gandhi did, or Mandela. And in a few months you'll be back at Gospel of Matthew, trying to reintroduce the same old stuff, and the same people will get annoyed again, but next time won't be like this time, because if you get them annoyed enough they'll force arbitration on you. If you thought the ANI was brutal, wait till you see arbitration! Mediation, in contrast, is gentle - everyone has to agree, nothing is imposed. Your only real option is to stop editing religious articles, or even stop editing Wikipedia.

Wikipedia isn't real. It's a community of perhaps a thousand people in total (yep, that about how many people make the bulk of edits, just a handful). They tend to be quasi-autistic, interacting online instead of in the real world, hiding behind funny names. I don't know why you want to be one of them, but you do seem to be congenitally timid. And yet you're a good person, with much in your life to be proud of. What you did in Africa touched lives. Can you not return to the real world, if not in Africa then in your own community? Give Wiki-bloody-pedia up, it ain't worth the heartache!PiCo (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind....even inspiring words. I have looked through my edits of the past two days and I don't think I have said or done anything to indicate I am backing away from mediation. Yes the ANI I found unsettling. I could have been banned. Not so with mediation. There really is nothing to fear! My decision to take a break is not about you or about mediation...it is about me. When I get tired, I can get snippy, make mistakes and look incompetent. Read nothing more into my break than that. I am not running away, but trying to prepare myself to be a good Wikipedia editor. Thanks again for the good will. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I left a note on the ANI page as well. The case is not closed yet. An invitation to achieve a mediated solution is being served up on a silver platter. If we have to go through another round of this passive-aggressive behavior, it will be the final time. Ignocrates (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Tally-ho!

Tom has said it would be unfair for me to take a break. Therefore: Tally-ho! and away we go. Since this depends on good faith let us put our differences behind us and make this work. I have no problems with the good work you have done so far. I am happy to file a request with the committee. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please give me the final draft you want me to post. Also the link where it should be pasted. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

PiCo asked you to review his second draft, so please do that if you haven't already. Leave comments if you think there should be changes. After you are satisfied with the latest version, he wants to run it by In ictu oculi and go through the same process. At that point, once everyone is satisfied with the proposal, we would like you to file the request with the Mediation Committee. Ignocrates (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks good to me! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks for responding so promptly. I will leave it to PiCo to contact In ictu oculi, since he is coordinating everything, and we will give Mr. Eye-blink a few days to review it and make comments. Meanwhile, you can take a break and PiCo will contact you when we are ready to file a request. Ignocrates (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks LOL - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, I wonder if academic sources will hold the day. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Draft amended (all relevant threads for GospMatt Talk January added, 3 people taken off interested parties list) and pasted to RetProf's Talk page with request that he make any final edits and file request.PiCo (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Filing today

I will be filing a request for mediation today. Below is the proposed draft. Should anyone have any concern or like to be added, please contact me immediately. Note Please be reassured that I'll only attack the arguments, not editors and I will expect do the same for me. Mediation is based on good faith and good will. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Formal Mediation

Editors involved in this dispute

Articles affected by this dispute

Gospel of Matthew (main)
Hebrew Gospel hypothesis (secondary)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute

ANI, 3 February 2014 (link)
Article talk page, 26 January 2014 (link)
Article talk page, 30 January 2014 (link)
Article talk page, 30 January 2014 (link)
Article talk page, 31 January 2014 (link)
Article talk page, 1 February 2014 (link)
Fringe theories noticeboard, 2 August 2013 (link)

Issues to be mediated

To what extent, if at all, should the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis be represented in the Gospel of Matthew article?

