text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Authentic Matthew (inconcluded)

--Melissadolbeer 11:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Wikipedia.To have Ril and his bullies succeed makes me feel sick.

No original research requires you not to use research of your own. Please also avoid using sockpuppets in the future, or at least make them less obvious. 16:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. The Wikipedian who uses a sock puppet may be called a sock puppeteer. Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases; Jimbo Wales has said, "There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason."The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies. Some people feel that second accounts should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are all behaving acceptably.
 * Melissa only used the research of others and has never used a sockpuppet.( --Poorman 08:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC) Her Husband)
 * Above User is alleged by     to be Melissa's sockpuppet, although claims itself to be her husband.      19:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Please read article edit history to see if Ril, 81.156.177.21 etc are abusing Wikipedia
 * Unsigned comment by Melissadolbeer     16:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Historical Background
Traditional view

From the Middle Ages through the Reformation to the end of the 18th century, most Biblical scholars believed there was only one gospel of Matthew, written by the Apostle Matthew in Hebrew. It was further believed that this was the first gospel to be written. Finally, it was accepted that this gospel was translated into Greek and included in the Canon.

Synoptic Problem

Like the authors of the other gospels, the author wrote this book according to his own plans and aims and from his own point of view, while at the same time borrowing from other sources. According to the two-source hypothesis (the most commonly accepted solution to the synoptic problem), Matthew borrowed from both Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, known by scholars as Q (for the German Quelle, meaning "source"). Therefore it became accepted that the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible was

a) not written by Matthew;

b) not the earliest gospel to be written;

c) not originally written in Koine Greek.

M Source

Streeter argued that a third source, referred to as M  and also hypothetical, lies behind the material in Matthew that has no parallel in Mark or Luke. Through the remainder of the 20th century there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's hypothesis, such as Parker (1953) who posited an early version of Matthew (proto-Matthew) as a the primary source. Although Parker's view was hotly debated, an "early version" of Matthew was refered to in more than 25 times in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

Twenty-first century view

With the growth of "evangelical" Christianity, the majority of Christians have reverted to the traditional view that there is only one Gospel of Matthew: the one included in the Bible, that is believed to be inspired by God and written by the apostle. This view is not widely accepted in academic circles, nor by the Jesus Seminar.

Eusebius
''Please note that Eusebius is not regarded as a reliable source in this field. Eusebius is 4th century. Iranaeus (of Lyons) (possibly spelt wrongly) is a much more reliable source. He is mid 2nd century, and even though he is a church father (and thus extremely biased) he nethertheless reports on the views of his opponents, and thus gives us both sides of the case. He is also much closer to the period.-- ANON''

Dear ANON,

Certainly the area of Authentic Matthew has been a controversial one. Your points are good, and I agree with the above. However, most scholars concur that the catalogue of Eusebius is an accurate reflection of the works surviving to his time. -- Melissa

''Also, listing Eusebius' choice of what is and isnt heresy is not relevant to an article about the gospel of matthew/M/nazoreans/hebrews. It is only relevant to Eusebius. Other people (including Iranaeus, Origen, and Celsus) had different views on the matter. -- ANON''

Dear ANON,

There are those who think that Eusebius is a great church scholar. Our point of view is not relevant. In controversial areas, even sources with which we have difficulty should be cited. That is why "the fragments" contained a variety of sources including Origen, Iranaeus, etc. -- Melissa

''Likewise, your own view of the origin of the biblical canon has no place in an encylopedia. Your view, is by its very nature, a view, and therefore not factual, is original research, and also not reporting on the views of scholars/relevant persons on the matter. In addition, it is not relevant to the articles you have inserted it into, as it belongs inarticles such as Gospel of Matthew and History of Christianity and Historicity of Jesus to name but a few. -- ANON''

Dear ANON,

You jump to the wrong conclusion. There is much in the article on Authentic Matthew with which I disagree. Indeed, my point of view is probably closer to yours than that of the article. That is why I was pleased when user By George merged the two articles. Also, the article on Authentic Matthew is merely a summary of the writings from the early church to now. -- Melissa

''Furthermore, Jerome is widely regarded as being inaccurate in this area, not least because he can't tell the difference between the gospel of the hebrews, the gospel of the nazoreans, and the gospel of the ebionites, which are distinct. We know that he can't tell the difference because he quotes from each of these but names them all as the gospel of the hebrews. As such, it makes what he says about hebrews unreliable, as it very difficult to seperate how much of what he says should correspond to a particular one of the texts, and how much to another, and how much is a conclusion he has erroneously reached because he has conflated the three texts into one. -- ANON''

Dear ANON,

There are those who agree with what you say about Jerome, but there are many who believe he is a reliable source. Therefore, his writings must be included in any authoritative article. -- Melissa

''As you appear to be concentrating your contributions on the apocrypha, at the moment, I would recommend you first read "Apocryphal Gospels:An introduction" by "Hans-Josef Klauck". -- ANON''

Dear ANON,

I have. -- Melissa

Jerome vs. Hans-Josef Klauck
The difficulty is that Klauck does not have a copy of the document in question. Therefore, all he has to say about it is speculation.

Jerome, who is a respected writer of his time, and whose works have stood the test of time, has the advantage of living in the time period when the document is in existence. According to the GHeb fragments, Jerome has before him a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew which he refers to as the Hebrew Gospel or the Gospel of the Hebrews, but most of his contemporaries call this document Authentic Matthew.

Jerome is able to quote from it, translate it, and evaluate it. Jerome also knows its history, that it is used by the Ebionites, and also by the Nazarenes (apparently it was the Nazarene community that made a complete copy available to him). In his time, there is still a copy in the library at Caesarea.

Eusebius has the same advantage. You and I may disagree with the way he set up his catalogue of early Christian writings, but he, like Jerome, has the great advantage of living in a time when the document in question was still in existence.

In a Wikipedia article, all major works must be canvassed from a neutral point of view and be evaluated critically. Jerome, and particularly Eusebius, have their bias and their weaknesses, but they also have access to the document in question, which Klauck does not. (See GHeb fragments at the end of the article on Authentic Matthew.)

Authentic Matthew
Authentic Matthew remains one of the most controversial areas of biblical scholarship, and therefore makes it difficult to write a fully unbiased Wikipedia article. There are approximately twenty positions regarding this work that was called Authentic Matthew by the majority of writers in the Early Church. The following are the five major positions:

1. No such thing as Authentic Matthew

Many modern biblical scholars believe that the apostle Matthew never wrote a gospel. They include such scholars as Klauck, Streeter, and the two-source theory, which states that the Gospel of Matthew was written by an unknown editor who merged earlier sources and the oral tradition.

2. Authentic Matthew existed.

This position is supported by the fact that it is cited in the theological discussions of the Early Church fathers.

3. The Gospel of Matthew is Authentic Matthew.

This position states that Matthew wrote a gospel, that is the one that we have in the Bible today. This was the majority opinion until modern biblical scholarship pointed out that the Canonical Gospel was based on Greek sources and not an eye witness account.

4. My point of view.

Matthew wrote a Gospel in Aramaic. Because it was difficult to translate into Greek, sources such as Mark, Q, etc., were used in the translation. Thus, the heavy reliance on Q and Mark in the Canonical Gospel of Matthew.

5. Different Gospels.

This position states that the Gospel of Matthew, Authentic Matthew, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Hebrew Gospel, etc., are all different gospels.

Summary
The purpose of the article "Authentic Matthew" is to put forward the information that we know in an unbiased fashion, not emphasizing any one point of view. Therefore it is important to discuss and edit but not to merely delete or redirect. Where no consensus can be reached, both theories must be put forward so that the reader is fully informed.

By the way ANON, I have read the other material you have submitted to the Wikipedia and found it to be thought-provoking and interesting. Looking forward to your "scholarly" response on Authentic Matthew. I have undone the merge submitted by By George and at present both the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Authentic Matthew stand on their own to be debated and eventually revised. -- Melissa

M
M is not the original matthew. M is defined as those elements which are not in either Q or Mark, but are in Matthew. ~ 23:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point and I have added it to the Article--Melissa

Ril had some good points forcing us review the sources and revise the article.

Higher Criticism
One of the most important aspects of Higher Criticism in relation to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Authentic Matthew or The Gospel of the Hebrews ) is to recognize its limitations. Scholars have no text to study or analyze. The writings of the Church Fathers, are all we have. Yet there are quite a number of them.

Modern scholars -- the majority of whom are English or German speaking -- are studying the writings of the Early Church, which are in Greek (or Latin). Note this is not Modern Greek, but Koine Greek that was used 2000 years ago. Latin and Koine Greek are extinct languages. Thus nothing can be accepted or rejected with certainty. Therefore, Higher Critics analyzing the GHeb fragments have four general categories:

A.     Highly Probable; B.     Probable; C.      Possible; D.     Unlikely.

Clement
Clement of Rome was a leading presbyter in the early Church. He was probably born shortly before the crucifixion, and, according to Tertullian, was ordained by Peter. Many Church Fathers believed Clement succeeded Peter. His letter to the Corinthians was considered divinely inspired by many.

