![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
(For the convenience of editors, I'm dividing the thread "What does Casey 2014 say about a Hebrew Gospel?" in two because it began as a discussion of whether or not Casey mentions a Hebrew Gospel and ended with RetProf saying he no longer wished to support that argument. With that behind us, we're now talking about the date of Matthew - RetProf's comment, the first in this thread, leads on directly from the end of the previous thread) PiCo ( talk) 02:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Let us do things one at a time. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 21:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Evensteven Casey 2014 puts the date of composition between 50& 60 ce. Where did the 40 come from?? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 23:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@All, please read this before you get in much deeper with this guy. Thank you. Ignocrates ( talk) 13:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
RetProf, you don't need to tell us what Casey says about his preferred date for Matthew, we already know. What we need is where you find Casey talking about a Hebrew Gospel. PiCo ( talk) 12:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Therefore I am willing to support the compromise put forward by Andrevan: " The article says 70-110 and pre-70 date is a minority view, but Casey says 50, so it seems reasonable if Casey is a reliable source to change the first number to 50 without changing the second number. I don't see a need to call Casey out by name." Also this proposal has no problems with Fringe or Synthesis. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 21:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Excellent; thank you both. So then it's appropriate to call him RS, and a scholar. Yet I agree that scholarly authority wrt Matthew is the critical point here. That's the thing I really dislike about all these "most"/"many"/"majority"/"minority"/"some"/"virtually all" characterizations we hear about all over WP. It really isn't a "poll the scholars or RSes" contest, nor is it a vote. Quality of scholarship must count heavily, and close, prolonged study counts for much as well. (Although "specialization" can also create tunnel vision.) So, given the excellence of awareness about Matthew scholarship we have in this community, the bibliography should be a pretty good resource from which to identify the prominent dates. I'm hearing that 70 is about as early as those sources go - so I ask, why have we been mentioning "pre-70"? Either Casey is alone there, or someone else is in that category too. That's important for establishing proper weight in the article.
But given Casey's recognition as meticulous, one question I'm not clear on is how closely and meticulously he examined this composition date for Matthew in his research. I don't think it's enough just to look at his conclusion. It's important to see how intermingled that date is within his other theses, and how much attention it receives among those considerations. Especially because his scholarly area was outside the "Matthew expert" arena, it may be that he has some insight to offer to those inside that arena, because of related matters they might not have considered in the same light. On the other hand, it may not be that significant to his work, and his whole book may then have been peripheral to this matter. I think it's quite early to know anything beyond an initial reaction to the book here and there. It will get continuing attention (or it won't) in unknown measure. This community can get a feel for all these questions, but in the end, there's not a lot we can do about the need to wait for more thorough looks. Criticisms or possible shortcomings are quicker to get to print (like sugar to digest), while scholarly challenges or insights take more time for everyone to absorb (like protein). What we want to know is the nutritional content, and the metabolism can't say yet.
So I return to my opinion that it's too early to enter Casey into the article. The jury is out. Evensteven ( talk) 21:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
This is lifted word for word from France "a pre-70 date remains a minority view" A pre-70 date for Matthew remains a minority view, but one which has been strongly supported," This is not acceptable! - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think further argument is going to be fruitful. What should we do? PiCo ( talk) 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Some of you may be wondering why I believe Casey 2014 is so very important. Many other scholars have over the years argued for an early date for Matthew. It is not just that Casey is a respected historian. It is that he is a non-Christian. Therefore, he has no bias toward an early date (as some conservative scholars). He has done an excellent job of weighing the evidence and coming to a scholarly conclusion! Please read Casey 2014 pp 93-96! Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 15:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The way the article reads is a total misrepresentation of what France says! It is blatant POV pushing! He believes the early date for Matthew remains a minority view, "but one which has been strongly supported". Distorting the meaning of a reliable source in not acceptable at Wikipedia! We can and must do better!- Ret.Prof ( talk) 12:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
There clearly is a serious edit war breaking out here. I think it would be a good idea for the parties to step back and take a dispassionate look. Andrevan and StAnselm, could you both state your opinions - just opinions - on what the problem is? PiCo ( talk) 09:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Andrevan, please state why you think there's a violation of NPOV. Just to focus the discussion, NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." What significant view regarding the date of Matthew do you think has been omitted, or represented unfairly, or disproportionately, and in a biased manner? On the other hand, if you've changed your mind and no longer want to edit this article (several voices above are advising you to take a step back), then please remove the tag. PiCo ( talk) 16:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
(Added the break to make editing easier) Andrevan, since the NPOV tags are yours, I think it's reasonable to ask you to explain and defend them. That's what this thread is about, please don't be quite so defensive. So, following on from what's been said immediately above, I understand it that you feel that "sourced, valid information is being deleted" (to quote your first post in the thread). Presumably this is a reference to this edit of yours in the Setting and Date subsection (your edit in bold):
You feel (correct me if I'm wrong) that this must be mentioned in the article because Maurice Casey is a reliable source.