(The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis is the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was first written in Hebrew or Aramaic and later translated into, or formed the basis of, the present Gospel) - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions or comments on filing

Please do not change the draft. Leave comments here. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not included User:Liz, User:Shirt58, User:Raquel Baranow, User:Eric Kvaalen, etc. because I did not think they were interested. If I have missed anybody that should be a party to the mediation, please let me know immediately. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand not including Atethnekos, since he was involved in so many of the discussions with Ret.Prof and Davidbena on the GoM talk page. He should be #8. I agree with leaving the rest off the list. Ignocrates (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have asked him. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Ret.Prof (And sorry, I have been busy the past couple days, and I have a number of things to respond to on here, so now I will). I'm not entirely sure what it means to be involved, but I checked the history and I've edited the GoM article on this very topic ([1]), and I was clearly involved with a least a couple recent discussions. On the other hand, I don't believe I've ever reverted anyone, or been reverted by anyone on this "involved" list at the GoM or HGH articles. I have no problem being listed either way, and would defer to others' judgement. If I had to guess, I would guess that I am involved. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions), thanks for replying to RetProf. You mention what it means to be formally involved. I'm not sure either - perhaps you could ask an admin. But I think it would mean you could have the right to comment without the obligation. That would be good, as you know the literature. I want this to be a friendly, non-emotional debate, although I'll be arguing against RetProf. You would be an excellent go-to person for technical academic references, if you wish to be involved.PiCo (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

About to file. Hmmmm Am I reading this correctly. Atethnekos will not be formally named in my filing but he will be a go-to person for technical academic references. I will wait ten minutes, then proceed as I do not want to look as though I am delaying. Cheers - 23:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If he's willing to be added to the filing, add him. What I mean is he shouldn't feel obliged to speak, but should have the right to do so, as he has much useful knowledge of the literature.PiCo (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Done! Filing has begun - Ret.Prof (talk)

"Involved" in the context of mediation means you were an active participant in the on-going talk page discussions and/or active in the editing process on the GoM article. It has nothing to do with being an "involved editor" in arbitration, which would mean in that context you were a participant in or a witness to conduct that could potentially result in sanctions. Ignocrates (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the source brought down by User:Ret.Prof, namely, William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602 is a valid source when taken together with other research, especially in the remark: “Virtually every piece of external evidence that we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship and composition of the Gospels concurs that Matthew’s Gospel was the first written, that it was written in the Hebrew language and later translated, etc.,” and should be used as support of his views that the Greek Gospel of Matthew (evangelion) was autographed (penned) by Matthew, and that the original text was a prototypical Aramaic/Hebrew text - no longer extant, by which translations were made, and from which we have our current MSS of Matthew's Gospel. It would be, in my opinion, tendentious editing (under the guise of rejecting what has been unjustly dubbed as "fringe") to deny that some scholars hold such views based on the evidence, mainly primary sources, left to us by the Church Fathers (Jerome, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Origen and Epiphanius), albeit, the view is still disputed amongst scholars. In keeping with Wikipedia's policy of "neutrality" when scholars disagree, it is therefore wholly right and fitting that this source be used as proof of such claims.Davidbena (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think here, as in all books which are written for the sake of conveying a message, good editors ought to know when to decipher the good from the bad, and not to discard a book altogether simply because some points in it may have been spurious or inaccurate. I have yet to see a book where there are no inaccuracies.Davidbena (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Davidbena, I'm a little shocked to see you giving the McGrews any weight at all. As PiCo pointed out, they are not scholars in biblical studies. I guess that is why we are headed to mediation. Ignocrates (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that a book published by Blackwells and edited by William Lane Craig stands a good chance of being accepted as a reliable source. Nevertheless, I have serious doubts that the essay inside it by the McGrews would pass. As noted, one of them is a housewife and amateur metaphysician, then other is a professor of philosophy - neither has relevant qualifications/background to biblical studies. Also, the McGrews' article is all about proving that Jesus is God by means of the Christian scripture. This contradicts the very first essay in the book, which defines natural philosophy as "the practice of philosophically reflecting on the existence and nature of God independent of real or apparent divine revelation or scripture". I think it would be a mistake to bring up this essay at the mediation. Edwards would be fine. PiCo (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The key to understanding what I said here is this: "good editors ought to know when to decipher the good from the bad," seeing that some things written in his book stand on their own merit and cannot be discredited. Overall, I agree with you, Ignocrates, that we are in need of a more reliable source.Davidbena (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

James Edwards on Papias

Once again a good point. It is what NPOV is all about. James Edwards 2009 points out that Papias is supported by 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Twelve of the Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer, either Christian or Non Christian, challenged these two facts. Google Link The first 124 pages is a detailed, scholarly and meticulous evaluation of the historical evidence. (See box below) The academic community, even those who disagree about his position on Luke and Q, were awed by these 124 pages!