GHeb-1 and GHeb-2 Scholars are split about GHeb-1 and GHeb-2. Some argue that Clement is quoting from the oral tradition. It is equally ‘possible’ that he is quoting from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. It is, however, agreed that these two excerpts are not from the Canonical Gospels.

Didache
This document is a formulation of the rules of conduct for Christians. It first appeared about the year 100.

GHeb-3 This version of the Lord’s Prayer is different from the one found in the Canonical Gospels. For this reason, some believe it is ‘possibly’ from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. It is interesting to compare this fragment with GHeb-47, which confirms that this Lord’s Prayer was found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Ignatius
Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch, Syria, who was born some ten years after the crucifixion.

GHeb-4 This fragment from Ignatius has caused much controversy among scholars because the term “bodiless demon” is used. We know that this excerpt is not from the Canonical Gospels, nor would this term be used in Hebrew. Thus, some have argued that this fragment was written in Syriac but with Hebrew letters.

Jerome affirms “bodiless demon” is in the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Therefore it is ‘probable’ that GHeb-4 is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and it raises the possibility of Syriac being used.

Papius
Papius was born approximately thirty years after the crucifixion and eventually became a bishop in Asia Minor.

GHeb-5 It is ‘probable’ that this fragment is referring to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, as that Gospel is mentioned. It affirms that Matthew wrote it in Hebrew. However, there are problems. Papius’ five-volume work has been lost, and this fragment only survives in the writing of Eusebius. Secondly, the text is ambiguous in its wording. The phrase ‘ta logia’ has been interpreted in numerous ways, i.e. sayings, teachings, or even Gospel.

Polycarp
Born some thirty years after the crucifixion, Polycarp is an important link to the Apostolic Age. A strong defender of Orthodoxy, he seems to have been aware of the Gospel of the Hebrews written by Matthew.

GHeb 6-7 These quotes are ‘possibly’ from the oral tradition or possibly from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Scholars are not certain as to their source.

Barnabas
A Levite who became one of the earliest Christian disciples at Jerusalem, the writings of Barnabas are an important window on the development of early Christianity.

GHeb 8 It falls into the ‘possible category’ for most of the same reasons mentioned above for GHeb 6 & 7.

Justin
Justin was born 67 years after the crucifixion in Samaria of non-Christian parents. He defended Christianity from the attack by Judaism, wrote an apology of Christianity to Emperor Antonius Pius, and was martyred for his faith. He is an important and reliable witness to the development of the early Church and the New Testament corpus.

GHeb-9 and GHeb-10 It is ’probable’ that these fragments are from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. The Church Fathers explain that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Apostles. Justin cites as his authority the “Apostles of our Christ” and the “Gospel of the Apostles.” (See GHeb-55) Also, Jesus being ‘begotten’ at His baptism is unique to the Hebrew Gospel.

Irenaeus
This great defender of Orthodoxy in the early Church has much to say about the Hebrew Christian Sect called the Ebionites. He argues that their beliefs are closer to those of the Jews than Christians. Born some eighty years after the crucifixion, his writings are considered reliable by most scholars of ancient and modern times.

GHeb-11 Here Irenaeus states that the Ebionite community uses only the Gospel of Matthew! Other Church Fathers confirm what he writes, but say the Ebionites only use the Gospel of the Hebrews, making it ‘probable’ that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew. It is highly unlikely than he is referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel (see Epiphanius and Eusebius).

GHeb-12 Irenaeus states that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews in their own dialect. Biblical scholars agree that Irenaeus cannot be referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel, which has been shown to be composed in Greek by a person other than Matthew. This raises the ‘probability’ that Irenaeus is referring to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-13 (See GHeb-11)

Pantaenus
The first head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria, Pantaenus had extensive knowledge of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-14 This excerpt explains why those who were associated with the school of Alexandria had such extensive knowledge of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. This document acquired by Pantaenus could not have been the Canonical Matthean Gospel, which was written in Greek by an unknown redactor. Therefore it is ‘probable’ that GHeb-14 is referring to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

Tertullian
Tertullian was born in Carthage, studied law, and converted to Christianity. GHeb-15 Some scholars say that this quote is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. However, the evidence is scanty and therefore must be placed in the ‘possible’ category.

Hegesippus
A contemporary of Irenaeus, Hegesippus was a master of Syriac and Hebrew. He was familiar with Jewish oral tradition as well as Hebrew Christianity, and, more particularly, the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-16 This fragment directly cites the Gospel of the Hebrews and is therefore in the ‘highly probable’ category.

Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria was the successor of Pantaenus, and thus had access to the Gospel of the Hebrews as Matthew originally wrote it in Hebrew script.

GHeb-17 and 18 and 19 These three will be treated together, as they are from the same work, the Stromateis, and refer to the Gospel of the Hebrews. Waitz and others assign these fragments to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the evidence suggests that it is ‘probable’ that they are correct. From Clements’s text it would appear that these teachings are familiar to Clements’s readers. ‘Seeking until one finds’ and ‘seeing God in your brother’ are themes developed in the Canonical New Testament. Also, it is clear that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, or it least its teachings, were known to the writers of the Gospel of Thomas.

Origen
Origen is considered one of the greatest scholars of the Early Church. He had an extensive knowledge of Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. He spent most of his life in Alexandria, but later resided in Caesarea, which is where he died.

GHeb-20 This fragment cites the fact that the gospel in Hebrew script was written by Matthew. Most scholars put it into the ‘highly probable’ category.

GHeb-21 This fragment was developed in the ‘Judgment’ of the Gospel of Matthew. However, because it so strongly reflects the poverty theme of the Ebionites, it probably originated with their oral tradition and it is only ‘possible’ that it was ever part of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-22 Origen cites this fragment as being “of the Hebrews” and since there is no evidence to the contrary, it is ‘highly probable’ that he is correct. This fragment is very important to literary scholars, as this story is found in the Canonical Matthean Gospel. The Matthean redactor treats his Hebrew source in the same way he treats his Marken source. It is tightened, simplified, and unnecessary details such as “scratched his head” are omitted. It is made less Hebrew in nature, for such terms as “sons of Abraham” are omitted. So is the word ‘frates’. According to higher critics, this proves that the quotation originated fred the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-23 It is ‘highly probable’ that this fragment is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, as Origen cites it as his source and there is no evidence to contradict him. It is apparent from GHeb-23 that the Gospel of the Hebrews is well known to the Christians at Origen’s time and is causing theological problems that need to be dealt with. Still, the use of the phrase “if any accept” shows that they are not the majority, or maybe they are, but they simply see GHeb as a threat to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the virgin birth and the maleness of God. Spong and others have argued that “these doctrines” were developed later in Church history. Higher criticism points to GHeb being composed in Hebrew, for Hebrew has the Holy Spirit as female while Latin and Greek do not. Finally, the Holy Spirit being female and the mother of Christ became more and more abhorrent to the Roman Catholic Church and is an important factor in the Gospel of the Hebrews being excluded in the Canon.

Eusebius
Of all the scholars of the early Church, Eusebius is probably in the best position to give us reliable information about the New Testament corpus and the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. The reason for this is three-fold: 1.     Eusebius was born 227 years after the crucifixion of our Lord. This puts him in the best period of time to know extensively about the early Church writings. A hundred years earlier and one is too close to see the entire picture objectively. A hundred years later and one is too far away from the events.

2.     He was baptized at Caesarea. This mean he was living in the right place and at the right time to give us the best possible information regarding the New Testament corpus that had been developing over the past two centuries. In the city where Origen had resided and taught at the end of his life, Eusebius was heir to the scholarly material collected by Origen and his predecessors.

3.     He was the Church’s first comprehensive historian. Over his life he wrote a meticulous, detailed and extensive history from the time of Jesus to his own time. It can fairly be said he was the Josephus Flavius of Christianity.

Eusebius catalogues all the Church writings of the first two and a half centuries of the New Testament corpus with a view to their authority and reliability. Many of the works he wrote extensively about are no longer in existence, including the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-24 It is ‘probable’ that this was from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-25

This is an authoritative source that the Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew before he left to preach to other nations. Since modern Higher Critics and Epiphanius agree this could not be the Canonical Matthean Gospel, and that only the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew in the Hebrew language, this excerpt ‘probably’ refers to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-26 This shows clearly that Eusebius knows of both the Canonical Matthean Gospel, which is in Greek, and the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, of which Hebrew Christians are especially delighted.

GHeb-27 Eusebius makes a very important correction. Irenaeus states that the Hebrew Ebionite community uses only one Gospel, which he calls the Gospel of Matthew. Eusebius knows the confusion this can cause. Therefore, he corrects GHeb-3 and GHeb-5 by changing the name of the original Hebrew Matthew to the Gospel of the Hebrews. From Eusebius on the Greek Matthean Gospel written by an unknown redactor is often called the Gospel of Matthew by the Church and the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is called by many the Gospel of the Hebrews is. Confused?

