Talk:Matthew the Apostle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Isn't he also recognized in the Anglican Church?[edit]

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.

Patron Saint of accountants, bankers, bookkeepers, stock brokers and tax collectors[edit]

This seems made up and does not any references. --Bĭjiert (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It comes from, the first reference. I have removed the section, however, as it doesn't add any meaningful info that isn't already in the infobox. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Time to review 2010 RM result? (see Archive 1 above)[edit]

With all respect to proposer and 2 of 3 supporters, I'm not sure that Matthew the Evangelist → Saint Matthew was an advisable move. "Saint Matthew" is clearly not WP:NPOV regarding a historical figure (as much as most "historical figures" in the first century) and Wikipedia isn't, or shouldn't be, a Christian blog. This individual lived centuries before the concept of sainthood and "Saint Matthew" sounds wikt:anachronistic, in addition to a little bit too non-objective for an encyclopedia. Also the RM for 1 of 4 articles after non-move result of the proposed block move of four Evangelist articles, to have just 1 out of synch goes against WP:AT:

Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions.

In ictu oculi (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Saint Matthew vs. Matthew the Apostle[edit]

Could we please retitle this article "Matthew the Apostle"? Not everyone recognizes this man as a saint. "Saint Matthew" is biased to certain Christian traditions, and "Matthew the Apostle" is acceptable to all. (This is similar to the difference between Mohandas Gandhi and Mahatama Gandhi, as well as between Jesus and Jesus Christ. Under both aforementioned circumstances, the name without the religious title is chosen for the Wikipedia title.) —Wikipedian77 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as suggested.  Sandstein  20:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Saint MatthewMatthew the Apostle – "Saint Matthew" is a subjective name to certain Christian traditions. "Matthew the Apostle" is objective and suitable to all. Wikipedian77 (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Strong support, per nom and WP:NCCL#Saints. --JFH (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support, per nom and WP:NCCL#Saints as cited by JFH, also WP:HONORIFIC, WP:NPOV, and definition of "reliable" sources for WP:IRS and WP:AT. Scholarly sources do not use "Saint" for the historical individual, the New Testament only describes these men as "apostles" not "saint". In ictu oculi (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The proposed title is better than the current one. But where this article should be is Matthew. That lemma is currently a disambiguation page. If you look at the entries, there is no other "Matthew" topic that is even in the running as a potential primary. Kauffner (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per the above arguments. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems that Matthew (disciple of Jesus) may actually be the best name for this article. I'm fine with that, "Matthew", or "Matthew the Apostle". —Wikipedian77 (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Also fine, but for the time being happy to stick with nom. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
No preference for me. --JFH (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
@Johnbod. Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion. For example, Ulrich of Augsburg but Saint Patrick.. How is that being being misinterpreted? I would also be happy with Matthew the Evangelist as more notable in the evangelist function than Matthew the Apostle, if we're trying to avoid parenthetical disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Exactly - the logic here would give Patrick (Irish saint) (or something more accurate). Isn't that totally obvious? The ability of some people to misread guidlines never ceases to amaze me. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Johnbod, ad hominem is not helpful to this situation. Virtually everyone who refers to Saint Patrick refers to him as Saint Patrick. Not everyone who refers to this man refers to him as Saint Matthew. More specifically, throughout the entire New Testament, this man is referred to as Matthew—NOT Saint Matthew. To call this man Saint Matthew is biased to the Christian traditions which use the title "Saint" in reference to Biblical figures. Latter Day Saints, many traditional Protestants, evangelicals, and Jehovah's Witnesses all object to this and it is therefore not as objective as it could be. (For similar reasons, Wikipedia does not title Jesus' article Jesus Christ nor Mohandas Gandhi's article Mahatma Gandhi. See: WP:HONORIFIC.) —Wikipedian77 (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Saint Matthew" etc.[edit]

Potential changes to MOS:SAINTS at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


The last Statment "According to the New Testament, he was one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and the Ascension".