Simply put the position of Papias that, "Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi and one of his followers, Matthew wrote an account about him in the local dialect." is supported by considerable evidence. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof, these are irrelevant to the mediation. What you need to produce is at least one modern scholar who thinks that Papias was talking about a Hebrew version of Greek Matthew. Edwards doesn't - he thinks the apostle Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel that's connected to Luke, and that Greek Matthew is by someone entirely different and got its name by mistake. PiCo (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 February 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gospel of Mark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Papias (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Yes, I would like to be a party to the mediation. St Anselm (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Content of Mark Template

Done. It was shockingly easy so I'll goto the other gospels and check to see if they need one. Ckruschke (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I left a note here. Ignocrates (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Btw, see the new article (Nov. 2013) on the Multi-source hypothesis, which is highly relevant for GMk. The diagram is OR, but it is a close approximation of the conjectures of Philippe Rolland and Delbert Burkett. Fwiw (i.e. nothing), I agree with the idea behind these related conjectures. Imo, it would be more correct to think of the canonical Gospel of Mark as a harmony of "Marks". That aspect comes across very clearly in these conjectures. Ignocrates (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gospel of Mark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vaticanus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Why have you blanked your page?

Why have you blanked your page? I hope I did not cause offense. It is true we have a serious disagreement about the material from Casey 2014, but your input at the informal mediation is important. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof, please don't read anything into my blanking this page, it was just to remove the Retired tag. On other matters, perhaps my style of writing comes across as rather unsympathetic, but it's not intended that way: I don't deliberately set out to upset people (well, not often). PiCo (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear. By the way the FCC is on of my favorite hangouts! Next time I am in town I will take you out to dinner to show you there are no hard feelings - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea you knew or visited Cambodia! I'll be here till early November - I'm researching Cambodian beliefs and their interrelationship with society. It would be nice to meet and talk. PiCo (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Small world ... years since I have been in Cambodia, but I have very fond memories of the FCC and the geckos running up and down the walls! --Rbreen (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well well. We should organise a get-together one of these years. PiCo (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration

See WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:BATTLE, WP:RGW, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, and WP:IDHT for some arguments to build on in the evidence phase of arbitration. Policy pages carry the greatest weight by far. The other pages can be used to emphasize policy. ArbCom will expect to see clear evidence of disruption in the form of diffs and a remedy to prevent future disruption. I would have an WP:RFC or go to WP:NPOVN (or both) before arbitration. The arbs will want to see multiple attempts at dispute resolution before they agree to take a case, and it is better to be the one initiating them. Ignocrates (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ignocrates: Thanks, but I used the wrong word, I should have said mediation. I'm certainly not suggesting arbitration at this stage. PiCo (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Gospel of Matthew. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Son of man may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

gospel of John]], when the crowd asks what Jesus means by the expression).{{sfn}Hurtado|2005|p=292}} This use of the [[definite article]] ("the son of man" rather than "son of man") is not attested

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Son of man may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

to the four gospels) is far from settled, and no consensus seems likely.{sfn|Hurtado|2005|p=290}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Book of Elchasai

Hello PiCo, I just created my first article ever on Wikipedia: Book of Elchasai, and I would like for you to expand this article as much as possible. I used this site as a reference: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/elchasai.html, but within the site contains many references for sourcing by scholars and church fathers. Perhaps this may give you some interest as this article is around your editing field -- Thnx & Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

re Ret.Prof

Ret.Prof has been talking about himself in the first person plural on my talk page. Sorry to bother you with this, but maybe you could find out what's going on with him. He and I are currently incommunicado, and that's probably just as well for now. Ignocrates (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I also thought you should be aware of this. It's creepy, no? Ignocrates (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

==

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of October 2014.

==

No further messages please. And try to remember, behind every funny user-name there's a real and quite possibly vulnerable human being.

