Talk:Gospel

False attributions

Questioned additions

• 12 feb 2025 Tgeorgescu diff, edit-summary " false attributions," added

Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous (false attributions), and none were written by eyewitnesses to the Historical Jesus,

References

Reverted by Pbritt diff, editi-summary "The page before this quite literally critiques the term "false attribution"."

• 13 feb 2025 Tgeorgescu diff, added

Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous (false attributions), and none were written by eyewitnesses to the Historical Jesus,

References

Reverted by Pbritt diff, edit-summary "Cited sources do not support the claim "false attribution" for all four Gospels (though verify such terminology application towards Matthew and, to a lesser degree, Mark)."

Discussion

@Pbritti: I did not WP:CITE Charlesworth for "his own" view, but for how the words "false attribution" are used inside the scholarly community. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, no, that source doesn't do that. It doesn't say that the term is used inside the scholarly community, just that "false attribution" is a mischaracterization. There is no compelling encyclopedic reason to include mention of a mischaracterization rejected by the scholarly community, especially doing so exclusively using the mischaracterizing term without context. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Pbritti: According to Charlesworth the mischaracterization is "these books are not important". He does not claim that Matthew wrote Matthew, and so on. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

You're very interested on including a mischaracterizing term, which strikes me as deeply undue. There's no way to justify that edit. By the way, I have the article on my watchlist, so you don't need to ping. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Not the words "false attribution" are a mischaracterization, but the way they used to be interpreted.

Anyway see also Theissen, Gerd; Maloney, Linda M. (2011). The New Testament: A Literary History. G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Fortress Press. p. unpaginated. ISBN 978-0-8006-9785-3. Retrieved 11 February 2025. In the case of Mark and John tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Theissen stops short of outright of wholly rejecting attribution to Mark and John, and the term "false attribution" is not used. "False attribution" is the mischaracterization being discussed in the source you cited. I have POV concerns with your insistence on that term. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Theissen discusses pseudepigraphy and false attributions. He claims that the gospel were written by otherwise unknown men called Mark and John. And that the false attributions for Mark and John are unintentional mistakes made by the Church.

And citing Ehrman for "false attributions" would be a slam dunk. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Ehrman would seem to be behind the curve, then. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Theissen does not claim "John Mark wrote Mark", nor "the Apostle John wrote John". tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

A bit of a motte-and-bailey, especially since I'm not saying Theissen does that. The issue is that you inserted a term that the RS you cited says perpetuates a false impression. You then pinged me on this page to defend that undue insertion. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Logically, these are the possibilities:

• orthonymous;
• homonymous;
• false attribution (note that homonymous does not preclude false attribution);
• pseudepigraphy.

So, the NT gospels are false attributions precisely because they are neither pseudepigraphy nor orthonymous. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright, you're off-topic. If you have any questions, let me know. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

You don't give the lie to Ehrman and then decide that I'm offtopic. "Behind the curve" is impertinent. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

You seem too personally invested in this. If you need a citation on Ehrman being behind the curve on using the term "false attribution" (if he does indeed use that term), please see this book: . ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Precisely the book I had WP:CITED. Published in 2011, the same year as Forged (book). I don't think they were responding to Ehrman's claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is the book you cited. That's why I cited it. Also, Forged wasn't published by a CHOPSY publishing house. I won't reply further, as it's not helping. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

"Rather, he has provided excellent conceptual guidance to anyone who wants to work in this and related areas of early Christian literary history." by David Brakke (2016) https://www.jstor.org/stable/26543540 .

Forgery and Counter-forgery was published at Oxford University Press (in 2013).

And I'm not pleased by insinuations about my motivation. My motivation is irrelevant, as long as I cite mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. And, at best, "false attribution" is a mischaracterization is a dubious reading of a complicated text from the page you mentioned. It does not clearly condemn false attributions, just a certain interpretation of them. If you think it does, does the source provide better, more adequate words instead of "false attribution"? Which are those words? Since it is an objective fact that the NT gospels have been attributed to people who did not write them.