GHeb-28 Scholars place this in the ‘possible’ category due to its lack of detail.

GHeb-29 It is ‘probable’ that this quotation from Eusebius is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, as Eusebius knew that it was the only Gospel used among the Hebrew Christians written in Hebrew script.

Didymus
Didymus was a disciple of Origen. He was also the Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Therefore, he had access to the scholarly works collected by his predecessors, Pantaenus, Clement and Origen. Thus he was familiar with and had access to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-30 It is highly ‘probable’ that this reference is to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, as we know Didymus has access to it and he cites it as his source regarding people with two names. It is also obvious that the people to whom he is speaking have full knowledge of this Gospel and recognize it as authoritative. What we cannot know is what aspect of this Gospel makes him believe that Matthew was not called Levi, or why he would consider the Gospel of the Hebrews more authoritative than the Gospel of Luke.

Epiphanius
Epiphanius was the Bishop of Salamis, Cyprus, and spent most of his life battling heretics. The Panarion is particularly helpful in understanding Hebrew Christianity during a time in which the Church was moving away from its Jewish roots.

GHeb-31 Epiphanius was probably the first to write of the Hebrew Christian community called the Nazarenes. They had a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews, written by “Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly preserved among them as it was first written in Hebrew letters”. Thus, it would appear they added little of their oral tradition to this Gospel, making it quite reliable. According to Epiphanius, the community of the Nazarenes existed in Beroea, Syria. This group began when the disciples moved from Jerusalem, for they believed that Jerusalem would be destroyed.

According to the Panarion Chapter 29, Epiphanius states that they were not Jews, but Hebrew Christians. The reason the Jews resented them was that they had been Jews of Hebrew stock but preach that Jesus is the Messiah. Except for the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, no other Gospel is mentioned by Epiphanius, and he certainly does not allude directly or indirectly to the Nazarenes composing a Gospel.

GHeb-32 This states that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew in Hebrew and was the only Gospel to be composed in Hebrew. This confirms what literary critics have suspected. The Canonical Matthean Gospel was not composed in Hebrew nor did Matthew write it. Rather, Matthew wrote only the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-33 – 38 All these excerpts are taken from the Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew. There is no doubt of this as one reads Panarion Chapter 30.

The problem is that Epiphanius alleges that the Ebionites adulterated the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Literary analysis has not been conclusve.

Of particular interest is GHeb 35 (see also GHeb10) for it solves the mystery of the Letter to the Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "Today you are my Son; I have become your Father"

Only the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew has the word "today". Therefore the Letter to the Hebrews was based on the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew for the Gospels in the Bible do not contain the word "today".

Jerome
Born 298 years after the crucifixion, Jerome is reputed to be one of the great scholars of the Church. Since the 8th century he was considered to be a Father of the Church and Pius XII found him to be an indisputable witness to the mind of the Church in dealing with the Word of God. Literary scholars agree that he is our greatest source of information regarding the the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Jerome explains that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew letters for Hebrew Christians. The library in Caesarea acquired the original work, of which Jerome knew or might even have seen. Yet it was the Nazarene community of Beroea that gave him a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Jerome translated this copy from Hebrew into Greek and thought of GHeb as being authoritative. However, it must be noted that Roman Catholics and Protestants view Jerome’s works very differently. Roman Catholics view him as if he were some kind of SAINT (quite literally), while many of the Protestant writers have called his work into question. Some Protestants not only maintain that Jerome’s works reflect a lack of scholarly intellect, but go so far as to say they show a lack of Christian integrity. It is maintained that he falsified information and that he even lied about translating the Gospel of the Hebrews into Greek. The historical evidence shows that Jerome enjoyed a good reputation among his contemporaries, had a superior intellect, a Christian education and a deep commitment to the scholarly truth. Today, the writings of Jerome are generally considered to be authoritative.

GHeb-39 The phrase “our bread of the morrow” indicated that this fragment had Hebrew origins, or possibly even Syriac. It further illustrates that Jerome believes that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the "authentic" Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. It is ‘highly probable’ that it was part of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew because of GHeb 47.

GHeb-40 This fragment was written in Hebrew script. Since Epiphanius states that only the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, Biblical scholars would place this in the ‘probable’ category.

GHeb-41 Probable. GHeb-42 ‘Highly probable’, as the Gospel of the Hebrews is cited. (See discussion on “bodiless demon” in GHeb 4.)

GHeb 43 and 44 It is ‘highly probable’ that these excerpts were part of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Jerome says that this is his source and he is dealing with a problem that arises from the Hebrew language. More importantly, he spends considerable effort to explain away a female Holy Spirit. This indicates that both he and the reader recognize the authority of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

To Jerome, a female Holy Spirit, a Jesus with two mothers (Mary and the Holy Spirit), and the concept of the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary making her with child are clearly disturbing. Yet Jerome feels he cannot dismiss the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as spurious.

GHeb-45 ‘Highly probable’ – The Gospel is cited.

GHeb-46 ‘Highly probable’ – GHeb cited as source. It should be noted that GHeb 46, 48, 57 and 58 all attest that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was translated from Hebrew into Greek.

GHeb-47 ‘Highly probable’ as the Gospel is cited by Jerome.

GHeb-48 See GHeb-46, above. It is also important to note Jerome maintained this Gospel is “authentic” Matthew.

GHeb-49 Epiphanius maintains that only Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. This excerpt seems to confirm this fact. Thus, it is ‘probable’ GHeb-49 is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-50 ‘Possible’.

GHeb-51 ‘Highly probable,’ as Jerome cites this as his source.

GHeb-52 ‘Possible.’ No gospel is actually cited by Jerome, but see GHeb-53.

GHeb-53 ‘Probable,’ if one accepts that only one Gospel was composed in Hebrew letters.

GHeb-54 ‘Probable,’ if there is only one Hebrew Gospel.

GHeb-55 ‘Highly probable.’ This citation clears up many problems. It affirms that the Gospel in Hebrew script is indeed the Gospel of the Hebrews. It also states that this Gospel was written by Matthew. It further states that there is a transcript of the Gospel of the Hebrews in the library at Caesarea as well as at the Nazarene community. It is clear that although Jerome and others refer to the Gospel of the Hebrews as Authentic Matthew, the Hebrew Gospel, etc., that they have only the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in mind.

Jerome mentions that the Gospel of the Hebrews is sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Apostles. This is not the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, which has nothing to do with the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-56

‘Highly probable,’ for the Gospel is cited as the source.

GHeb-57 ‘Highly probable.’ This confirms that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew script, for the Hebrew Christians.

NB: Here it should be noted that much confusion has been caused by the term “Jewish Christian” which is an oxymoron. Judaism is a religion that accepts the Old Testament but does not accept Jesus. Christianity is a religion that accepts the Old Testament and Jesus. Hebrew, on the other hand refers to one’s language, culture, even ethnic origin. Thus, there are Hebrew Gospels, Hebrew Christians and Hebrew Jews, but never Jewish Christians nor Jewish Gospels. Sloppy semantics seem to be a major source of difficulty.

A second error of semantics takes place when GHeb 57 is translated as “permitted me to copy it.” Some scholars then argue that there is no evidence Jerome went to the Nazarene community to copy it, thus the conclusion is inevitable that it was not the Nazarenes who communicated knowledge of this gospel to him.

Sloppy semantics makes it sound as if Jerome was only given permission to go there personally. Actually, the permission was broader than that. Here it is important to go to the original text and study it carefully.

GHeb-58 See GHeb-46.

GHeb-59 ‘Possible.

Burnett Hillman Streeter

 * Burnett Hillman Streeter, The Four Gospels : A Study of Origins. - He shows that Canonical Matthew was "probably" NOT written by Matthew in Hebrew.

P. Parker

 * P. Parker, The Gospel Before Mark - He raises the "possiblity" that their was an Authentic Gospel of Matthew . Thus he provides a meeting of the minds between old and modern writers.

*R. Brown

 * R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah. - After reading Brown one comes to the conclusion the this Wiki-article is a true and objective reflection of what we know of the Authentic Gospel of Matthew spoken of by the Church Fathers.

This article is basicly sound. And is mere reporting the work done over the years. There is no part of this article which is original research.

--Poorman 07:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

moved from main page
No Original Research

This article is now a fair summary of Biblical Writers from olden times to now! Just because you quote writers from long ago does not make it original research.

Rewrite by--Poorman 05:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Please read discussion page with care.

Please take time to read before voting.I have tried to answer all Ril's questions.

--Poorman 06:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC

QUESTION

Why was the following deleted:

 * It was deleted because you mixed it with votes. It shouldn't be here still but at least it is under the discussion section now and doesn't get in the way of the VfD which is going on. gren 12:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA ABUSE Ril, 81.156.177.21 etc.etc.