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello PiCo:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chronology of the Bible, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Asa, Paul and Jubilee. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits to Acts of the Apostles

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Acts of the Apostles without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

[2] Maybe you didn't, but something in your computer did. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

[1] Talmud Sabb.116-b

[2] Burton L. Visotzky, Fathers of the World, Mohr Siebeck, 1995. p 81

[3] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 263

[4] Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,The Gospel according to the Hebrews, C.K. Paul & co., 1879. p 146

[5] Ignatius' Epistle to the Smyrn. 3.1-2, and Jerome, who quotes it from the Nazarene Gospel in De viris illustribus 16, cf. Luke 24:39)

[6] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1969. Vol 1, p 119

[7] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 265

[8] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 13

[9] Ignatius, who cites these words, does not say whence he drew them; but Jerome informs us that they were taken from the Gospel of the Hebrews (Pick, 13).

[10] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16 - 17

[11] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Catholic University Press, 1969. Vol. 1, p 379

[12] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 264 & 273

[13] See also Didymus the Blind Comm. Eccl. 4.223.6-13 where he quotes from the Hebrew Gospel.

[14] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 13

[15] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.10.3

[16] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1981. Vol 19, p 303

[17] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 266

[18] Richard Cassels, Supernatural Religion: An Inquiry Into the Reality of Divine Revelation, Longmans, 1879. Vol 1 p 472

[19] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4.22.7

[20] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation,Catholic University Press, 1981. Vol 19, p 255

[21] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 267

[22] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 2

[23] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1

[24] A.Roberts, "Ante-Nicene Fathers", Hendrickson, 1995. vol 1, p 414

[25] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 265

[26] Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,The Gospel according to the Hebrews, C.K. Paul & co., 1879. pp 2 - 3

[27] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.2

[28] A.Roberts, "Ante-Nicene Fathers", Hendrickson, 1995. vol 1 p 352

[29] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 265

[30] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 1

[31] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.11.7

[32] A.Roberts, "Ante-Nicene Fathers", Hendrickson, 1995. vol 1 p 428

[33] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 10

[34] Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,The Gospel according to the Hebrews, C.K. Paul & co., 1879. pp 2 - 3

[35] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.17.1

[36] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation,Catholic University Press, 1969. Vol 29, p 31

[37] On Symmachus, who is also known as translator: Jerome respected Symmachus' brilliance in his linguistic skills in Greek and Hebrew and used Symmachus' translations to help write his Latin Vulgate Bible

[38] Paul L. Maier, Eusebius--the church history", Kregel Academic, 1999. p220

[39] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 1

[40] See also Robert W Fuller, Demythologizing Jesus of Nazareth, Xulon Press, 2012. p 564 (Not a used as a reference - self published)

[41] Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis [Miscellanies] 2.9.45

[42] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 2008. Vol 85, p 189

[43] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 266

[44] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 14

[45] Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis [Miscellanies] 7.13.1

[46] A. Roberts, The Ante-nicene Fathers, Cosimo, Inc., 2007. Vol 2, p 547

[47] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 267

[48] Michael Ferrebee Sadler, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew Bell & Sons Pub, 1890. p xiv

[49] Hippolytus, On the Twelve Apostles 1.7

[50] A.Roberts, "Ante-Nicene Fathers", Hendrickson, 1995. vol 5, p 255

[51] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 12

[52] William Wilson Hunter, The Indian Empire, Asian Educational Services, 1886. p 235

[53] Hippolytus, On the Twelve Apostles 1.6

[54] A.Roberts, "Ante-Nicene Fathers", Hendrickson, 1995. vol 5 p 255

[55] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 267

[56] Hippolytus, The Extant Works And Fragments Of Hippolytus, Kessinger Publishing, 1886. >> REPRINT >> BiblioBazaar, 2004. p 166

[57] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.25.4

[58] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation,Catholic University Press, 1969. Vol 29, p 48

[59] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 268

[60] Sabine Baring-Gould, The lost and hostile gospels, Publisher Williams and Norgate, 1874. p 120

[61] Ephem the Syrian, Comm. on Tatian's Diatessaron

[62] Carmel McCarthy, Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron, Oxford University Press 1993. Vol 2, p 344

[63] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 272

[64] Józef Kudasiewicz, The Synoptic Gospels Today, Alba House, 1996. p 142

[65] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.24.6

[66] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation,Catholic University Press, 1981. Vol 19, p 174-175