I and the majority of editors feel this is faulty reasoning, and I'll run through the reasons:
Now a slightly different matter. Your rejected edit states that Casey "has been a proponent of an Aramaic source for Matthew." This isn't quite true. Casey believes that fragments written in Aramaic are to be found embedded in the Q source and the Special M source, and also in Mark. Fragments are not sources. The sources of sources, but not in themselves sources - rather like your grandfather not being your father. The comment about the Augustinean hypothesis seems to be entirely your own.
If, after reading the above, you take off the tags, I think that would be the best outcome. If, on the other hand, you remain convinced that policy has been breached, then we have to proceed to arbitration. PiCo ( talk) 07:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Just thought I'd clarify a policy point. On 14 September one editor reverted this passage which had been added to the "setting and date" section, with the edit summary that it was a point of view that had not gained academic traction:
The original poster then put this comment on that editor's user page:
I regard this as important for two reasons. First, "academic traction" is indeed a policy - it falls under discovering and assigning due and undue weight. Second, warning another editor on his user page about "danger" can be misinterpreted - it should be avoided. We need all the editors we can find, and we shouldn't be warning anyone like this. PiCo ( talk) 14:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
See Evaluating claims and Notability vs. acceptance. Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context – e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." – but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight.... Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. Casey and Edwards are two leading academics, not wacko prognosticators on some fringe website. Their views are in a long-standing historical tradition as documented in our separate articles. The main article deals with this and needs to cover this. Andrevan @ 02:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
User: Ignocrates ! User: Ret.Prof ! Both of you appear to be stubbornly ignoring the clear statements of User: Guy Macon, the dispute resolution moderator. You are both talking about arbitration and the timetable for arbitration, as if dispute resolution and arbitration can run in parallel. You appear to be ignoring Guy Macon’s clear statements that he isn’t planning to moderate content dispute resolution while other remedies are in progress. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Ignocrates: Is there a reason why you still think that arbitration will be necessary? Have you concluded that dispute resolution will not work, or that you will cause dispute resolution to fail, or have you decided that Ret. Prof will cause it to fail, or is there some other reason why you both think that arbitration will be in order and why you have decided that it has to be scheduled to get a timely resolution before the arbitration election? What will you be requesting in arbitration? Will the benefits to you of arbitration exceed the risks to you of the boomerang on arbitration? Ignocrates: Please re-read your 24 September statement https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AGospel_of_Matthew&diff=626923016&oldid=626921939 and let us know whether that really is what you mean. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It is my reading, and Guy Macon can correct me if I am mistaken, that Guy Macon will shut down dispute resolution if the discussion of arbitration continues. One likely eventual outcome in that case could be that the content dispute resolution could be archived, and resumed after the arbitration is complete, minus any parties who were topic-banned, including for failure to cooperate with dispute resolution. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
If this case does go to arbitration, two likely outcomes are discretionary sanctions, a form of draconian restriction on editing, and topic-bans. While it does appear to me that arbitration is likely, everyone should be trying to avoid that last stop by other remedies, rather than insisting on factoring it into a timetable. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It appears that considerable progress has been made in dispute resolution. More progress can be made if certain editors will, at least for the time being, stop dragging their dislike of each other into the arena. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I have checked the essay "Determining the Date of Matthew" by Donald A. Hagner in Jesus, Matthew's Gospel, and Early Christianity ed by Daniel M. Gurtner et al ISBN HB 978-0-567-50085-4, published by T & T Clark in 2011.