Our "Angels" have been observing Ril, 81.156.177.21, Cheesedreames, Fishsupper, Lir, Doc. etc. for some time. His rude style and poor writing give him away. He has abused many articles been blocked many times but keeps reinventing himself.

RIL et al - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves.

and

WARNING: This article is being watched due to sock puppet and other abuses by Ril, 81.156.177.21 etc---Watcher1- 00:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Having just looked at the edit history, this is more important then the article itself.Indeed the edit history clears mellisa from what Ril has said. I would ask for a full WIKI INVESTIGATION INTO RIL AND 81.156.177.21.

--Poorman 07:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

More Ril Abuse
Don't edit whole page to distort truth. I am not a sock puppet but a new wikipedia user. What you are doing is wrong...scary. I need help.

Violated
This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Wikipedia. To have Ril and his bullies succeed makes me feel sick.--Melissadolbeer 11:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No original research
Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.

 * You might like to read the whole of WP:NOR. It requires that one of the following is true
 * the ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal
 * the ideas have become newsworthy: they have been independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).
 * Neither of these are true for your article. It is original research.    19:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

yet more extensive comments moved from vote
1. A large source text: Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.

2. Eusebius: Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue. Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue. However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius. I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.

3.  Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
 * Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. (On Illustrious Men 3)

He further wrote,
 * In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew

(Commentary on Matthew 2)

Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH. What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article. What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.

No original research Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.

Sock-puppets: See Melissa's response to sock-puppet allegations

--Melissa

Google
The debate about the authenticity of whichever Matthew is fascinating and all that. I really believe this sort of information should go into an encyclopedia. The question as I see it is about the format, for instance efforts to clean the page up. In particular, the question to be decided is, should there be a page concerning "Authentic Matthew"? Apparently some Wikipedians have been laboring the article. I've noticed that the page is linked all over the place, to anything related to the canonical Matthew, whether its authenticity is discussed or not, often as an imbedded and parenthesized "see also", and even on pages related to authenticity in general or simply the letter M. But if some members are overzealous, it doesn't make sense to punish the Wikipedia for their efforts. Should Authentic Matthew exist in some form?

To answer that, it makes sense to weigh other sources on the subject. Curious, I also wanted to see others' opinions and eccentric theories. But the problem with a Google search is that there are so many mirrors, and the phrase "Authentic Matthew" appears in so many Wikipedia articles, that it's difficult to find independent webpages. Pages were filtered with the minus directive to exclude wikified sources containing "GNU", "disambiguation" and "external links", and specific wiki pages with unrelated information like "morse code". The result? There is one page voting in favor, on the topic of infidelity or something. There is a repeated article that uses the words "authentic Matthew" in the correct context. In neither case is the A capitalized. There are some other biblical pages in which the two words do not refer to a missing gospel, and many in which punctuation separates the two words. And there is a bunch of other stuff like apparel.

This didn't seem right, so I found a couple of really thorough sites on the synoptic problem and searched them using "site:" in Google. Lots of authentic stuff, lots of Matthews, but otherwise no luck. Apparently, Wikipedia has more to say about "Authentic Matthew" than the rest of the web. Now it's time to cast my vote! Davilla 05:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments moved to talk on 17th at 8:44
1. A large source text: Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.

2. Eusebius: Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue. Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue. However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius. I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.

3.  Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
 * Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. (On Illustrious Men 3)

He further wrote,
 * In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew

(Commentary on Matthew 2)

Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH. What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article. What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.

No original research Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.

Sock-puppets: See Melissa's response to sock-puppet allegations Please note that my response seems to have disappeared: can someone get it back?

--Melissa

Your "response" was an inappropriate use of Wikipedia article space, so it was deleted. Try something like User:Melissadolbeer/Response to sock-puppet allegations, which is allowed. 07:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Reply to VFD
As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof.

 * A large source text: Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.

 * Eusebius: Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue. Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue.  However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius.  I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.

 *  Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
 * Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. (On Illustrious Men 3)

He further wrote,
 * In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew

(Commentary on Matthew 2)

 * Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH. What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article.  What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.

 * No original research Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

 * The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.

 * Sock-puppets: See Melissa's response to sock-puppet allegations Please note that my response seems to have disappeared: can someone get it back?

--Melissa --Melissadolbeer 08:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Your "response" was an inappropriate use of Wikipedia article space, so it was deleted (by someone other than me, b.t.w.). Try something like User:Melissadolbeer/Response to sock-puppet allegations, which is allowed. 07:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Moved to talk 16:18 on 18th July 2005
As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof.

 * A large source text: Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.

 * Eusebius: Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue. Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue.  However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius.  I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.

 *  Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
 * Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. (On Illustrious Men 3)

He further wrote,
 * In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew

(Commentary on Matthew 2)

 * Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH. What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article.  What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.

 * No original research Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

 * The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.

 * Sock-puppets: See Melissa's response to sock-puppet allegations Please note that my response seems to have disappeared: can someone get it back?

--Melissa --Melissadolbeer 08:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Moved to talk 07:40 on 19th July 2005
As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof.

 * A large source text: Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.

 * Eusebius: Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue. Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue.  However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius.  I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.

 *  Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
 * Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. (On Illustrious Men 3)

He further wrote,
 * In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew

(Commentary on Matthew 2)

 * Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH. What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article.  What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.

 * No original research Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

 * The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.

 * Sock-puppets: See User:Melissadolbeer/Melissa's response to sock-puppet allegations Please note that my response seems to have disappeared: can someone get it back?

--Melissa --Melissadolbeer 08:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Question for Ril
One of your comments on the main page is: "Doc glasgow (above) has a PhD in New Testament (i.e. one of the Peers that Peer Review would involve), and says it is original research, and is a collection of scraps from other articles put together solely to push one POV." I don't have a Ph. D. and I've never even read the complete Book of Matthew. Can you explain, to someone at my level of knowledge, how an article could be both "original research" and "a collection of scraps from other articles"? If it uses information from other articles, it seems that there's (at a minimum) some material that's not original research. That's why my current vote is to keep the article and weed out the original research.