[67] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 270

[68] Edward Bosworth, Studies in the life of Jesus Christ, YMCA Press, 1909. p 95

[69] Eusebius, Theophania 4.12

[70] Samuel Lee, "Eusebius on the Theophania,", Oxford University Press. 1843. p 234

[71] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 271

[72] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 14

[73] Eusebius, Theophany 4.22

[74] Burton Hamilton Throckmorton, Gospel parallels: a synopsis of the first three Gospels with alternative readings from the manuscripts and noncanonical parallels, Publisher T. Nelson Inc., 1979 p 161

[75] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 272

[76] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 10

[77] Didymus, Commentary on Psalms 34.1

[78] Ray Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century, Brill Archive, 1988. Vol 37, p 76

[79] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 272

[80] Bart D. Ehrman & Zlatko Pleše, The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations, Oxford University Press, 2011. p 219

[81] Epiphanius, Panarion 29.9.4

[82] Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Brill, 2009. Book I, p 130

[83] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 274

[84] Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,The Gospel according to the Hebrews, C.K. Paul & co., 1879. p 9

[85] Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7

[86] Frank Williams,The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Brill, 2009. Book I, p 133

[87] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 274

[88] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 15

[89] Epiphanius, Panarion 30.6.9

[90] Frank Williams, The panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Brill, 2009. Book I, p 136

[91] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 274

[92] Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,The Gospel according to the Hebrews, C.K. Paul & co., 1879. p 10

[93] Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13

[94] Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Brill, 2009. Book I, pp 141 - 142

[95] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 274 - 275

[96] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 17

[97] Epiphanius, Panarion 51.4.12

[98] Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Brill, 1994. Book II, pp 28 - 29

[99] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 28 & 278

[100] Charles Christian Hennell, An inquiry concerning the origin of Christianity, Smallfield, 1838. p 73

[101] Epiphanius, Panarion 51.5.1

[102] Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Brill, 1994. Book II, pp 28 - 29

[103] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 26 & 278

[104] Philip R. Amidon, The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Oxford University Press, 1990. p 178

[105] Epiphanius, Panarion 51.5.3

[106] Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Brill, 1994. Book II, p 29

[107] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 278

[108] Charles Christian Hennell, An inquiry concerning the origin of Christianity, Smallfield, 1838. p 73

[109] Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 1.7

[110] Philip Schaff, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers", Hendrickson, 1995. vol 10 p 3

[111] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 278

[112] George Prevost, The homilies of S. John Chrysostom, J.H. Parker, 1843. Vol 11, Part 1 p 6

[113] Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2

[114] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation,Catholic University Press, 1965. Vol 53, p 349

[115] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 287 - 288

[116] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 3

[117] Jerome, On Illustrious Men, 2

[118] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 2008. Vol 100, p 8

[119] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 280

[120] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 11

[121] Baring-Gould (l. c., p. 149), states that this touching incident is quite in keeping with what we know about St. James, the Lord's brother. James the Just, according to Hegesippus (Eusebius, I list. Eccles. II, 23) did not drink wine and abstained from meat. There is no doubt that James belonged to the ascetic school among the Jews and an oath to abstain from food until a certain event was accomplished was not unusual (Acts XXIII, 14). The story of this appearance found its way into the writings of St. Gregory of Tours (Hist. Eccl. Francorum I, 21) and thence it passed into the ' Legenda Aurea ' of Jacques de Voragine.

[122] See also margin of codex 1424 – This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophets, “Out of Egypt have I called my Son.”

[123] Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3

[124] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 2008. Vol 100, p 10

[125] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 281

[126] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 2

[127] Jerome, On Illustrious Men 16

[128] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 2008. Vol 100, p 33

[129] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 281

[130] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 13

[131] Jerome, On Illustrious Men 36.2

[132] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 2008. Vol 100, p 59

[133] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 282

[134] William Wilson Hunter, The Indian Empire, Pub Smith, Elder, 1989. p 285

[135] Jerome, Commentary on Matthew Preface

[136] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 2008. Vol 100, p 59

[137] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 282

[138] Archibald Alexander, The canon of the Old and New Testaments, Princeton Press, 1826. p 178

