Talk:Gospel of Matthew

Help with Gospel

The article at Gospel could do with more people to come and help it out please. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Referenced Source is Unreliable - "Rabbinical Translations of Matthew"

Some lines from this Gospel of Matthew Wikipedia article were plagiarised directly from Chapter 2 of the publication shown in a slideshare article "Rabbinical Translations of Matthew" without citing the author's works (in violation of the terms of use). The Wikipedia article here also dishonestly points to Luz 2005 as the direct reference source. That article references Ulrich Luz, which does not use "Israel" in the sense portrayed by the slideshare article's author (e.g. pg 42 of Luz 2005: "The kingdom [of Israel] will be taken from the leaders of Israel because they have rejected and killed the 'highest cornerstone', Jesus" / pg. 164 "[The people of Jerusalem, representing the Israel that has rejected Jesus...]"). The slideshare article is an unreliable source: it takes Luz 2005 out of context and is contrary to the content of the Gospel of Matthew, in some cases.

Actions required:

1) Provide citations and links to satisfy the article's Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) license terms and conditions.

2) Remove/correct poor quality and biased content.

Without corrected citations, any of the content plagiarised from the slideshare article ought be removed entirely. Ephemerance (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I can assure you that the source is Luz, not the slideshow, although possibly the slideshow is based on this article. Luz is no longer available on google books, which would mean a trip to the library to check. Can you provide details so that this check can be made? Achar Sva (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm particularly curious about your addition to the effect that Matthew is "informed by oral traditions" (which you source page 577 of Luz); of course, all the gospels are "informed" by oral traditions to an extent, but since Matthew's main source for the career of Christ is Mark, it's quite clear that these traditions have had their impact elsewhere in the book. (It's also rather odd that a supposed disciple of Christ would use a non-disciple for his source material).Achar Sva (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The source points to ISBN 978-0-8006-3770-5 (there are two Luz-2005 sources, but this is the source indicated in that portion of text). Luz was established as a reputable source.

1) Speaking strictly to Luz's interpretation: Luz does discuss the influence that Mark has on Matthew (pp 576 for example), but he also notes that "agreements show that the evangelists do not simply write individually but that they collect general tendencies of the church's tradition" (pp 577) and that some agreements between books are "almost certainly to be explained by the influence of oral tradition" (pp 577). The concept brings attention to the idea that two people may have observed the same event but one party might find the other's phrasing more effective for the purpose of spreading/retelling the story.

Proposal 1: include section describing oral tradition, as discussed by Luz.

2) Wrong pages cited. It is possible that "pp 249-50" was intended to be from ISBN 978-0-8028-3964-0 (Luz 2005) instead of ISBN 978-0-8006-3770-5 (Luz 2005). Let's call them Luz-2005A & Luz-2005B, respectively, for ease of reference. Luz-2005B pp249-50 contains a discussion about money and has nothing to do with a synopsis of Matthew. If the intended source was Luz-2005A, the citation is currently incorrect and should be addressed.

Proposal 2: A note added to the cited pages stating the discrepancy. Determine where the mix-up is later.

3) "Israel" in this case has a very specific meaning within Luz. Luz discusses that a vocal majority within Jerusalem represented Israel and rejected Jesus (e.g. pp 504). Those Pharisees, scribes, and leaders representing Israel are discussed in more detail later in Jesus' Trial before the Sanhedrin (pp 438). Part of the summary that Luz gives (pp 503-4) is that Matthew alleges that these leaders are false. Luz (and the Gospel of Matthew itself) explains that some cities of Israel accepted Jesus (did not reject). There is a subtle distinction but an important distinction, that Luz noted several times: an authoritative body rejected Jesus on behalf of all of Israel, but Israel did not wholly reject Jesus. This may not be readily understood by casual readers unfamiliar with the political structure of 1st century Israel. There is nothing lost by mentioning the Sanhendrin.

If a country's supreme court rejects a person's claim, but that verdict has mixed reaction from the general population, it would be misleading/confusing to say "the country rejected the person" without context.