According to page 76, "'Everybody knows' ... that Matthew was written in the 80s.... This is a matter of critical othodoxy." It mentions other proposed dates, including one proposal in a 1912 book placing it a few years before or after 70. It also indicates other proposals made since the mid 1980s roughly since Graham Stanton's "The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel," published in 1985, which lists the then current proposals. Among the proposals mentioned on pp 76-78 of Hagner's 2011 essay, are proposals placing it as early as 40, 50s or earlier, mid to late 50s, 58-69, late 50s-early 60s, circa 60, 60s (2 different proposals), 65-67, and before 70.
Page 78 discusses a proposal placing it in the 90-100 period.
Page 82 discusses a proposal placing it at some time after 70.
Therefore, I think that recent scholarship can be said based on this material, to have a fairly clear acadmic consensus for around the 80s (as a "matter of critical orthodoxy") and other recent proposals placing it some time between the 40s and the end of the first century. I could check Stanton's essay as well when I find it but I doubt that it will expland the period of proposed dates much. John Carter ( talk) 20:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
As an edit summary this is inadequate. You can't 'date' Matthew from Mark, and the link is indirect, consisting of weighing the pros and contras of 'priority', which means, determining which was earlier. That Mark looks earlier doesn't help us 'date' Matthew, in any other sense than saying the latter is 'later'. But when ('dating')is something determined by internal analysis of Matthew. Nitpicky? Yes, but that's how scholarship works. Nishidani ( talk) 18:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
For all three editors above; @Nishidani, In the above note I had assumed that you knew of the extensive discussion on the dating of Matthew currently taking place here [1], and that the edit posted was in agreement with Andrevan's noted there. @Ignocrates, The purpose of this edit was for readers to gain a clear picture of the difference between existing manuscripts on the one hand, and scholarly estimates of dates in the absence of manuscripts on the other hand in a "Background" section which currently does not exist on this page. The editors here [2] at dispute resolution know the difference, readers generally cannot be assumed to know the details of the "art" of estimates as a general rule. @PiCo, The poor wording you indicate in your reference is adapted directly from the FA for "Jesus". If you feel the FA at "Jesus" is illiterate and ready for a de-listing then you can nominate it for de-listing. A short section of this Background here is still justified in some form if you have a suggestion. Note that this is Background of what manuscripts and dating practices are for Matthew; it was meant as a short supplement to the discussion of "majority estimates, minority estimates, and fringe estimates" currently taking place (as they should) at Dispute Resolution, and not to replace them. A short edit for a small Background section would be useful for readers. FelixRosch ( talk) 14:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no autograph (copy) of the complete Matthew gospel from the second century in existence. There is no autograph (copied) edition of the complete Matthew gospel from the third century.