[139] Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2.5

[140] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 2008. Vol 117, p 64

[141] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 282

[142] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 2

[143] Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 6.11

[144] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 2008. Vol 117, p 140

[145] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 283

[146] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 5

[147] Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 12.13

[148] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 2008. Vol 117, p 140

[149] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 283

[150] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 5

[151] Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 23.35

[152] If you read he Hebrew Gospel that the Nazarenes use in context, Jerome implies that that it has the authority of Scripture. Read vs.23.35-36 also: And Zechariah the son of Johoiada said, “For he was of two names.” (Peter of Laodicea, Commentary on Matthew, ed. Heinrici, 5. 267

[153] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 2008. Vol 117, p 267

[154] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 283

[155] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 9

[156] Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 27.16

[157] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 2008. Vol 117, p 142

[158] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 284

[159] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 10

[160] Jerome, On Matthew 27.51

[161] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. 122 vols. Catholic University Press, 2008. Vol 117, p 320

[162] Josephus, too, reports that the angelic powers, the former guardians of the Temple, equally cried out at that time: “Let us pass from this dwelling place

[163] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 284

[164] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 11

[165] Jerome, On Psalm 135

[166] Pheme Perkins, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels, Eerdmans Publishing, 2007 p 199

[167] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 284

[168] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 5

[169] Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah, Preface to Book 18

[170] Montague Rhodes James, The apocryphal New Testament, The Clarendon press, 1969. p 5

[171] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 284

[172] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 13

[173] Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 11.1-3

[174] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 285

[175] Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,The Gospel according to the Hebrews, C.K. Paul & co., 1879. pp 20-21

[176] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. pp 3-4

[177] Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 40.9

[178] Ray Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century, Brill Archive, 1988. Vol 37, p 90

[179] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 285

[180] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 4

[181] See also Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel 16.13

[182] Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel 18.7

[183] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 286

[184] Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,The Gospel according to the Hebrews, C.K. Paul & co., 1879. p 21

[185] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 13

[186] Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 5.3-4

[187] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 279

[188] Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,The Gospel according to the Hebrews, C.K. Paul & co., 1879. p 17

[189] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 14

[190] Jerome, Commentary on Micah 7.6

[191] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 286

[192] Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,The Gospel according to the Hebrews, C.K. Paul & co., 1879. p 17

[193] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 4

[194] Jerome, Letter 120.8.2 to Hedibia

[195] New Advent Letter 120.8.2

[196] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 287

[197] Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,The Gospel according to the Hebrews, C.K. Paul & co., 1879. p 20

[198] LETTER 19 A letter of Pope Damasus to Jerome on Matthew 21.9

[199] Philip Schaff, Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Eerdmans, 1989. p 22

[200] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 279

[201] Henry Wace & Philip Schaff, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: St. Jerome: Letters and select works, Christian literature Company, 1893. Vol 6, p 22

[202] LETTER 20: A letter of Jerome to Pope Damasus on Matthew 21.9

[203] Philip Schaff, Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Eerdmans, 1989. p 22

[204] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 279

[205] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 8

[206] Jerome, Preface to the Four Gospels, Addressed to Pope Damasus in 383

[207] Roland H. Worth, Bible translations: a history through source documents, McFarland & Co., 1992. p 28

[208] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 286

[209] Up to this time most people believed the Gospel of Matthew to be a Greek translation of Matthew's Hebrew gospel. When Jerome pointed out that this was unlikly due to the discrepancies, all copies of the Hebrew Gospel disappeared and Jerome fell into disfavor, having to leave Rome in 384 A.D. Modern scholars have since vindicated Jerome and it is generally accepted that the Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible could not have been tranlated from the Hebrew Gospel.