Incidentally, the first person from either side who uses the word "sockpuppet" in this section of the talk page will be required to go edit Encarta for a month. Let's have at least one little corner of this mess that sticks to the issues. JamesMLane 08:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Basically, the original research stems from the manner in which the scraps are drawn together, designed to assert a POV (that Gospel of the Hebrews IS Gospel of the Ebionites IS Gospel of the Nazarenes IS the original form of Gospel of Matthew), which is almost universally discredited in the field. 20:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * That would suggest that merger into the main article isn't justified, because the theory doesn't merit extensive attention there. Instead, the main article could mention the theory, or perhaps just give a "See also" listing for this article, and this article could summarize the theory while quoting a named source for the assessment that it's "almost universally discredited in the field". JamesMLane 01:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The theory was one made by Jerome, the other articles mention that. It has been universally discounted by academics. There is no modern notable case for it being accepted, therefore describing it with anything more than a passing sentence is original research.     08:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see any connection there. Phlogiston theory is universally discounted these days, but we can write about it without doing original research.  See No original research (OK to include a claim with "few (or possibly just one or two) adherents").  The point about a theory being discounted isn't that it thereby somehow becomes original research, but that its subminority status affects how much prominence it should be given.  If it's "almost universally discredited in the field", that means it doesn't deserve exposition in the main article.  It can have a "See also" link to its own article, though, just as Phlogiston theory is listed in the "See also" list in Combustion.  Of course, the separate article, in addition to presenting the theory, should note that it no longer has any currency; ideally, there would be an account of how and why the experts came to decide against it. JamesMLane 09:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but Jerome didn't present it as a thesis. Jerome presented the information he knew, conflating the books together, which (in the opinion of the vast majority of academics in the field) was quite likely to have been an innocent mistake due to lack of information. This is not the same as Phlogiston theory at all, which was set up as a serious rival, rather than someone going "chat is the french word for talking", which is clearly not something to be written about, even in the french wikipedia, because "chat" is the french word for "cat".     18:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Can you support that what Jer. wrote on the authentic Gospel of Matthew has been universally discounted by academics. How could they do that with out a copy of the doc? --Kendea
 * The above user is a sockpuppet of Melissadolbeer.     18:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Bzzzzzt! Off to Encarta with you, Ril.  You can't say you weren't warned. JamesMLane 18:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You can't say you have any authority to make such a demand. Please note, I am not Ril     19:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My authority to make the demand can be summarized as follows: j/k. You are right that I'd overlooked the distinction between Ril and -Ril-.  I apologize to both of you.  I suggest that whichever of you registered the name second should change user names. JamesMLane 08:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I wanted the name Ril, as its a nickname my friends use, someone had already taken it so I took -Ril-. Ril is apparantly someone's sockpuppet (according to the arbitration committee), and has been permanently banned, so it isn't really an issue, other than that I should not be confused with them.     13:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * No. That's most likely just a lie to avoid the VFD's result.     06:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * N.b. only the arbitration committee can "adjourn", suspend, or postpone VFDs, and only then by an injunction. There is none, so this VFD must close at the normally allocated moment.     06:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * While I hope nothing but the best for your mother-in-law/mother, and fully support adjournment of any arbitration (none of which is presently extant) for such a reason, I would like to ask (i.e., demand) that any conflict of interest discussion of arbitrators be left to any relevant RfAr discussion. As yet, I have not seen any indication as to why Theresa should be excluded from voting in an RfAr between you/se and -Ril-, but should such evidence be presented in the proper forum, I would expect Theresa to recuse herself, without prejudice, from voting. In light of that, if you're attempting to cast Theresa in a negative light here, you'll receive no kudos (although the same cannot be said for your negative characterizations of -Ril-, who seems to have something of a vandetta against you, for whatever reason, which I expect to be explained COHERENTLY and WITH COMPLETE CITATIONS HERE as soon as he makes it back to this page. Tomer TALK 08:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * As you asked - citations.
 * The following users are Melissadolbeer's sockpuppets created specifically to preserve the article - check their contribution history and edit summaries - Poorman (contribs), Watcher1 (contribs), -Watcher1- (contribs), Goodboy (contribs), 202.176.97.230 (contribs), Angel77 (contribs), -Angel77- (contribs), 202.176.184.118 (contribs), 202.176.97.116 (contribs), 203.144.210.225 (contribs), Teenangel (contribs), Mikefar (contribs), -Johnny- (contribs), Ejhardy (contribs), Kendea (contribs), Jlchan (contribs)
 * The rate of appearance is roughly 1 sockpuppet per day. This is totally inappropriate behaviour. Also, creating so many sockpuppets just to preserve the article, which should be argued for on its own merits, convinces me beyond any doubt whatsoever, that not only is it original research, but that it is also pushing some POV that melissadolbeer wishes to push.     17:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea why Theresa Knott would be considered to have a "special relationship" with me?     16:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I was personally considering proposing to remove the VfD tag on this article, as well as proposing a one-month editing ban on both User:-Ril- and the various editors whom -Ril- claims are sockpuppets of whomever. This article is clearly at the core of a much bigger argument between at least two editors, and as such, their relationship needs to be worked out before anything constructive can EVER take place wrt this article. Meanwhile, I think going forward with a vote on whether to keep or discard this article will negatively/positively reflect on n/either party in what is clearly a conflict of much greater scope. I move to suspend this vote until such time as the relevant RfAr is resolved. (Without prejudice, I also vote to take both parties, but especially -Ril-, out behind the woodshed for a sound spanking. This entire mishegas is utterly unseemly, and does nothing but serve the best interests of those who hold the entire WP project in disdain.) Tomer TALK 08:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * N.b. You may NOT remove VFD tags until a VFD is closed.
 * Which is why I didn't. Tomer TALK  17:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * This move to "suspend" VFD is purely a callous one by Melissadolbeer because she doesn't like the way it is going, and I have nothing but contempt for such behaviour seeking to abuse VFD's process. It is my opinion, that a more likely truth is, that Melissadolbeer, a school teacher, has a holiday booked, it being end of term, and will be unable to sockpuppet during that period, consequently requiring suspension so that this does not detriment her position. Articles can always be put to Votes for Undeletion once the VFD is complete, there is no reason to suspend it.    16:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not exactly correct. VfU is only a move to put the article back on VfD if the article is determined on technicality to have been deleted improperly.  That said, I still think you do yourself and your "side" a great disservice by arguing with the sockpuppets and by running around behind everyone who votes "keep" like a tattle-tale, asking them to change their vote.  I note that you have not run around behind everyone who votes "delete" telling them all about your "problems" with the socks, etc., and thanking them for their vote.  From where I'm sitting, it appears far more likely that the reason all the socks are showing up is to have additional names fighting against the vitriol you've unleashed.  It looks to me like you've created a problem editor by the fierceness of your onslaught against hir.  Tomer TALK  17:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment and suggestion to closing admin. This debate has resulted in more heat than light. However, it does actually matter, since references to 'Authentic Matthew' have been inserted into other, more important Biblical Studies articles, giving it an unmerited prominence (and IMHO distorting WP's presentation of the discipline). I have some knowledge in the field - and I had intended to set down my thoughts for others, but I withdrew rather than poke a stick in a hornet's nest of sockpuppetry, accusations, flaming, and trolling (by whom I leave for others to judge).
 * A proper informed debate on the article does need to happen and reach a resolution -'freezing' it for long, whilst it might (??) cool individuals, does Wikipedia content no favours! I'd suggest that this current nomination be terminated (quickly) and another begun (soon), in which -Ril- on one hand and Mellisodobeer (and associates) on the other are each invited to make a statement then withdraw (on that basis I'd chip in my bit too) - and then some disinterested party (not -Ril-) monitor the debate. --Doc (?) 08:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the sanest and sagest suggestion rendered to date (including my own several "contributions" even). The POV-warriors who have brought this finally to VfD should be permitted to say their piece and then SIT DOWN AND LET EVERYONE ELSE SPEAK. Tomer TALK 09:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * This article should not be deleted until we find out who is in the wrong. ALSO NOBODY HAS SAID ANYTHING BAD ABOUT Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) EXCEPT THAT SHE HAS HELPED RIL IN THE PAST. --Jlchan 11:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Above user is a sockpuppet (ZERO PRIOR EDITS)     16:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Nobody says anything bad about Theresa because everyone's scared of her. She can reach you wereëver you try to hide.  Run!!! Quick!!! Here she comes!!!  Tomer TALK  17:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The relevance of the article is independent of "who is in the wrong" for edit wars of the article. However, I concede that for fairness, it may be necessary for a "disinterested party [to] monitor the debate" and avoid edit wars of the debate itself. (Am I correct that deletions objected to are primarily the same single chunk of material repeatedly moved from this page to talk?) Davilla 13:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * N.b. VFD procedure does not contain procedure for a "rebuttal section", but it does specify that extensive discussion goes in talk.
 * N.b. In the same edit, Melissadolbeer's sockpuppets are also deleting all the comments marking users as sockpuppets (e.g. user has n prior edits). It is standard procedure in VFD to mark suspected sockpuppets, due to lack of prior edits, as such. Removal (by Melissadolbeer's socks) of such comments can only possibly serve to attempt to hide that the users are sockpuppets, which is pretty much conclusive evidence that they are.     17:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment to closing admin. This is a VFD. A set of votes. Once a user has cast their vote, their presence is unimportant. The purpose of VFD is to determine consensus. Neither Melissadolbeer, Me, or sockpuppets, need to be present for this to happen. Even if we both find ourselves in a warzone (I am currently somewhat trapped inside a police bomb cordon resulting from today's london explosions - the coffee is nice though), I see absolutely no reason why this should prevent other people from being able to vote, which is all that VFD is about. There is no reason to suspend or postpone this - it does not require me, or melissadolbeer, to be present. This is about determining the will of the community, and not that of me, or melissadolbeer.     16:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


text:
Saudi Arabian–Kuwaiti neutral zone

The Saudi Arabian–Kuwaiti neutral zone, also known as the Divided Zone, was an area of 5,770 km2 between the borders of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that was left undefined when the border was established by the Uqair Convention of 2 December 1922.

According to Daniel Yergin, "The Neutral Zone was the two thousand or so square miles of barren desert that had been carved out by the British in 1922 in the course of drawing a border between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In order to accommodate the Bedouins, who wandered back and forth between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and for whom nationality was a hazy concept, it was agreed that the two countries would share sovereignty over the area."

In the area, which was later called the "Neutral Zone" or "Divided Zone", the Uqair Convention stated that "the Government of Najd and Kuwait will share equal rights until through the good offices of the Government of Great Britain a further agreement is made between Najd and Kuwait concerning it".

However, there was little interest in a more definitive settlement in the so-called "Neutral Zone" until the discovery, in 1938, of oil in the Burgan (Burqan) of Kuwait. With the possibility of oil discovery within the "Neutral Zone" itself, concessions were granted in 1948–1949 by each government to Aminoil and Pacific Western Oil Corporation. Oil was discovered in March 1953. Later the two countries exploited the oil under a joint operating agreement.

In 1957, Saudi Arabia signed a concession agreement with the Japanese-owned Arab Oil Co., and Kuwait signed in 1958. That concession expired in 2000. The company made its first offshore discovery in January 1960.

The partitioning negotiations commenced shortly after the rulers of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia met and decided, in October 1960, that the Neutral Zone should be divided. On 7 July 1965, the two governments signed an agreement (which took effect on 25 July 1966) to partition the Neutral Zone adjoining their respective territories. A demarcation agreement dividing the Neutral Zone was signed on 17 December 1967 but did not formally take effect until the exchange of instruments and signing which took place in Kuwait on 18 December 1969. Ratification followed on 18 January 1970, and the agreement was published in the Kuwaiti Official Gazette on 25 January 1970.

