Talk:Gospel of Matthew: Difference between revisions
Atethnekos (talk | contribs) +answer and questions |
|||
Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
::::Okay, so here is the report from a book published by Eerdmans: {{quote|The author of the Gospel does not identify himself within the narrative. ... In this commentary the anonymous author of the Gospel will be referred to interchangeably as "the author of Matthew," "the author of the Gospel," of "Matthew".|Saldarini, "Matthew" in Dunn & Rogerson (eds.), ''Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible'' (Eerdmans, 2003), p. 1000.}} |
::::Okay, so here is the report from a book published by Eerdmans: {{quote|The author of the Gospel does not identify himself within the narrative. ... In this commentary the anonymous author of the Gospel will be referred to interchangeably as "the author of Matthew," "the author of the Gospel," of "Matthew".|Saldarini, "Matthew" in Dunn & Rogerson (eds.), ''Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible'' (Eerdmans, 2003), p. 1000.}} |
||
::::In your latest edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=584434771&oldid=584429870] you've supplied a bunch of sources, but no page numbers. Would you mind telling me where the claims you have included occur in these works? These works are from over five hundred pages long to over one thousand pages long (as in the case of the France); it is a bit hard to find the support for your claims without knowing where to look. --<font face="georgia">[[User:Atethnekos|Atethnekos]] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">([[User talk:Atethnekos|Discussion]], [[Special:Contributions/Atethnekos|Contributions]])</font> 22:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC) |
::::In your latest edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=584434771&oldid=584429870] you've supplied a bunch of sources, but no page numbers. Would you mind telling me where the claims you have included occur in these works? These works are from over five hundred pages long to over one thousand pages long (as in the case of the France); it is a bit hard to find the support for your claims without knowing where to look. --<font face="georgia">[[User:Atethnekos|Atethnekos]] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">([[User talk:Atethnekos|Discussion]], [[Special:Contributions/Atethnekos|Contributions]])</font> 22:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
OK I give up. Like I said, you anti-theists will do anything or say anything to get your way. What happens after I SUPPLY YOU WITH THE PAGE #. WHAT EXCUSE WILL YOU USE THEN?? FORGET IT, JUST DELETE EVERYTHING LIKE WE BOTH KNOW YOU WILL ANYWAY. YOU CAN'T WIN WITH ANTI-THEISTS FASCISTS and let me be clear, you are Fascists. |
Revision as of 23:08, 3 December 2013
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gospel of Matthew article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 31 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gospel of Matthew article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 31 days ![]() |
Request to Add new Sub-Title to Current Article
The editors of this article may wish to consider adding a new sub-title entitled, "Jewish Exegeses in Jesus' Teachings," which, by the nature of its title, requires a brief look into some of his teachings, and approached from the standpoint of "Source Criticism." This, I think, would be most appropriate to an article treating on the Gospel of Matthew. In fact, IMHO, it is the essence of the Gospel itself. Of course, all of the editors can be involved in its making, citing references which explain some of his, otherwise, esoteric sayings. Having such a sub-topic will greatly enhance the article. In my opinion, it would not have to be long, nor cover the entire Book of Matthew. We can discuss what teaching/saying might be appropriate in this regard and show where it has been diacritically analyzed, thereby bringing to our readers a more enlightened understanding. Davidbena (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- David, have you looked at the section "Themes in Matthew"? Look over that, then read the books cited as sources, and see if you might refine your suggestion in that light. (Personally I think the Themes section could be more detailed). PiCo (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, PiCo. I'll take a look at your suggestion. Davidbena (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
The scope of an article is the topic or subject matter, which is defined by reliable sources. I am now willing to concede to user:John Carter that reliable tertiary sources would be helpful in this regard. VerificationVerifiability: Remember other people have to be able to check that editors didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. NOTE:verifiability, not truth. Tertiary sources such as encyclopedias and dictionaries remain difficult to verify.
Therefore, verification has become a practical problem. Also because of the internet, publishers have had to cut costs which means that many "new" Encyclopedias etc are already out of date. Also, Online Encyclopedias ie The Net Bible must be handled with care. Yesterday, I undertook the tedious task of going to the seminary library and reading through the Biblical companions, study Bibles, commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias etc. The good news is that reliable sources are united on one point. In their articles or sections on the Gospel of Matthew, they refer to Papias and "his trustworthiness". He is considered important as he provides the earliest information about the composition of Matthew. (See Google list 1 Google list #2 Note also many reliable reference books do not have a Google preview, therefore a trip to the library will be necessary) Also page numbers tend to be movable depending on the edition of a work. Also different libraries tend to have different editions of reference works. To verify one must go to the Gospel of Matthew section found in the reference work.