[210] Henry Wace & Philip Schaff, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: St. Jerome: Letters and select works, Christian literature Company, 1893. Vol 6, p 488

[211] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 31

[212] James Keith Elliott , The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford University Press, 1993. pp 43 - 45

[213] Thomas J. Kraus, “The Fayum Gospel.” from The Non-Canonical Gospels. Edited by Paul Foster. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. pp 150-56

[214] Samuel Cox, Sir William Robertson Nicoll & James Moffatt, "The Expositor", Hodder and Stoughton, 1888. p 450

[215] Burton Hamilton Throckmorton, Gospel parallels: a synopsis of the first three Gospels with alternative readings from the manuscripts and noncanonical parallels, Publisher T. Nelson Inc., 1979 p 168

[216] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. pp 30 - 31

[217] Thomas J. Kraus & Michael J. Kruger, "Gospel fragments", Oxford University Press, 2009. p 123

[218] Walter Richard Cassels, Supernatural Religion - An Inquiry Into the Reality of Divine Revelation, Longmans, Green, 1875. p 420

[219] Samuel Zinner, The Gospel of Thomas, The Matheson Trust Pub, 2011. pp 236 - 237

[220] Glenn E. Snyder, New Testament and Christian Apocrypha, Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Vol 2 p 178

[221] S. Kent Brown comments on the text of Oxyrhynchus 840 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 1000

[222] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 15

[223] H. G. Evelyn-White, "The sayings of Jesus from Oxyrhynchus," University Press, 1920. p ii-9

[224] Donald Alfred Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome, BRILL, 1973. Vol 34 p 298

[225] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 31 - 40

[226] The Oxyrhynchus papyri, edited with translations and notes by Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt at the Internet Archive

[227] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 15

[228] Burton Hamilton Throckmorton, Gospel parallels: a synopsis of the first three Gospels with alternative readings from the manuscripts and noncanonical parallels, Publisher T. Nelson Inc., 1979. pp 28, 26, 99, 15, 21, 50, 125, 131, 44, 111, 27, 24, 96 & 37,

[229] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 31 - 40

[230] Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005. pp 112 - 113

[231] Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,The Gospel according to the Hebrews, C.K. Paul & co., 1879. p 111

[232] Jeffrey J. Bütz, The Secret Legacy of Jesus, Inner Traditions Pub, 2009. pp 175 - 176

[233] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. pp 79 & 80, 92-93

[234] Justin, Dialogue, 88, 103

[235] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1977. Vol 6 pp 289-290 & 310

[236] Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005. p 124

[237] Also because the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes from the Hebrew Gospel "You are my son, today I have begotten you" some scholars believe Paul had a copy of the Hebrew Gospel composed by Matthew. See Hebrews 1:5

[238] ‘Today I have begotten You.' from the "Memoirs of the Apostles," is the the same as the above quotes from the Hebrew Gospel (see above - Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13)

[239] Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 96

[240] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1977. Vol 6 p 300

[241] Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005. p 117

[242] Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 47

[243] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1977. Vol 6, p 219

[244] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 93

[245] Justin Martyr, First Apology 16

[246] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1977. Vol 6, p 50

[247] Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005. p 118

[248] Justin Martyr, First Apology 15

[249] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1977. Vol 6, p 48

[250] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 92

[251] Justin Martyr, First Apology 15

[252] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1977. Vol 6, p 49

[253] Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing, 2005. p 118

[254] Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 93

[255] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1977. Vol 6, p 296

[256] Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing, 2005. p 118

[257] Justin, First Apology, 15

[258] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1977. Vol 6, p 49

[259] Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing, 2005. p 118

[260] Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 12

[261] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1977. Vol 6, p 166

[262] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 92

[263] Justin, First Apology, 15

[264] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1977. Vol 6, p 48

[265] Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing, 2005. p 119

[266] Justin, Athenagoras, 31

[267] Ernest Cushing Richardson & Alexander Roberts, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, T. and T. Clark, 1867. vol 2 p 416

[268] Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing, 2005. p 119

[269] Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 93

[270] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation,Catholic University Press, 1977. Vol 6, p 296

[271] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 79

[272] Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 35

[273] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1977. Vol 6, p 200

[274] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 80

[275] Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 38

[276] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1977. Vol 6, p 205

[277] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 93

[278] Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 120

[279] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1977. Vol 6, p 334

[280] Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005. p 121

[281] Justin, First Apology, 16

[282] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1977. Vol 6, p 51

[283] Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005. p 120

[284] Justin, Resurrection, 9

[285] Ernest Cushing Richardson & Alexander Roberts, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, C. Scribner's Sons Pub, 1885. vol 1 p 298

[286] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 93

[287] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16 - 17

[288] Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. 100 vols. Catholic University Press, 1969. Vol. 1, pp 6 -10