Proposal 3: Specify the Sanhendrin (or the "people of Jerusalem"). Ephemerance (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The proposed edits are based on the source that is currently referenced in the Wiki (and has been for years). I will give this another day and then undo your revert if there is no objection. If there is strong evidence to suggest that these proposed changes are unjustified, I will gladly continue this conversation to reach an objective consensus. If you are waiting to search your library for the sources before commenting, you can revert the changes at a later date if you have found something that compels contrary conclusions. Ephemerance (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Matthew's Account of Rejection and Crucifixion

Phrasing of section at the time of this post: "[The Gospel of Matthew] tells how Israel's Messiah, Jesus, rejected and crucified by Israel, sends the disciples to preach the gospel to the gentiles instead.[1]" Ephemerance (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

1) The Gospel of Matthew's account of Jesus' rejection is by people of Jerusalem (including by Pharisees, elders, chief priests, etc) and not by all of Israel. Secondary literature, including Luz-2005A, states this as well as previously discussed in the Talk section. The current phrasing appears to be intentionally construed to imply whole rejection for editorial reasons that aren't entirely clear.

2) The Gospel of Matthew states that Jesus was crucified by Pontias Pilate (a Roman governor), to appease the elders, chief priests and multitude which demanded Jesus' execution. Whether we are using 'Israel' in the context of the people of Israel, the religious leaders representing Israel, or as a political state, Jesus was not crucified by 'Israel' in the Gospel of Matthew.

3) The Gospel of Matthew states in 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". "To the gentiles instead" is blatantly false; if the Luz-2005B source claims this, it is unreliable and should be removed. Matthew 28:18-20 is an explicit instruction to teach and baptize all nations under Trinitarian Christianity, including Israelites such as Jews and Samaritans. Ephemerance (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

We have to stick to sources. You object to two sentences, so I'll lay out the sourcing for each:

• It tells how Israel's Messiah, Jesus, rejected and crucified by Israel, sends the disciples to preach the gospel to the gentiles instead. The source is Ulrich Luz, Studies in Matthew, 2005, (2005b in our bibliography), pages 233-34. That says: The evangelist tells of the activity of Israel's messiah among his people (p.233). This supports the article's reference to Jesus as Israel's Messiah. It goes on: At this final point the whole people reject Jesus - this supports the statement that Jesus is "rejected" by "Israel", the identity of the Jews as Israel being implicit in the earlier reference to "Israel's Messiah" and "his people" (p.234); it concludes: This is why after his resurrection Israel's Messiah sends his disciples to the Gentiles, which supports the final part of the sentence in the article. You say that Matthew's Jesus is not rejected by all of Israel, but this source says quite uncategorically that he is. If you wish to dispute Luz you need to produce clear quotations to support your claim.
  
• The second sentence to which you object is this: Prior to the Crucifixion the Jews are called Israelites, the honorific title of God's chosen people; after it, they are called "Ioudaioi", Jews, a sign that through their rejection of the Christ the "Kingdom of Heaven" has been taken away from them and given instead to the church. The source is Georg Strecker, Theology of the New Testament, 2000, pp.369-70. Strecker says: Matthew ... [uses] the term Israel in his Gospel for the Jewish people, i.e., a title of honour for the chosen people of God, but after the Crucifixion he replaces it with the term "Ioudaioi" [Strecker has this in Greek], a term used elsewhere by Gentiles to designate the Jewish people... (p.370). This supports the first half of our sentence; he also says (p.369), The kingdom of God has been taken away from the Jews and transferred to another people, the church. This supports the final part of the sentence. Again, if you wish to dispute sourced statements, you need to show that the source is not correctly reflected.

Your remaining two bullet points represent your personal interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew and of theology. I repeat, we can only proceed on the basis of reliable sources. Achar Sva (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The primary source of the Gospel of Matthew is the Gospel of Matthew itself. If Matthew and a secondary source disagree, Matthew takes precedence.

:1) "this supports the statement that Jesus is "rejected" by "Israel", the identity of the Jews" -- This is your personal opinion and has no business here on the Wiki unless it is backed by a source. Even standing as your opinion, please explain what you mean by "Israel": the people? the representatives of the people? The state? Does it refer to a single tribe of Israel (Jews are of the tribe of Judah) or of all twelve tribes referenced in Matthew? Would a casual reader be able to understand that "Israel" is referring to representatives speaking on behalf of the tribe of Judah whom are in turn speaking on behalf of all of Israel? Luz makes the distinction clear. You have chosen to obfuscate and cherry-pick to suit your opinion, irrespective of what Matthew or Luz say. This is not to say that you couldn't make a proper rebuttal, and if you can, please do so. If you cannot, please refrain from constant roll-backs without consensus. "you need to show that the source is not correctly reflected." Please refer to my previous remarks and citations which you have chosen to ignore.