The zone was never assigned an ISO 3166 code since it was partitioned before the adoption of ISO 3166 in 1974.

The area was quickly, but briefly, overrun during the First Gulf War by the Iraqi forces in 1991 after they invaded and occupied Kuwait; however, Coalition forces composed of American and Saudi contingents repelled the Iraqi offensive and liberated the area and the rest of Kuwait.

Despite the zone being half-century gone, oil pumping is still done by agreements.

In December 2022, Saudi Aramco and Kuwait Gulf Oil Company signed a Memorandum of Understanding to jointly develop the Durra gas field, located in the neutral zone. The development aims at producing 280000000 m3 of natural gas and 84,000 barrels of LNG per day.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Saudi Arabian–Kuwaiti neutral zone


text:
User:Kerrysfrench

Wikimedia needs your help

I create small articles occasionally...but they usually require some editing. I try not to do the petty editing on every article I read, but I like to edit some pages on areas of my expertise.

--Kerrysfrench 19:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

My pages
These may be bad pages but uhh, who knows maybe I'll get better at writing theses things.

 * Helvetian War

 * Mark Arm

 * Eliot Fisk

 * The Passing of the Armies

 * Rupert the teddy bear

Article Segments I've created:

 * Viggo Mortensen(article on artwork, music, and poetry]]

Good Pages to Read(Not my work)

 * Andres Segovia
 * Catholocism
 * Christianity
 * Dave Grohl
 * Ecumenical Council
 * Grunge
 * Hinduism
 * Islam
 * John Lennon
 * Judaism
 * Kurt Cobain
 * Oskar Schindler
 * Shorthand

title: User:Kerrysfrench


text:
User talk:Kerrysfrench

(you can see my page now, I've been good) please unblock my account, it's been several months and I think I've learned my lesson! I'm not a vandal I'm just a stupid kid and I do stupid things, and I don't even want to vandalize anymore becuase it's not as entertaining as it used to be. However I am VERY annoyed when I see a spelling mistake and can't fix it.
 * Request denied per discussions below, and edits by the same person at User talk:KerrysGerman. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Green Day
Please stop arbitrarily replacing the Neo Nazism back onto the article without discussing it on the article's talk page since it appears to be a fairly controversial addition. Thanks. Jtkiefer T - 04:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Please see the notes that I have left on the page's talk page regarding your additions. Jtkiefer T - 04:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Please read about the Three Revert Rule. You can only revert an article three times in one day. You are on #4. If you do it again, you will be blocked for a day. Repeat offenses will get longer blocks. Take it to Talk:Green Day. --Golbez 04:53, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * There really isn't. It's all unsourced speculation. It's more of a blog post than encyclopedic material. --Golbez 17:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Stop reinserting the neo nazi rumors on Green Day the consensus on the talk page is to not have that information on the article, if you disagree your welcome to go there and voice your opinions, a thread has already been created to discuss it. Jtkiefer T - 06:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! -- GraemeL (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  VT hawkeye talk to me 18:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This message is regarding the page Green Day. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked You have been blocked for vandalism for 24 hours. To contest this block, add the text  on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username and IP address in your email.

Do not erase this page or any of the warnings on it. Doing so is also considered vandalism. Izehar 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

From the views of this user, you can tell that Catholic fundamentalists are as dangerous as Muslim fundamentalists. And anti-american isn't the same as Nazi, on the contrary. George Bush would be almost as bad as Hitler if he weren't so stupid. And, as Hitler, he bought his votes. Belard 01:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't vandalize the wikipedia articles, or its user pages. Also, don't sign your posts with other users' names. If you have a great need to express your views, start a blog. Belard 14:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike Dirnt
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Owen× ☎  22:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Green Day, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jtkiefer T 22:09, 13 January 2006 (U

I wish to contest this block because I believe my edits are a mixture of legitimate corrections/additions, and vandalism.

 * I couldn't find a single legitimate edit in your last 15 edits since your previous block expired. Owen× ☎  00:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a incredibly larger penis than OwenX, therefore I should be unblocked immediatley.

 * Request for unblock denied (for reasons well known). If you wish ot discuss this matter, you may take it to IRC or to the mailing lists. Izehar 18:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Green Day and Neo Nazism
Evidence from Rolling Stones' magazine the 2004 issue had shown evidence that the following accusations of Green Day are true. When Green Day appeared live on TRL they denied these accusations; however, when interviewing "Tre Cool" he admitted to most of the accussations along with admitting he in fact was a Neo Nazi. June 2004. Rolling Stone Magazine. Article 24. Page 9.

The Song "When I Come Around" is interpreted as Hitler taunting fearful Jews to not cry, becuase he will soon arrive to kill them. In the song "Reject"(Nimrod) the lyrics contain the words,"To Hell and back to Hell again, you're not my type, your not my type(refering to Jews), I do what I want and you do what your told". "Nice Guys Finish Last" contains the lyrics "Nice guys finish last, your running out of gas", which refers to a Holocaust victim holding on to their last breath of air, while being gassed. - - "Having a blast" is a narrative in which the author states "I won't listen to anyone's last words", reffering to Hitler's final moments.another part of the song says "There's nothind left for you to say. Soon you'll be dead anyway," which can be seen as Hitler speaking to his next victims. With these hidden song meanings, one can easily arrive at the conclusion that the band espouses Adolf Hitler, and his murderous deeds. - User:Kerryisfrench

Image Tagging for Image:Andres_Segovia_Snapshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Andres_Segovia_Snapshot.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 08:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kerrysfrench


text:
Talk:Hood (cobra anatomy)

Pretty shallow page ... I created it while disambiguating "hood" and finding two references to a meaning that didn't exist. I don't think it's used apart from for cobras. Flammifer 07:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Needs disambiguation. "Hood" is also used for those head growths on fancy goldfish. I stumbled across this page when clicking through a link from the Goldfish page and was very surprised to be redirected to the Cobra page. 24.74.177.118 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
This article is just a short cobra specific blurb that hasn't been touched since 2005. Is there any reason for this page to exist?Ricree101 07:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge: Even if the page hasn't been touched since 2005, it can still exist in the related Cobra article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutherfordjigsaw (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hood (cobra anatomy)


text:
François Francoeur

François Francœur (8 September 1698 – 5 August 1787) was a French composer and violinist from the late Baroque era and the Classical  era.

Biography
François Francœur was born in Paris, the son of Joseph Francœur, a basse de violon player and member of the 24 violons du roy. Francœur was instructed in music by his father and joined the Académie Royale de Musique as a violinist at age 15. After travel and performances in the principal European culture centres, he returned to Paris as a member of the Concert Spirituel. Francœur was appointed to the 24 violons du roy in 1730 and Maître de musique (music instructor) to the Opera in 1739.

In 1744, he and François Rebel, his lifelong colleague and friend, were appointed inspecteurs musicaux (music directors) of the Paris Opéra—centre of the French music world—becoming responsible for all phases of its management in 1757. Rebel and Francœur faced numerous challenges in their joint roles, including a large financial deficit, lack of discipline, as well as handling contentious disagreements between traditionalists who favored French operatic tragedies and its mythological themes versus partisans of Italian opera's simpler lyricism and contemporary subject matter, known as the Querelle des Bouffons.

King Louis XV appointed Francœur as his Music Master in 1760, ennobling Rebel in the same year and Francœur himself in May 1764. Disaster struck when the Paris Opéra was consumed in flames on 6 April 1763, and the two directors were forced to resign in 1767 in its aftermath. However, Louis XV asked Rebel to return to the Opéra as Administrateur général in 1772, a position he held until shortly before his death three years later. Francœur resigned himself from the music world, living in retirement until his own death in 1787 at age 89. He was thus spared the fate of his nephew, Louis-Joseph Francœur, Master of the King's Chamber music and orchestra director, who was imprisoned during the French Revolution until the fall of Robespierre in 1794.

Compositions
His surviving compositions, published in Propyläen der Musik, V. 2 (1989), include two books of violin sonatas, 10 operas (including one about the life of Skanderbeg) and some ballets, created jointly with François Rebel. Thus he is often quoted as a relatively rare case of collaboration in musical composition.

Forgeries and misattribution
A cello sonata in E from 1726 in is often incorrectly attributed to Francœur starting from Jean-Delphin Alard's 1863 error. The sonata was actually written originally for violin by François's brother, Louis Francœur instead. Additionally, Arnold Trowell published the sonata as a forgery in 1924 in which he removed Louis's second movement and replaced it with a Allegro Vivo movement of Trowell's own creation. Griffiths (2012) finds his forged movement more Italian than French in style even though it is 'skillfully' written and finds similarities between it and Daniel van Goens's Scherzo (Op. 12) as well as Trowell's own Scherzo (Op. 12 No. 2). Although not an outright replacement, Trowell also significantly altered the final Gigue movement as well while keeping Louis Francœur's original harmony. The first, third, and fourth movements were not changed in the Trowell publication.