[289] Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005. p 123

[290] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 13

[291] Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Ecclesiastes , 4.223.6–13

[292] Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, Baker Academic Pub, 2006. p 304

[293] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 6 - 10

[294] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 13

[295] William Lane Craig, & J. P. Moreland, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602

[296] John Wesley Etheridge, Horæ Aramaicæ, Simpkin, Marshall Pub, 1843. p 96

[297] Islamic Hadith, Sahih al Bukhari 1.3

[298] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 42

[299] Hadith of Bukhari, Forgotten Books Pub, 1944. Vol 1, p 2

[300] Discourse on Maria Theotokos by Cyril 12A

[301] James R.Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 59

[302] Ernest Alfred Thompson Wallis Budge, Miscellaneous coptic texts, AMS Press, 1915. p 639

[303] Marius Mercator, De Haeresi et Libris Hestorii 4.2

[304] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 288

[305] Venerable Bede, Commentary on Luke 1.1-4

[306] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 289

[307] Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,The Gospel according to the Hebrews, C.K. Paul & co., 1879. pp 121 - 3122

[308] Sedulius Scottus, Collectanea in Epistolam I ad Corinthios 15.7

[309] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 290

[310] Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,The Gospel according to the Hebrews, C.K. Paul & co., 1879. p 68

[311] Sedulius Scottus "Super Evangelium Mathei"

[312] Albertus Frederik Johannes Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition BRILL, 1992. Vol 17, p 87

[313] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 290

[314] Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, Oxford University Press, 2003. p 11

[315] Burton Hamilton Throckmorton, Gospel parallels: a synopsis of the first three Gospels with alternative readings from the manuscripts and noncanonical parallels, Publisher T. Nelson Inc., 1979 p 11

[316] James Keith Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford University Press, 2005. p 13

[317] Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, Oxford University Press, 2003. p 11

[318] Burton Hamilton Throckmorton, Gospel parallels: a synopsis of the first three Gospels with alternative readings from the manuscripts and noncanonical parallels, Publisher T. Nelson Inc., 1979 p 48

[319] James Keith Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford University Press, 2005. p 14

[320] Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, Oxford University Press, 2003. p 11

[321] Burton Hamilton Throckmorton, Gospel parallels: a synopsis of the first three Gospels with alternative readings from the manuscripts and noncanonical parallels, Publisher T. Nelson Inc., 1979 p 49

[322] James Keith Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford University Press, 2005. p 14

[323] Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, Oxford University Press, 2003. p 11

[324] Burton Hamilton Throckmorton, Gospel parallels: a synopsis of the first three Gospels with alternative readings from the manuscripts and noncanonical parallels, Publisher T. Nelson Inc., 1979 p 63

[325] James Keith Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford University Press, 2005. p 14

[326] Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, Oxford University Press, 2003. p 11

[327] Burton Hamilton Throckmorton, Gospel parallels: a synopsis of the first three Gospels with alternative readings from the manuscripts and noncanonical parallels, Publisher T. Nelson Inc., 1979 p 82

[328] James Keith Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford University Press, 2005. p 14

[329] Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, Oxford University Press, 2003. p 11

[330] Burton Hamilton Throckmorton, Gospel parallels: a synopsis of the first three Gospels with alternative readings from the manuscripts and noncanonical parallels, Publisher T. Nelson Inc., 1979 p 186

[331] James Keith Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford University Press, 2005. p 13

[332] James R.Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p

[333] Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, Oxford University Press, 2003. p 11

[334] Burton H. Throckmorton, Gospel Parallels , Thomas Nelson Inc, 1979. p 13

[335] James R.Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 292

[336] Burton H. Throckmorton, Gospel Parallels , Thomas Nelson Inc, 1979. p 89

[337] Edward Williams B. Nicholson, A new commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew, C. Kegan Paul, 1881. p 150

[338] James R.Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 291

[339] Burton H. Throckmorton, Gospel Parallels , Thomas Nelson Inc, 1979. p 99

[340] Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,The Gospel according to the Hebrews, C.K. Paul & co., 1879. p 164

[341] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 291

[342] Burton H. Throckmorton, Gospel Parallels , Thomas Nelson Inc, 1979. p 175

[343] Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 10

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]