:2) "Two bullets represent personal interpretation" No they do not. They are directly and explicitly from the Gospel of Matthew itself. Ephemerance (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC).

:2.2) Matthew 27:27-35 "Then the soldiers of [Pontias Pilate] took Jesus ... [a]nd they crucified him". Ephemerance (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

:2.3) Matthew 28:19 "[T]each all nations" Ephemerance (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

:3) "sends his disciples to the Gentiles" does not equal "to Gentiles instead". And if this was the context, it is incorrect. Ephemerance (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

:4) "The source is Georg Strecker" You have misquoted Strecker. Everyone can view this in the preview of the source. He says the Greek term but does not state "Jew" beside the Greek, but in an early page he references a Judean King becoming Israelite (in the context that a Judean isn't necessarily an Israelite / "God's chosen" Ephemerance (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)). Judean is the more appropriate addition, but if you want to follow true to the source, no term should be provided at all. (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC) The Greek term translates to either "Jew" or "Judean", with an understanding that Jews are Israelites through the tribe of Judah, and a Judean is resident of Judea. The author is expressing that the Greek term was used as attempt to strip the context of "God's chosen" from Jewish Israelites to express disinheritance. Judean is more fitting for the passage, given the context from the source. Ephemerance (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

:5) "At this final point the whole people reject Jesus" Without seeing the source directly, I can't confirm the context that is being drawn here. However, if it is similar to his other work Luz-2005 commentary on Matthew ISBN 978-0-8006-3770-5, he elaborates on the political structure of the day and speak of Israel as a spiritual people represented by the people of Jerusalem. '...the people of Jerusalem (representing the Israel that rejected Jesus)'. In pp 42, Luz goes into the greatest detail "Thus in context, '[the kingdom will be taken] from you' initially refers to the Jewish leaders who are addressed." he continues with his interpretation and the context for which he uses "Israel" and leaves his interpretation as a question: "However, the idea of the entire nation is not far removed ... Does this not mean, therefore, that the issue is not only Israel's leaders but the entire nation?" Because Jesus was an Israelite, under the Luz interpretation you can say that "Jesus rejected himself" and it makes sense when the reader is made aware of Luz's interpretation. The problem is that without the explanation and context, "Israel rejected Jesus" is ambiguous and arguably dubious when left unexplained. Stating "Israel, as represented by the Sanhedrin and the people of Jerusalem, rejected Jesus" would unambiguously be in proper context that Luz lays out. There are other ways to phrase this, but the context from Luz ought be retained. Do you have a rebuttal to this?

So far, to summarise: "Israel crucified Jesus" and "to gentiles instead" are 100% unjustified as they are factually incorrect and not reflected by the quotes provided from the source (nor by Matthew, nor by Luz 2005, ISBN 978-0-8006-3770-5). "Israel rejected Jesus" is just ambiguous with poor phrasing that does not provide context for how "Israel" is being used. Ephemerance (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It's now a few days before Christmas and New Year, and therefore not a good time for Wiki-editing. We'll take this up again after 1 January. Achar Sva (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Good New Year, Achar Sva, and anyone else reading. I will make an edit on the main article as discussed above and see where the feedback takes us. If there is a reason why the edits shouldn't take place (based on the sources), I look forward to continued discussion to work out the wrinkles. Thank you for your efforts in advance. Ephemerance (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Greetings also. I recognise that you're editing with good faith, but we need to reflect sources, and if the source says the disciples were sent to the gentiles (not the world) that what we have to say. Nor can we use the gospel itself as a source, because, after all, we're not using the gospel, we're using an English translation plus we have no knowledge of the context of any given passage. But, you are a very sincere person and I appreciate that/ Achar Sva (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have two quotes from the referenced Luz 2005 Studies in Matthew source for consideration (viewable in the google preview):

1) "... a new commission, extending the exclusive mission to Israel (10:5) to the nations and thus canceling its exclusivity." - page 25;

2) [Regarding a synopsis of Matthew...] "The core of its content is how Jesus, rejected and executed in Israel, pronounces judgment on Israel's leaders and the people itself and becomes the salvation of the Gentiles" - page 17

1) Based on the source, I propose changing "by Israel" to "in Israel" and including reference to Jesus pronouncing judgement on Israel's leaders and people. 2) Based on the second quote from the source, I propose correcting the "Gentiles instead" to match Luz's expression of 'extending the mission from Israel to include Gentiles'. "Whole world" captures this, but perhaps there is a more suiting phrasing? I haven't seen the pages of the source that "Gentiles instead" is supposedly drawn from. Is there something on page 233-34 that states this explicitly?