Fritz Kreisler, an Austrian contemporary of Trowell, also forged his Sicilienne and Rigaudon composition under François Francœur's name.

Recordings
Recordings of Francœur's works include a noteworthy LP, Music for the Wedding of the Count d'Artois, on the Musical Heritage label, and the Cypres CD 1626 Suites de Simphonies, including what may be the same set of works by Francœur. Hugo Reyne and La Simphonie du Marais also recorded the Symphonies pour le Festin Royal du Comte d'Artois. The opera Pirame et Thisbé, a collaborative work with Rebel, was released in 2008, and Zélindor, Roi des Sylphes and Le Trophée were released in 2009.

There is a 2003 recording of Francœur's Sonata in E for Cello and Piano on Delos by Zuill Bailey which is of the Trowell forgery (see above section).

Musicological and stylistic notes
Special emphasis is placed on the above recordings for musicological as well as aesthetic reasons. In the transition from ages relatively little interested in earlier music (19th and early 20th century) to an age where a professional specialization in "ancient music" has arisen, composers like Francœur, who had relatively modest instrumental production or did not in other ways attract special professional attention, have often remained in obscurity. It is easy to see from Francœur's inventiveness and infectious rhythmic drive why he was esteemed in his lifetime. Had Louis XVI had him as a music instructor earlier in his life, instead of, as biographers suggest, a musical mediocrity who chilled his interest in the violin, he might have become a royal composer like Frederick the Great of Prussia.

Francœur is sometimes categorised amongst the "Classical-era" composers who avoided the "classical style of Haydn and Mozart". The surviving music of Francœur (supposedly composed close to 1773), though contemporary with that of Haydn and Mozart, shows relatively few of the courtly mannerisms that abound in classical music directly sponsored by royalty. Rather, it has more of an "advanced Rococo" character, spicing strings with creative use of wind instruments. This kind of music seems to have been especially favoured by the rising bourgeoisie and lesser aristocracy in mercantile centres like London, Hamburg, Frankfurt as well as Paris, who provided an increasing market for musical composition.

Operas (with François Rebel)

 * Pirame et Thisbé, tragédie en musique (1726)
 * Tarsis et Zélie, tragédie en musique (1728)
 * Scanderberg, tragédie en musique (1735), 33 performances
 * Le ballet de la paix, ballet héroïque (1738)
 * Les Augustales, divertissement (1744)
 * Zélindor, roi des sylphes, divertissement (1745)
 * Le trophée, divertissement (1745)
 * La félicité, ballet héroïque (1746)
 * Ismène, pastorale héroïque (1747)
 * Le prince de Noisy, ballet héroïque in 3 acts, libretto by Charles-Antoine Leclerc de La Bruère, f.p. Versailles, Théâtre des petits appartements, (1749)
 * Les génies tutélaires, divertissement (1751)

Instrumental music

 * Premier Livre de sonates à violon seul et basse continue (1720)
 * Deuxième Livre de sonates à violon seul et basse continue (1730)
 * Symphonies pour le festin royal du comte d'Artois (1773)
 * La symphonie du Marais

Other works

 * Le retour du roi, 'dialogue chanté' (1745)

title: François Francoeur


text:
Angel Corella

Angel Corella López is a Spanish former principal dancer with the American Ballet Theatre (the only Spaniard to have achieved such a position in history) and guest artist with The Royal Ballet, Kirov Ballet, New York City Ballet, La Scala and the Australian Ballet among many others. Since the 2014/2015 season, he has been the Artistic Director of Philadelphia Ballet (Formerly Pennsylvania Ballet).

Considered one of the leading dancers of his generation, he has received numerous awards including the Prix Benois de la Danse and the national award of Spain. He is also credited with ushering in a new era for male ballet in America, thanks to his appearance in the 2002 documentary Born to be Wild and successful franchise show Kings of the Dance. The New York Times said Corella gave "classical dancing, especially in the 19th-century repertory, a new image."

Having appeared on the front cover of The New York Times on various occasions, he is described as a "a dancer capable of turning performance into sensation" and as a "force of nature" by the Los Angeles Times.

After performing at the Kennedy Center Honors for the third time in 2014 he was made an official member of the artistic committee. He is the most featured dancer of the American Ballet Theatre in DVD recordings and his appearance as Prince Siegfried in the PBS presentation of Swan Lake won an Emmy Award.

Corella is the only dancer with a statue in the Madrid Wax Museum, and has both a secondary school and dance museum named after him. He has also been a judge on the Spanish version of the popular television show Mira Quien Baila.

On 22 July 2014, Philadelphia Ballet (Formerly Pennsylvania Ballet) announced that Corella has been appointed as its artistic director.

Early career
Born and raised in Madrid, Corella trained with Karemia Moreno and Víctor Ullate and began winning dance awards at a young age, including the First Prize in the National Ballet Competition of Spain in 1991 and three years later, the Grand Prix and Gold Medal at the Concours International de Danse de Paris.

When the world-renowned Russian ballerina Natalia Makarova saw the young Corella in competition, she contacted the artistic director of American Ballet Theatre and recommended that he be auditioned for the company. She described him later to the publication Dance Magazine as "exceptionally incredible… he is an angel who has been sent to us." He was accepted into ABT as a soloist in April 1995 and was promoted the following year (August 1996) to the rank of principal dancer.

Professional work
Angel Corella has performed as a guest artist with such companies as The Royal Ballet in London, the La Scala Ballet in Milan, the New York City Ballet, the Australian Ballet, the Ballet of Tokyo, the Asami Maki Ballet, Ballet Contemporaneo de Caracas, the National Ballet of Chile and the Kirov Ballet at the Mariinsky Theatre in St. Petersburg, Russia.

In recent years Corella has danced for an array of world leaders including Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen Sofía of Spain, Princess Letizia of Spain, the Duchess of Alba and United States Presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. He has on several occasions been a guest at the White House.

In 2006, Corella established the touring show Kings of the Dance alongside fellow leading men Gudrun Bojesen of The Royal Danish Ballet; Johan Kobborg of the Royal Ballet; Ethan Stiefel of ABT; and Nikolay Tsiskaridze of the Bolshoi Ballet. which premiered, at the Orange County Performing Arts Center in Costa Mesa, CA, immediately followed by an East Coast premiere at City Center. In 2007, Kings of the Dance toured to Russia with performances in St. Petersburg, Moscow, ad Perm, Russia. The next year, Angel Corella was the sole returning original cast member to perform it at the Mariinsky Festival. Since its inception, the franchise has been continued by various other dancers.

Corella also devised an annual touring group entitled Angel Corella and stars of American Ballet which performed throughout Spain for seven years.

Corella has also collaborated for gala performances with a variety of artists including actress Bette Midler, violinist Ara Malikian as well as opera singers Cecilia Bartoli and Ainhoa Arteta.

After having danced in the operatic production La Gioconda at New York's Metropolitan Opera House, Barcelona's Liceu opera house, Madrid's Teatro Real and the Teatro dell'Opera in Rome, Corella made his debut with the Paris Opera in 2013.

He has had the opportunity to partner many well-known ballerinas including Alessandra Ferri, Xiomara Reyes, Julie Kent, Gillian Murphy, Diana Vishneva, Alina Cojocaru, Nina Ananiashvili, Paloma Herrera, Irina Dvorovenko, Viktoria Tereshkina, Alina Somova, Evgenia Obraztsova, Alexandra Ansanelli, Michele Wiles, Stella Abrera, Letizia Giuliani, Leanne Benjamin and Lucia Lacarra, among others.

Encouraging of young professionals, he is a regular judge at several prestigious dance competitions such as the International Ballet and Choreography competition (Beijing) and has also taught at the various summer programs and leading dance schools including the Royal Ballet School in London.

The New York Times
Throughout his career Angel Corella has won the respect of both the notorious New York critics and international publications due to both his technical capabilities and artistic prowess.

In Corella's debut year with American Ballet Theatre, during a performance of Twyla Tharp's Americans We, The New York Times praised Corella's performance saying the ballet "explodes with this young dancer’s phenomenal bravura. Don’t miss him." Increasing interest from audience and critics alike led quickly to more demanding principal roles. In his debut as the lead in the epic ballet La Bayadere the critic read "Angel Corella was nothing short of perfect."

Described as a virtuoso for his trademark feats of endurance "extremely fast pirouettes suddenly speeding up rather than slowing down" Corella excelled in the most demanding roles of the classical repertoire. Upon reviewing his first performance in Le Corsaire, The New York Times said "This performance bought the house down!" The newspaper also praised his versatility "Mr Corella is the rare dancer who has performed magnificently in each part he has been given."

Remarking on his artistic flair, the New York Times described Corella as a "highly sophisticated artist" referencing his "finely nuanced acting" and stated that "the young Spaniard could wow audiences with multiple pirouettes, but it was his joy of dance that carried the day."

