Talk:Matthew the Apostle: Difference between revisions
Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) →2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: We cannot force you love our WP:RULES |
|||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
:::::::{{tqred|"Using the word most is irresponsible."}}—if you do not like our [[WP:RULES]], leave, see [[WP:FREE]] for details. |
:::::::{{tqred|"Using the word most is irresponsible."}}—if you do not like our [[WP:RULES]], leave, see [[WP:FREE]] for details. |
||
:::::::We cannot force you love our [[WP:RULES]], but let it be known that we will enforce our [[WP:RULES]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 13:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
:::::::We cannot force you love our [[WP:RULES]], but let it be known that we will enforce our [[WP:RULES]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 13:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::::::What rules am I violating? I am using the talk section to point out parts of an important article that is using words and statements that should be changed or removed? I love the rules. I am playing by the rules. I am simply using the proper channel to disagree with what is being published. [[User:Williehillie223740|Williehillie223740]] ([[User talk:Williehillie223740|talk]]) 14:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:05, 16 May 2024
![]() | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Isn't he also recognized in the Anglican Church?
The article states "He is recognized as a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The Eastern Orthodox celebrate his feast day on November 16, whereas September 21 is observed in Latin churches." He is also recognized in the Anglica Church, same feast day I believe.
Elaboration needed
This article needs more elaboration on his life, his role in the Bible, and his work and martyrdom in Ethiopia 2600:1008:B055:AB5F:EDD4:3541:198F:3A8A (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Revert mischief
@L0ckz0r: I said I was reverting mischief, I didn't say it was your mischief. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- But what do you mean by "take it to the talk page"? Did you even check the references? Neither one says that tax collectors were not literate - all Ehrman says is that the author was well educated and literate. Your haven't responded to L0ckz0r's point at all. StAnselm (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- @StAnselm: L0ckz0r was not opposing me, they made a little mistake thinking that I had reverted them. Ehrman (1999: 45) says that all of Jesus's direct disciples could at most speak some rough form of Greek, and certainly the could not write (relatively) highly educated Greek. He makes an allowance that it wasn't the best Greek of all ancient Greek writings, but that's all he allows for. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- @StAnselm: Did you read what I wrote here? tgeorgescu (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and the claim that tax collectors were illiterate was unsupported. StAnselm (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- And Ehrman doesn't say all: he says they were "mainly lower class peasants". StAnselm (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
English
Who's Matthew's parent
When did he born
Is he a Prophet 172.193.98.240 (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
odd issues
didn't like to be touched 2600:1700:91C0:9F0:A361:75EC:3E9B:4553 (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
2nd paragraph, 1st sentence
The claim of his gospel authorship is rejected by most biblical scholars...
IMO, this is unacceptable usage of 2 words by Wikipedia standards.
#1 "rejected" How is this a fact or even reliable interpretation?
#2 "most" How is this a fact or even reliable interpretation?
I proposed the following update to this first sentence (that quickly resulted in an Edit war with @Newimpartial even though I made changes to my original edit).
Here's my proposed edit:
The early church accepts Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. The claim of his gospel authorship is questioned by some modern biblical scholars,
My edit acknowledges the early widely held and recorded beliefs about the author of the book of Matthew (which, at a minimum, is reliable interpretation). I have also replaced the words "rejected" and "most" to "questioned" and "some" as the editor does not site evidence of the word most factually or by reliable interpretation (the word most being significantly more than 50%). The word rejected should be rejected because it is simply an unacceptable characterization of how biblical scholars truely felt about their doubts Matthew as the author (unless a factual study can be produced that shows an overwhelming percentage (most) reject Matthew the Apostle as the author.
Finally, @Newimpartial reverted one of my edits by saying, "we start with recent, not ancient traditions." The early church is not ancient tradition. it is an historical era characterized by people who recorded powerful words, stories, facts, and events that billions of people study, read, and care about today...and for thousands of years to come. Williehillie223740 (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Given that the topic of this article is the traditionally ascribed author of the Gospel of Matthew (as stated in the first paragraph), the most important information for the reader to be given next is that the consensus of WP:HQRS on the topic is that this attributed authorship is unsupported by evidence - the claim is
rejected
by the vast majority of relevant scholarship, notquestioned
. The tradition if Matthew as author is reported in this article - as it should be - but cannot be presented as fact because that is not what the best sources say. Newimpartial (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)- Please show me where the vast majority (or most as it is currently written in his article) of biblical scholars reject it? It is infinitely more responsible to use the words "questioned" and "some" until you produce the poll that factually shows that most of biblical scholars "reject" Matthew the Apostle as the author of the New Testament Gospel of Matthew. Williehillie223740 (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- The scholarly source we currently use in the article says "most", which is why the article uses "most". Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please show me the source.
- Please show me the study of the poll taken of biblical scholars confirming that most reject Matthew the Apostle as the author.
- Williehillie223740 (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- According to WP:RS/AC we do not rely upon polls. Take it or leave it, it's part of the package. See Scientific consensus and arguments from authority on YouTube for how scholars determine the academic consensus.
- The mainstream academic view (WP:CHOPSY) is that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is an opinion. You can use the word view but it is an opinion. Using words like reject, most, and the term "biblical scholars" implies something that is not factual in any way. Rejected cannot be proven and is an opinion based on, more than likely, a small sample of only modern bibilcal scholars. Using the word most is irresponsible. Using the phrase biblical scholars implies that this applies to bibilical scholars from many generations. To imply this knowing that any research of bibilical scholars applies to only "modern" biblical scholars and any bibilical scholar from over 100 years ago is dead and cannot weigh in on thismakes this entire paragraph indefensible.
- I propose the entire paragraph be removed from this article if whomever of you have decided you are the judge and jury of this article and/or cannot be rational about the words used in this paragraph. I've tried to recommend edits that have been reverted by people who ultimately have as much say as I do (if in fact Wikipedia is dedicated to a neutral view and not a biased view based on opinions and emotions). I will keep pushing for this paragraph to use the appropriate words or for it to be eliminated from this article. Williehillie223740 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- "Using the word most is irresponsible."—if you do not like our WP:RULES, leave, see WP:FREE for details.
- We cannot force you love our WP:RULES, but let it be known that we will enforce our WP:RULES. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- What rules am I violating? I am using the talk section to point out parts of an important article that is using words and statements that should be changed or removed? I love the rules. I am playing by the rules. I am simply using the proper channel to disagree with what is being published. Williehillie223740 (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- The scholarly source we currently use in the article says "most", which is why the article uses "most". Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please show me where the vast majority (or most as it is currently written in his article) of biblical scholars reject it? It is infinitely more responsible to use the words "questioned" and "some" until you produce the poll that factually shows that most of biblical scholars "reject" Matthew the Apostle as the author of the New Testament Gospel of Matthew. Williehillie223740 (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in People
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
- C-Class vital articles in People
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Christianity articles
- Top-importance Christianity articles
- C-Class Bible articles
- High-importance Bible articles
- WikiProject Bible articles
- C-Class Saints articles
- Top-importance Saints articles
- WikiProject Saints articles
- C-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- Top-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- C-Class Oriental Orthodoxy articles
- Top-importance Oriental Orthodoxy articles
- WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy articles
- C-Class Anglicanism articles
- Top-importance Anglicanism articles
- WikiProject Anglicanism articles
- C-Class Lutheranism articles
- Top-importance Lutheranism articles
- WikiProject Lutheranism articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- C-Class Catholicism articles
- Top-importance Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Catholicism articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class Ancient Near East articles
- Top-importance Ancient Near East articles
- Ancient Near East articles by assessment