As far as I understood from https://books.google.com/books?id=ATBjAwAAQBAJ&pg=PR22 fn. 28, Charlesworth c.s. oppose the idea of considering those books forgeries. They did not attack Ehrman for calling some NT books "false attributions". tgeorgescu (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Are you for real? "I have not dealt at any length with false attribution here, even though it affects a number of the writings of the New Testament (the Gospels, 2 and 3 John), not to mention later writers (Pseudo-Justin, Pseudo-Tertullian, Pseudo-Chrysostom, and on and on). In many instances the attributions may have been made in full cognizance that there were no real grounds for making the ascriptions (the Gospel of Matthew); in other instances they were probably simply made by mistake (Pseudo-Justin)." From the WP:CITED book by Ehrman. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Now, you're contradicting three full professors. Two of them have named chairs. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Please do not get agitated and don't ping me again. Besides the source being a book review (good, but probably not ideal for a high-level, high-traffic, controversial article like this), but it's not exactly clearly written and only directly addresses two of the Gospels in the context of "false attribution". Of course, we've also just discussed why this term is considered a bit of a misnomer and unproductive by using a superior source. It would seem you want to enforce Ehrman's POV as Wikipedia's POV. While his perspective can—indeed, must—be featured, it is not the final position on the scholarship. For what it's worth, I've had the misfortune of meeting many people with named chairs. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

That Ehrman's POV can be attributed, I can agree with that. But don't claim that I made edits which fail WP:V (you used words as "support" and "verify", so you obviously meant WP:V).

In this discussion I have produced six WP:V citations, you have produced none (with page number or quote). You're just pontificating that Ehrman has been sidelined, bereft of any WP:V citation.

Maybe there is something which other Wikipedians don't know, but you know. But you have WP:CITED no WP:RS to that extent. You have WP:CITED one page whose meaning is murky (in respect to false attributions), and 312 pages of a book, without indicating any page or quote from it. And that book was presumably published too early to know of and respond to the two books by Ehrman about false attributions. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You repeatedly misstated my position in the message above. You appear to be conflating verification of particular material with reliability of sources. If your arguments were convincing, I'd have changed my position. But they weren't, especially in light of you being contradicted several times by the very sources you've mustered—something I've repeated since the first message in this section. If you want to include this material, consider suggesting specific "change X to Y" edits. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You're contesting a descriptive label for historical facts that you don't seem to deny. Why is that? tgeorgescu (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, you do understand my position. I reject that label for the reason stated above: a highly reliable source challenges that particular descriptive term and instead favors more precise language. Because this is a high-traffic, controversial article, we should articulate concepts in a manner that presents the lowest likelihood of spreading misconceptions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite: which source is that? Quotes please for WP:V. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

If you recall, this one. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not a verifiable quote. It's just a title page. Evidence, please, not ipse dixit.

Convince me that the book by Oegema and Charlesworth contradicts me. Now I'm the unconvinced one. Just provide a quote showing me wrong.

And, as I told you, barred prophecy and time travel, their book couldn't possibly address Ehrman's claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You're shifting the goalposts. Ehrman isn't the issue here: it's that the term is dispute in scholarship and should not be stated as an absolute. The following quote is found in the chapter "The Parables of Enoch and the Apocalypse of John" by James H. Charlesworth, the George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature: "The assumption that 'pseudepigraphical' means 'false' attribution and therefore not important needs to be dismissed." While Ehrman elected to use the term, it is clear that it is considered deprecated by other scholarship. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Yup, I had already read that, and I'm still unconvinced that the book contradicts me. It does not lambast the words "false attribution". It lambasts "not important". Which is a different claim than yours. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

How do you square that with the scare quoting of "false attribution" shortly after that passage? This is a two-word term that provides no additional context to readers without extensive explanation, and indeed is considered misleading by scholarly sources. I oppose its inclusion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You have to actually WP:CITE WP:RS. Ipse dixit won't do. And we all know that conservative Christians hate mainstream Bible scholarship. That does not need extra proof.