It was cited that Corella was often "the star - and the heart of the show" frequently causing the audience to erupt into "feverish applause" and that "by sheer force, he put the company one step ahead,"

In the year of his retirement from the American Ballet Theatre, The New York Times wrote "Dancers like Angel Corella are hard to come by, and that speaks to more than just the radiance of his technique. He’s generous with his talent too. "

Roles

 * Prince Siegfried in Swan Lake
 * Des Grieux in Manon
 * Romeo in Romeo and Juliet
 * Albrecht in Giselle
 * Peasant Pas de deux from Giselle
 * Colas In La Fille Mal Gardée
 * Conrad in Le Corsaire
 * Ali the Slave in Le Corsaire
 * Birbanto in Le Corsaire
 * Lensky in Onegin
 * The Prince in Cinderella
 * Solor in La Bayadère
 * The Bronze Idol in La Bayadere
 * Basilio in Don Quixote
 * Gypsy King in Don Quixote
 * Danilo in The Merry Widow
 * Camille in The Merry Widow
 * James in La Sylphide
 * Franz in Coppélia
 * Cassio in Othello
 * The Bluebird Pas de deux from The Sleeping Beauty
 * Prince Désiré in The Sleeping Beauty
 * The Nutcracker Prince in The Nutcracker
 * The Cavalier in The Nutcracker
 * Henry VIII in VIII
 * Petruchio in The Taming of the Shrew
 * The Blue Boy in Les Patineurs
 * The Rose in Le Spectre de la Rose
 * The Son in The Prodigal Son
 * The Peruvian in Gaîté Parisienne
 * Billy in Billy the Kid
 * Aktaion in Artemis
 * Petrouchka in Petrouchka
 * Her Lover in Jardin aux Lilas
 * The First Sailor in Fancy Free
 * The Third Sailor in Fancy Free
 * Aktaion in Artemis
 * The Man from the House Opposite in Pillar of Fire
 * Misgir in The Snow Maiden
 * Her Lover in Weren't We Fools?
 * The Dancemaster in The Lesson
 * Oberon in The Dream

 * Leading roles in other ballets include the following: Symphony in C, Other Dances, Push Comes to Shove, The Sleeping Beauty Act II, Within You Without You: A Tribute to George Harrison, Variations on America, Tchaikovsky Pas de Deux, Theme and Variations, The Brahms-Haydn Variations, Bruch Violin Concerto, Drink To Me Only With Thine Eyes, Ballet Imperial, Sinfonietta, Gong, Who Cares?, Variations For Four, The Leaves Are Fading, Mozartiana, Without Words, A Brahms Symphony, Stepping Stones, Americans We, and Spring and Fall, Concerto no. 1 for Piano & Orchestra, Sinatra Suite, In the Upper Room, and Allegro Brillante, among others.
 * Ballets created on Corella by today's choreographers: For 4 by Christopher Wheeldon, Non Troppo by Mark Morris, The Pied Piper by David Parsons, HereAfter by Natalie Weir & Stanton Welch, Meadow by Lar Lubovitch, Baroque Game by Robert Hill, Concerto No. 1 for Piano and Orchestra by Robert Hill, Known by Heart by Twyla Tharp, Getting Closer by John Neumeier, Sin and Tonic by James Kudelka, and both Clear and We Got it Good by choreographer Stanton Welch.
 * Ballets in Opera Productions: Dance of the Hours in Ponchielli's La Gioconda choreographed by George Iancu in Barcelona 2005 as well as Christopher Wheeldon's new Dance of the Hours in Ponchielli's La Gioconda for the Metropolitan Opera in New York City, 2006. (Debut performances).

Retirement from American Ballet Theatre
Upon his retirement from ABT in 2012, Corella performed to a sell out audience at the Metropolitan Opera House and received a standing ovation lasting over twenty minutes. The New Yorker commemorated the occasion by caricaturing the artist. The arts journal wrote "For a long and happy time, we thought of Angel Corella, a much adored star of American Ballet theatre, simply as a king of dance. Now we are coming to know him as a native son. "

Television appearances

 * 1996 Kennedy Center Honors
 * 1998 Sesame Street
 * 1999 "Reopening of the Royal Opera House, London"
 * 2001 Charlie Rose
 * 2000 PBS presentation of documentary film Born To Be Wild - The Leading Men of American Ballet Theatre
 * 2005 (Emmy Award-winning) PBS presentation of Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake, with Gillian Murphy and Marcelo Gomes (Staging by Kevin McKenzie)
 * 2006 Freixenet commercial
 * 2008 Rolex commercial
 * 2011 "Quien Vive Aqui"
 * 2012 "Buena Fuente"
 * 2014 "Mira Quien Baila"

Corella's DVD recordings

 * Swan Lake with Gillian Murphy (American Ballet Theatre - 2005)
 * Romeo and Juliet with Alessandra Ferri (La Scala Ballet - 2000)
 * Le Corsaire with Julie Kent/Ethan Stiefel (American Ballet Theatre - 1998 VHS, 2001 DVD)
 * Born To Be Wild - The Leading Men of American Ballet Theatre (biographical documentary - 1999) with Vladimir Malakhov, Jose Manuel Carreño, and Ethan Stiefel.
 * Don Quixote Pas de Deux with Paloma Herrera (American Ballet Theatre) on a mixed bill DVD titled American Ballet Theatre Now - Variety and Virtuosity  (1996)
 * "Reopening of the Royal Opera House", London (1999)
 * "La Gioconda" Liceu Opera House (2005)

Awards

 * National Ballet Competition of Spain - First prize, May 1991
 * Concours International de Danse de Paris - Grand Prix / Gold Medal, December 1994
 * Prix Benois de la Danse, 2000
 * National Award of Spain, 2003
 * Premio Protagonista, Luis del Olmo, 2005
 * Men's Health award, 2007
 * Dance Europe Magazine DANCER OF THE YEAR Award, 2007
 * Leonid Massine Award, 2008
 * International medal from the community of madrid, 2008
 * International Medal of Arts, Madrid, Spain, 2009
 * Gold Medal the academy of fine arts, Cadiz
 * Galileo 2000 Award, Florence, 2009
 * Sports and Culture award, Barcelona, 2011

Barcelona Ballet
In April 2008, Corella established the first classical ballet company in Spain in 20 years, the Corella Ballet, Castilla y Leon; in February 2012, it moved to Barcelona and became the Barcelona Ballet.

The company had its world premiere in La Granja, Segovia, Spain on 11 July 2008 performing a mixed program of Clark Tippet's Bruch Violin Concerto, Stanton Welch's Clear and Twyla Tharp's In the Upper Room. Its first full-length ballet was La Bayadère (staging by Natalia Makarova) on 4 September 2008 at the Teatro Real in Madrid, Spain.

Barcelona Ballet has since gone on to expand its repertoire and gain a great following across both Spain and the rest of the world. They are a touring company performing in many theatres across Spain, including Teatro Real, Madrid and the Liceu, Barcelona. They have performed internationally at the New York City Center in March 2010 as well as at the Los Angeles Music Center and Santa Barbara, California. They have toured cities such as New Orleans, Seattle, Charleston, the Spoleto Festival and the Guadalajara book festival, Mexico in November 2010.

Their repertoire includes Swan Lake, suites from Le Corsaire and The Sleeping Beauty, George Balanchine's Tschaikovsky Pas de Deux and Apollo pas de deux, Christopher Wheeldon's After the Rain pas de deux, María Pagés' SOLEÁ pas de deux, and the pas de deuxs from Diana and Actaeon, Don Quixote and Satanella; Balanchine's Who Cares?, Jerome Robbins's Fancy Free, Wheeldon's DGV: Danse à Grande Vitesse and VIII, Welch's We got it good, Russell Ducker's Epimitheus, Vasiliov and Kasatkina's Sunny Duet, Leonid Lavrovsky's Walpurgisnacht, Corella, Ducker & Radev's Suspended in Time, Corella's String Sextet, Paquita Joseph Mazilier, Facing the light Radev, and the Suite of Sleeping beauty after Petipa.

Barcelona Ballet returned to New York City Center in April 2012 with a world premiere of "Palpito" by Spanish choreographers Rojas y Rodriguez as well as visiting Purchase, NY, Detroit, Houston.

In early 2013 Corella made the decision to dissolve the company to pursue other projects, indicating that he would likely head to the United States for professional reasons.

Corella continues to perform internationally, collaborating with various artists and choreographers, and was appointed as the Artistic Director of the Philadelphia Ballet in July, 2014.

Reviews

 * NY Times review of La Bayadere (May 1999)
 * Review of The Pied Piper (May 2001)
 * NY Times review of The Pied Piper (May 2001)
 * Online review of Don Quixote (July 2004)
 * NY Times Review of Don Quixote (May 2005)
 * Online review of Raymonda (July 2005)
 * Online review of Kings of the Dance (Feb. 2006)
 * Online review of Corella in the Met's opera La Gioconda -Dance of the Hours (Sep. 2006)
 * Review of Corella in La Bayadere from Ballet Magazine (June 2007)

title: Angel Corella