I have chosen Blackwell as my main tertiary source as it is 1) up to date, 2) has an online preview to verify 3) is representative of tertiary sources on topic. 4) has been vetted as a reliable source at Wikipedia.
By saying, "and each one translated them as he was able," gives allowance for Greek translations to be made with omissions and/or mistranslations, as well as paraphrases, in the text. Hmmmmmmm. I wonder now about our current canonical text of Matthew.Davidbena (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
John, yes, we can only speculate about the matter, since the oldest manuscript of the Gospels is John Rylands P52, and it is merely a fragment. Still, no scholar worth his salt can be numb to the fact that (1) “The books [canonical gospels] are not heard of till 150 A.D., that is, till Jesus had been dead nearly a hundred and twenty years. No writer before 150 A.D. makes the slightest mention of them.” - Bronson, C. Keeler, “A Short History of the Bible;” and (2) “In AD 303... the pagan emperor Diocletian had undertaken to destroy all Christian writings that could be found. As a result Christian documents- especially in Rome- all but vanished. When Constantine commissioned new versions of these documents, it enabled the custodians of orthodoxy to revise, edit, and rewrite their material as they saw fit, in accordance with their tenets. It was at this point that most of the crucial alterations in the New Testament were probably made and Jesus assumed the unique status he has enjoyed ever since. The importance of Constantine's commission must not be underestimated. Of the five thousand extant early manuscript versions of the New Testament, no complete edition pre-dates the fourth century. The New Testament, as it exists today, is essentially a product of fourth-century editors and writers – custodians of orthodoxy, ‘adherents of the message’, with vested interests to protect.” - Michael Baigent, “Holy Blood, Holy Grail,” pp. 388-389. I have actually seen a book in Hebrew which approaches the subject from Textual criticism of the N.T. gospel, pointing out translation errors in Matthew's Gospel. I do not possess a copy of that Hebrew source, although I read it once. When I find again its name and author, I will quote it here for our readers.Davidbena (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
|
I do not use online sources such as Wikipedia, NET Bible, etc as sources for content. I am using the NET Bible to show what a successful online source format should look like. Also note the NPOV... all scholarly positions are explained...both those who support the trustworthiness of Papias and those who oppose. I strongly suggest both sides stop their POV pushing and write an article from a NPOV. Remember NPOV policy at Wikipedia CANNOT be set aside by consensus!
- 2. Authorship.
The questions that cluster around the First Gospel have largely to do with the much-discussed and variously disputed statement concerning it found in Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39), cited from the much older work of Papias, entitled Interpretation of the Words of the Lord. Papias is the first who mentions Matthew by name as the author of the Gospel. His words are: "Matthew composed the Logia (logia, "words," "oracles") in the Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue, and everyone interpreted them as he was able." Papias cannot here be referring to a book of Matthew in which only the discourses or sayings of Jesus had been preserved, but which had not any, or only meager accounts of His deeds, which imaginary document is in so many critical circles regarded as the basis of the present Gospel, for Papias himself uses the expression ta logia, as embracing the story, as he himself says, in speaking of Mark, "of the things said or done by Christ" (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24; compare particularly T. Zahn, Introduction to New Testament, section 54, and Lightfoot, Supernatural Religion, 170 ff). Eusebius further reports that after Matthew had first labored among his Jewish compatriots, he went to other nations, and as a substitute for his oral preaching, left to the former a Gospel written in their own dialect (III, 24). The testimony of Papias to Matthew as the author of the First Gospel is confirmed by Irenaeus (iii.3, 1) and by Origen (in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10), and may be accepted as representing a uniform 2nd-century tradition. Always, however, it is coupled with the statement that the Gospel was originally written in the Hebrew dialect. Hence, arises the difficult question of the relation of the canonical Greek Gospel, with which alone, apparently, the fathers were acquainted, to this alleged original apostolic work.
- 3. Relation of Greek and Aramaic Gospels:
One thing which seems certain is that whatever this Hebrew (Aramaic) document may have been, it was not an original form from which the present Greek Gospel of Matthew was translated, either by the apostle himself, or by somebody else, as was maintained by Bengel, Thiersch, and other scholars. Indeed, the Greek Matthew throughout bears the impress of being not a translation at all, but as having been originally written in Greek, and as being less Hebraistic in the form of thought than some other New Testament writings, e.g. the Apocalypse. It is generally not difficult to discover when a Greek book of this period is a translation from the Hebrew or Aramaic. That our Matthew was written originally in Greek appears, among other things, from the way in which it makes use of the Old Testament, sometimes following the Septuagint, sometimes going back to the Hebrew. Particularly instructive passages in this regard are 12:18-21 and 13:14,15, in which the rendering of the Alexandrian translation would have served the purposes of the evangelist, but he yet follows more closely the original text, although he adopts the Septuagint wherever this seemed to suit better than the Hebrew (compare Keil's Commentary on Matthew, loc. cit.).