"[We can't] use the gospel [by] itself as a source, because [it is] an English translation [without context]."

Some bibles have annotated sections that give additional context. I agree that it's good to be mindful about taking a translation at face value without the context of surrounding text, but looking for contradictions between an analysis and the source text is a good sanity check. Luz has an excellent breakdown of the texts, but I have no reason to believe he ever argued that the Matthean "to all nations" means "to Gentiles only". Ephemerance (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

How would you feel about this change: "...and sends the disciples to focus preaching the gospel to the Gentiles instead." ? It is a closer proximity to the context I see from Luz. Ephemerance (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

How about this change too: "It tells how Israel's Messiah, Jesus, rejected and crucified in Israel ..." ? It would match the Luz page 17 quote. Ephemerance (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I've re-read Luz 2005b (Studies in Matthew) in view of your comments. The line in the lead you dispute is this: "It (the gospel) tells how Israel's Messiah, Jesus, rejected and crucified by Israel, condemns Israel, and sends the disciples to preach the gospel to the Gentiles instead." The pages cited are 17 and 233-34.

Page 17 has this: "The core of its content (the gospel's content) is how Jesus, rejected and executed in Israel, pronounces judgement on Israel's leaders and the people itself and becomes the salvation of the Gentiles." Pages 233-34 is an expansion on page 17: "The Evangelist tells of the activity of Israel's Messiah among his people ... The division within Israel becomes acute ... [ultimately Jesus is executed] ... [A]fter his resurrection Israel's Messiah sends his disciples to the gentiles."

None of this says that the disciples were sent only to the gentiles, simply that they were were sent to the gentiles instead of to Israel. I don't believe the sentence you reject to does say that the disciples were sent to the gentiles only. If, however, it disturbs you, I suggest taking from Luz the sentence on page 17 beginning "The core of its content is how Jesus.." and quoting it, with an in-text ascription to Luz ("Scholar Ulrich Luz comments: 'The core....": the source cited would then be page 17 alone). If you find this acceptable you're welcome to make an edit. Achar Sva (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edits by User "Roman J. Lane, Esquire" (January 3rd, 2020)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=933939838&oldid=933919183

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source

Good courtesy is to open a discussion about revisions. Discussions help limit disputes and misunderstandings. I have added this section in hopes of reaching consensus for the aforementioned January 3rd edit.

From what I can see on the reliable sources guideline, the cited source is reliable. Can we have input to clarify why it was perceived by @Epinoia to be unreliable? Thank you in advance. Ephemerance (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

- the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry is a self-published source (WP:RSSELF) as Matt Slick writes and posts the articles himself and is questionable as there is no editorial oversight (WP:QUESTIONABLE) - Slick has an MA, but is not a reputable academic - as the website is dedicated to apologetics, the neutral point of view is questionable (WP:BIASED) - the edit also removed citations to Luz, Duling, Burkett, and France which User:Roman J. Lane, Esquire considered unverifiable although they are all from reputable publishers - Epinoia (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Mark's Christology

@Achar Sva: Our article says that Mark's Gospel sees Jesus as not himself divine.This source and this source state that the meaning of the title "Son of Man" (a title used for Jesus in Mark) and to what degree it describes a divine status is still debated. And just for clarity, here is blog post from an eminent NT scholar, Bart Ehrman where he argues that Mark does portray Jesus as divine. Here is a video where he states that in Mark, Jesus himself claims divinity. Now, I realize that a blog post and a YouTube video may be a bit out of line for an Encyclopedia article, but I think they illustrate rather well the kind of diversity of opinion that exists among scholars when discussing Mark's Christology. With all this in mind, why are we presenting only 1 view as if it is a default position, when there is so much diversity of opinion on all sides? --AntoniusFelix (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)