Under Matthew Chapter 28 verses 1-7 (KJV) Only Mary of Magda and (so stated ) the other Mary went to the tomb to see Jesus. Matthew did not witness the Resurrection, at best this story of Jesus missing from the tomb and the two women being told that he was not here. The missing Jesus was told to Matthew, he did not personally witness the Resurrection.

Ref: Query&book=33&chapter=28&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richunix (talkcontribs) 12:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


The discussion on the certainty of Matthew's literacy is highly flawed. The assumption here is that a "tax-collector" would have need to be educated in the level of literary Greek used in The Gospel According to Matthew, rather than simply in what was needed to write tax receipts.

Reference 15 states: Mark A. Chancey Greco-Roman culture and the Galilee of Jesus 2005 p162 "After Galilee was put under direct Roman administration in 44 CE, there would have been greater impetus for members of the upper class who wanted to ... It is easy to demonstrate that Greek was the language of the governmental sphere." Where is there evidence that Matthew was part of the upper class? And the "Governmental sphere" is a large term encompassing hundreds of roles, big and small. Would a (by 44CE) man of advanced age be able to learn how to write highly literate Greek? I am learning it now, and I am 43. It's murderous.

The Heszer book used for Reference 7 is deeply misleading: Here's the full citation quote from Hezser's book, pp172-173, which I own and happen to be currently reading. This is the whole paragraph: "One may assume that the owners of large estates would have been confronted with various types of written deeds on a consistent basis: they needed documentation of the ownership of land, had to maintain accounts, would lease land to tenants and give them receipts for the dues they paid, purchased or sold land, and lent money to debtors 26" Reference 26 says "For these uses of writing see Harris (1989) 16-17". Hezser's reference 24 is what the article cites, which is from "All landowners will have been required to register their land and pay taxes on the basis of size. 24". But the paragraph past footnote 26 continues: "For the writing of all or at least most of these texts they would have their own (slave) secretaries at hand. Even if they were pious and able to read the Hebrew Bible and/or literate in Greek poetry and prose, the writing they had to do in every day life situations would probably be limited to the occasional note, personal letter, and signature to a business letter or document. In the Roman world estate owners tended to dwell in the cities, while their rural estates were supervised by middlemen. For these estate managers, who tended to be slaves, the ability to read simple non-literary texts and numbers and to write their own lists and accounts will have been advantageous, although perhaps not necessary, if there were others who could accomplish these tasks for them."

As for Footnote 26 in her book, the one wrongly used in this article, the "Section II.2.C" is mostly a discussion the "Babatha archive", which is a collection of a large amount of deeds and receipts and such legal documents that she says "With the exception of no. 36, which seems to have been written in Herodian times, the deeds stem from the time between 93/4 and 132 CE." (p309) Number 36 is is refereed to in the section on Aramaic and Nabatean documents (NOT Greek) on pages 315 and 316. 36 was written in Nabatean: "Of the rest of the Nabatean documents one (no. 36: contract of debt) seems to have been written in Herodian times already" A full discussion of Babatha herself can be found online. [1]. Unfortunately the reference for the Herodian citation is not available electronically. The citations she cites is a French book which I can only find in a German library in World cat. [2].

So the only (possibly) period-relevant writing this reference cites is in Nabatean, not Greek, and is not a tax receipt. The reference is wrongly used as it only applies to 2nd Century Palestine, long after Matthew died. Matthew was not an aristocrat, and was seated at a tax booth (Mat 9:9, already cited in the main article). This is not the vision of a highly educated man who could write in the literate Greek that the Gospel According to Matthew demands.

I would edit all references to the certainty of Matthews literacy to suggest that while literacy for Matthew is not provably impossible, there is no evidence that a man working a tax booth could have had the need nor resources to learn highly literary Greek, and was therefore improbable. Xyloplax (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Xyloplax


This is annoying. This article is placed in Category:Four Evangelists, but when I look on the category page, I don't see this article. Why?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Try making a null edit on the category page. (Click "edit this page" then "save" without making any changes.) Then refresh the page and see if it's there. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)