The external evidences to which appeal is made in favor of the use of an original Hebrew or Aramaic. Matthew in the primitive church are more than elusive. Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10) mentions as a report (legetai) that Pantaenus, about the year 170 AD, found among the Jewish Christians, probably of South Arabia, a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, left there by Bartholomew; and Jerome, while in the Syrian Berea, had occasion to examine such a work, which he found in use among the Nazarenes, and which at first he regarded as a composition of the apostle Matthew, but afterward declared not to be such, and then identified with the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Evangelium secundum or juxta Hebraeos) also called the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, or of the Nazarenes, current among the Nazarenes and Ebionites (De Vir. Illustr., iii; Contra Pelag., iii.2; Commentary on Mt 12:13, etc.). For this reason the references by Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew are by many scholars regarded as referring to this Hebrew Gospel which the Jewish Christians employed, and which they thought to be the work of the evangelist (compare for fuller details See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, XII, article "Matthaeus der Apostel"). Just what the original Hebrew. Mathew was to which Papias refers (assuming it to have had a real existence) must, with our present available means, remain an unsolved riddle, as also the possible connection between the Greek and Hebrew texts. Attempts like those of Zahn, in his Kommentar on Matthew, to explain readings of the Greek text through an inaccurate understanding of the imaginary Hebrew original are arbitrary and unreliable. There remains, of course, the possibility that the apostle himself, or someone under his care (thus Godet), produced a Greek recension of an earlier Aramaic work.
The prevailing theory at present is that the Hebrew Matthean document of Papias was a collection mainly of the discourses of Jesus (called by recent critics Q), which, in variant Greek translations, was used both by the author of the Greek Matthew and by the evangelist Luke, thus explaining the common features in these two gospels (W.C. Allen, however, in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Matthew, disputes Luke's use of this supposed common source, Intro, xlvi ff). The use of this supposed Matthean source is thought to explain how the Greek Gospel came to be named after the apostle. It has already been remarked, however, that there is no good reason for supposing that the "Logia" of Papias was confined to discourses.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ret.Prof (talk • contribs) 13:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
A special thanks to PiCo for allowing Papias into the article. It seems that the main conflict is no longer about scope. Our article now has a good section about Papias and trustworthiness. However, there is a POV problem in that all the sources in support of the trustworthiness of Papias (ie Casey, Ehrman etc) have been deleted from the article. NPOV is central to Wikipedia and CANNOT even be overridden by consensus. Therefore I have restored the following paragraph:
- Today, some modern scholars believe the Papias reference, preserved by Eusebius to be fairly trustworthy and usually interpret it to mean Jesus' disciple Matthew had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic. [1] Papias meant that it is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus" in a Hebrew dialect, [2] and the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage “directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.” [3]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ret.Prof (talk • contribs) 13:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
References
So do you Bible hating liberals ever get tired of writing only your own views and pretending they are facts? Odd that not one view other then the Liberal "The Bible was written later then the Apostles because it is all made up" crap is ever seen on Anti-Christpedia. FACT - Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and it was written before 70 AD. but since you liberals can't muster the faith to believe that Jesus could actually predict the Destruction of the temple then you make up lies and justify it by adding the world "Most Biblical Scholars believe" Well only the lame liberal morons that reject the Bible think that, but you are to bigoted to allow any other view point such as the writings of Walvoord, Moody, Bruce etc. You know actual BIBLE SCHOLARS THAT TEACH THE BIBLE AT CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITIES. Typical liberal Free speech means MY SPEECH NOT YOURS. Do me a favor and prove me wrong by going to the Koran site and attack the Muslim Book with the same liberal hate that you use on the Bible. You won't because 1) you are a coward and 2) you don't hate Allah as much as you hate JESUS and Christianity. OK quick, delete this because it disagrees with you and the Christaphobic bigot rules of Anti-Christapedia. I added some things to the Article but I'm sure you will remove it all because it doesn't attack the Bible like the rest of the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