Autographs do not survive for ancient books. They survive in scribal copies propagated over time. In the process of recopying, variations slipped in, different regional manuscript traditions emerged with multiple streams of transmission, and corrections and adjustments were made, for theological reasons or to iron out incongruencies between copies or different translations into numerous languages. The editions of biblical and other ancient texts we read today are established by collating all major surviving manuscripts, using also the evidence from citations of them in Patristic writers, in order to produce a version which, by the consensus of scholars of textual criticism, most likely approximates to the form of the lost autographs. [1] In the case of the New Testament, the oldest exemplars of relatively complete manuscripts are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Most scholars agree, following what is known as the "Marcan hypothesis", [2] that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source when writing their gospels after the Gospel of Mark was completed (written 60-75 AD). [3]
References
@Nishidani, My addition of the final sentence to the @Andrevan abridgment which we had previously discussed shows the importance of the edit for a Background section. The Background section is for readers using Wikipedia, and not for editors who have participated in the discussion and may or may not be familiar with it. The readers is why the short section on Background is useful. In comment to your question about a source for the Marcan hypothesis and the Marcan priority theory, this material is of high importance and you may read it in the Stoldt book on the subject. No matter how you date Matthew, early or late, it infers that you must give your case for an earlier date for Mark along with whichever date is presented for Matthew [Stoldt, Hans-Herbert, History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis, Hardcover, 302 pages, Mercer Univ Pr; First Edition edition (October 1980), ISBN 978-0865540026]. @PiCo, My edit as adapted is directly from the FA article for "Jesus", if you need to state that it is poorly written or illiterate you need to nominate it for de-listing there, at that Page, since most believe it to be well written and useful as it is now. FelixRosch ( talk) 14:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The dispute resolution moderator, User:Guy Macon, has said at the dispute resolution noticeboard that it appears that there is disagreement, and that moderated dispute resolution will end and an RFC instead will be used to obtain consensus. The issue appears to have to do with exactly what to say about the 50-60 AD theory. What are the two or three proposed wordings to be offered in the RFC? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've made an edit to the article. Since there are 3 or 4 people reverting each other it seems unlikely to stand, but it should give you an idea of where my head is with respect to the direction of the article. Please note it should be stated that I am not "beyond reason" nor is it the case that I won't respect a consensus - but a number of editors forming a consensus that policies regarding NPOV do not apply to this article is not a consensus that has power. This article presents speculation about the authorship of an ancient document without qualifying it as speculation or explaining where it came from and how it evolved over time. That means it is not NPOV. Andrevan @ 00:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Focus on content and not contributors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Does anyone have an alternate idea for what the wording should be about the dating of the book? Clearly the current wording, usually thought to be 60-70 CE, with a minority for earlier, is one of them. Does anyone have any specific ideas for an alternate lede sentence about the date of this book? If no one really has an alternate idea, then do we really have a consensus, or do we need an RFC? I don't want to go to an RFC until we know what the ideas are for the lede sentence. The current wording is one version. Is there another, or are we willing to agree that the current wording has consensus? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
In Gospel of Matthew#Author, there is a quotation about the book showing no telltale signs of translation, but this is followed by two refs side by side. Which one does the quotation come from? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Conservative evangelical scholars (read: fundamentalists) are a minority in the Bible scholarship taught at the main US universities. I have restored WP:RS/AC claims and reverted WP:UNDUE violations, for the reasons mentioned. The term "liberal", as was used in the article, is a misnomer for non-fundamentalist. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I mean: whoever did not subscribe to biblical inerrancy got smeared as "liberal". Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Eric the fever, for the lead and the date of composition, we have as our source Dennis Duling, who says: "Most scholars prefer a date for Matthew ... about 80-90 CE"; R.T. France is the source for the parenthesis to the effect that a pre-70 date is a minority view, which in effect simply makes explicit what is implicit in Duling. This sentence therefore gives a sourced statement of the state of scholarship on dating, and your suggested additional sentence is unnecessary.
Regarding your wish to include a sentence about a "vigorous debate" on the date, I haven't been aware, reading the literature, that such a debate exists - France, I believe, admits as much in characterising his own conclusion (he favours a pre-70 date) as a minority one. However, if you can find a sourced statement that such a debate exists, certainly I'd try to work it into the article, although not at such length as you had in your edit (my ideal is to use as few words as possible).
And no, I don't think you're a fundamentalist or a loonie :) PiCo ( talk) 07:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
(P.s. - when giving sources, it might help to use the sfn format (sfn means short foot note) - this lists the author, year and page number. I can't work out from your tag where in Wallace I should look to check your information. Also, Wallace is the editor of that volume - you need to find and note the author of the individual article, not the editor). PiCo ( talk) 07:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gospel of Matthew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Is it Gospel or gospel? Gentile or gentile? We're a bit inconsistent on this. 2602:306:CFEA:170:7028:87D2:559A:EC4F ( talk) 14:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Who would have thought one little word could cause so much trouble! I should note that I am not a Christian pushing my personal beliefs, but interested in maintaining the integrity of the article.