Wikipedia isn't Bluff Your Way in Philosophy. That's why we expect all editors to WP:V their claims with WP:RS.

Namely, you should WP:CITE two or three WP:RS which explicitly claim that "false attribution" is considered misleading. Those would be the required scholarly sources which consider that. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I already cited it. You can't say I'm not citing something when I just cited it. The bit about we all know that conservative Christians hate mainstream Bible scholarship makes no sense here, as that's not who Charlesworth is. That RS establishes the questionability of that term. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You cited something, but it's unconvincing. Namely, Charlesworth has an axe to grind against considering those writings "not important". That's all you managed to show. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

You can't discount a source because it doesn't support your favored theologian. You liked the source until you realized Charlesworth was arguing against the term. This appears to be about upholding Ehrman's perspective as the scholarly consensus, something that is unsupported. You've changed your position on Charlesworth several times. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Again: you're reading your own views into what has been written. Your statement says more about you than about me.

E.g. You liked the source until you realized Charlesworth was arguing against the term does not rely upon any evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Charlesworth has an axe to grind

Are you sure Pbritti is the one reading stuff into the text? Silverfish2024 (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I did not state that having an axe to grind against "not important" would be something bad. Did I? tgeorgescu (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, you did not. Silverfish2024 (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

"Axe to grind" means he has strong opinions. I did not state that I dislike his opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Maybe there is a place for both Charlesworth and Ehrman's views. Silverfish2024 (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

That for evangelicals would mean if they prefer to get bitten by the dog or by the cat. There is a saying: what difference does it make whether they get bitten by the dog of by the cat? It does not mean that Wikipedia is WP:SOAP against evangelicals, it is just how evangelicals see Bible articles from Wikipedia.

OTQ: Ehrman agrees with Charlesworth, i.e. those writings are not "not important". tgeorgescu (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Why are you referring to evangelicals? Neither scholar in question is an evangelical. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Double/triple negative

"and are thus unproblematic if not read anachronistically."

Perhaps this can be phrased in a way that doesn't contain a double negative (triple if you count 'ana-'). I don't see the need to save space by making such a compact, hard-to-parse phrase.

Could be something like "and thus are only a problem if read from a modern/historicist/factual perspective." ~2025-40856-96 (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Opening Paragraphs

The gospel is not what later Christians say about it when they were all written between 60 and 100 AD (140 AD at the latest for one of them) These are the same people who were either kids or around during the time of Jesus when they were written that these gospels are being preached too. The opening paragraphs are inaccurate. ~2026-46987-8 (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Diagram

A.M. Honoré's 1968 paper 'A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem' does not feature any visual or graphical representation of the synoptic gospels like the one in this article, which appears to have been created by someone else based off his work, thus original research. I do not think this diagram is due or suitable here. @Delladd Birjeta01 (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Synoptic Gospels#Image removed? Kanguole 10:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The OR issue has been dealt with in the above-linked discussion. That leases the question of whether the diagram is a useful illustration for the Composition section. I believe that it provides a useful overview of the relationships between the synoptic gospels, which are disussed in that section. Presumably Delladd, whom you reverted, also finds it useful there. Kanguole 11:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not think the graph based on the 1968 article is due or necessary here given the broader subject matter of this page and the issues with Honoré's data brought up in the talk. Birjeta01 (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Other authors have criticized Honoré's analysis later in the paper, not the empirical data in his Table 1 that is depicted by this diagram. Naturally different authors using different methodologies arrive at slightly different proportions, but we can only choose one, and Honoré's is widely cited. Kanguole 12:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

One of the errors noted is the length of Matthew’s triple tradition (listed as 8336 words) in Table 1. Perhaps more importantly, this article concerns the general overview of the canonical (and noncanonical) gospels, not the Synoptic Problem, so I don’t see the need to choose any proportion at all. Birjeta01 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

O'Rourke (p276) is complaining that the numbers produced by Honoré's theory (8372 and 9028) do not match the actual length of 8336.

The article has a broad focus, but the Composition section (from which you removed this diagram) is focussed on the canonical gospels. Kanguole 12:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)