..............Like I said, my addition was up for 3 mins before one of the Christian-haters took it down. No wonder Wikipedia is now a joke and not accepted as a legitimate source by any professional teacher. To bad, it started out to be a good thing u but like everything that liberals control, they destroyed it and made it a joke. So let me ask a real question. If a white person tried to rewrite all of Black history and refused to post anything by black authors because they were considered just POV wouldn't that be called RACISM? so what is it called when Anti-Christs and liberals who don't believe the Bible rewrite Bible history?????? I call it Christaphobic Bigotry. Whatever you call it, it is just as evil a Racism!--69.14.97.53 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- The article on the Quran says in the lede: "However, major textual variations and deficiencies in scripts mean the relationship between the text of today's Quran and an original text is unclear." That is a reflection of the scholarship on the issue, and certainly does not accord with a certain Muslim belief. No one is attacking the Bible, we are just trying to the best of our ability to represent the scholarship on the issues. We are just volunteers who enjoy this topic. Our criteria for inclusion and representation of points of view are not based on what or who is "liberal" and what or who is "conservative". If you wish to see a relevant policy, please go to WP:V. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your edit misrepresents what the reliable sources say (e.g., they do not say merely that Liberal scholars believe that it is anonymous; they say that it is anonymous). Your only source for the other material you included was a .gif of unknown provenance which does not support most of the claims you included. You have to supply a reliable source for a challenged claim. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- You want sources then try anything written by Bible Believing Scholars at any of the 1000s of Biblical Universities. Try any book published by Moody Press, Eerdmans Press, Zondervan Press - you know all the publishers that you Liberal Bible haters are afraid to reference. The fact is that Wikipedia is run and controlled by Anti-theists and will use any excuse to keep their articles as Christaphobic as possible. I wonder if Richard Dawkins isn't the Commander & Chief of Wikipedia. For instance, what is you view of God - I would bet my life that if you told the truth, you are a Anti-Theist or you wouldn't be a editor here. No matter what a REAL BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN wrote, Wikipedia would delete it as just a POV because you view belief in God as just a POV. The Koran post above proves nothing. Try saying that the Koran was written 300 years after Mohamed was dead and that he copied it all from someone else and see how long you live. Fact is Wikipedia treats the Bible with pure HATE unlike it's treatment of other so-called Holy Text. OK you can ban me now and delete all this for speaking out against the GREAT LIBERAL RAG of Anti-Christapedia - like always happen. I guess another library IP address will be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- BTW since Liberals are to lazy to look up facts, here are a few (just a few) references for you:
- R.T. France, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 1, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 2007)
- William L. Lane, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 2, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 1974)
- Norval Geldenhuys, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 3, The Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 1983)
- Everett F. Herrison, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 1964)
- Robert G Gromacki, New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House., 1979)
- Irving L. Jensen, Jensen's Survey of the New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981)
- Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Handbook (Chicago: Moody Press, 1967)
- Let me guess, since these are Christian Bible Believing Scholars that can't be trusted. well before you look foolish I looked up just one of the authors GELDENHUYS and he served at both Princeton & Cambridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, so here is the report from a book published by Eerdmans:
The author of the Gospel does not identify himself within the narrative. ... In this commentary the anonymous author of the Gospel will be referred to interchangeably as "the author of Matthew," "the author of the Gospel," of "Matthew".
— Saldarini, "Matthew" in Dunn & Rogerson (eds.), Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Eerdmans, 2003), p. 1000. - In your latest edit [1] you've supplied a bunch of sources, but no page numbers. Would you mind telling me where the claims you have included occur in these works? These works are from over five hundred pages long to over one thousand pages long (as in the case of the France); it is a bit hard to find the support for your claims without knowing where to look. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, so here is the report from a book published by Eerdmans:
- BTW since Liberals are to lazy to look up facts, here are a few (just a few) references for you:
- You want sources then try anything written by Bible Believing Scholars at any of the 1000s of Biblical Universities. Try any book published by Moody Press, Eerdmans Press, Zondervan Press - you know all the publishers that you Liberal Bible haters are afraid to reference. The fact is that Wikipedia is run and controlled by Anti-theists and will use any excuse to keep their articles as Christaphobic as possible. I wonder if Richard Dawkins isn't the Commander & Chief of Wikipedia. For instance, what is you view of God - I would bet my life that if you told the truth, you are a Anti-Theist or you wouldn't be a editor here. No matter what a REAL BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN wrote, Wikipedia would delete it as just a POV because you view belief in God as just a POV. The Koran post above proves nothing. Try saying that the Koran was written 300 years after Mohamed was dead and that he copied it all from someone else and see how long you live. Fact is Wikipedia treats the Bible with pure HATE unlike it's treatment of other so-called Holy Text. OK you can ban me now and delete all this for speaking out against the GREAT LIBERAL RAG of Anti-Christapedia - like always happen. I guess another library IP address will be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
OK I give up. Like I said, you anti-theists will do anything or say anything to get your way. What happens after I SUPPLY YOU WITH THE PAGE #. WHAT EXCUSE WILL YOU USE THEN?? FORGET IT, JUST DELETE EVERYTHING LIKE WE BOTH KNOW YOU WILL ANYWAY. YOU CAN'T WIN WITH ANTI-THEISTS FASCISTS and let me be clear, you are Fascists.