User:Stevenmitchell wants to add "proposed Messiah" to the lead. I believe this is inappropriate because:
I changed "proposed" to "promised" as Matthew presents many examples of Jesus fulfilling messianic prophecies from the Old Testament. I would like to know how other editors feel about this - cheers - Epinoia ( talk) 23:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The following view is the view of skeptics — that we don’t have the originals, we have only copies, and that thousands of copies have thousands and tens-of-thousands of mistakes.
And this is also the view of non-skeptics. It’s the view of every scholar who works in this field.
Everybody agrees we don’t have the originals, we have thousands of copies, and the thousand copies have tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of differences among them.
Are any of these differences important?
— Bart Ehrman, [5]
First of all, I believe that when Dan kept saying “radical skeptic” I think he was referring to me. [audience laughter] I’m not completely sure about it but I think that’s what he had in mind. The term radical refers to… a radical view is a view that is so extreme that very few people hold it.
The views I laid out for you are not radical in that sense at all. In fact, the are widely held among scholars in this field. Arguably the most erudite scholar in North American in recent decades is the lately deceased William Peterson whose book Collected Essays came out two weeks ago, who argues in essay after essay that it does not make sense for us any longer to talk about the original text.
The senior person in the field of New Testament textual criticism in North America is named Eldon Epp. He teaches the text criticism seminar at Harvard University. He also has written essays arguing that it no longer makes sense to talk about the original text. The chair of the New Testament Textual Criticism section of the national Society of Biblical literature meeting is AnneMarie Luijendijk who is a professor of religion at Princeton University. She also does not think that it makes sense to talk about the original text. Her predecessor was Kim Haines-Eitzen who’s chair of the Department of Religion at Cornell University. She also does not think that we can talk about getting back to the original text. The leading scholar in the field in the English speaking world is David Parker who teaches at the University of Birmingham in England. He’s written an entire book arguing that you cannot get back to the original text and it doesn’t make sense to talk about the original text. These are not extreme views. These are the views of the leading scholars in the English speaking world.
— Bart Ehrman, [6]
About William L. Petersen, Eldon J. Epp, AnneMarie Luijendijk, Kim Haines-Eitzen and David C. Parker. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=933939838&oldid=933919183
/info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
: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)
=== See above for unresolved Ioudaioi "Jew" vs "Jew or Judean" conflict. Strictly to the source, "Ioudaioi" should be mentioned only, as written by the author (see the source material p370). Please resolve in the Talk Section before further Article editing.
: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?
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)
@ 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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
(For the convenience of editors, I'm dividing the thread "What does Casey 2014 say about a Hebrew Gospel?" in two because it began as a discussion of whether or not Casey mentions a Hebrew Gospel and ended with RetProf saying he no longer wished to support that argument. With that behind us, we're now talking about the date of Matthew - RetProf's comment, the first in this thread, leads on directly from the end of the previous thread) PiCo ( talk) 02:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Let us do things one at a time. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 21:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Evensteven Casey 2014 puts the date of composition between 50& 60 ce. Where did the 40 come from?? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 23:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@All, please read this before you get in much deeper with this guy. Thank you. Ignocrates ( talk) 13:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
RetProf, you don't need to tell us what Casey says about his preferred date for Matthew, we already know. What we need is where you find Casey talking about a Hebrew Gospel. PiCo ( talk) 12:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Therefore I am willing to support the compromise put forward by Andrevan: " The article says 70-110 and pre-70 date is a minority view, but Casey says 50, so it seems reasonable if Casey is a reliable source to change the first number to 50 without changing the second number. I don't see a need to call Casey out by name." Also this proposal has no problems with Fringe or Synthesis. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 21:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Excellent; thank you both. So then it's appropriate to call him RS, and a scholar. Yet I agree that scholarly authority wrt Matthew is the critical point here. That's the thing I really dislike about all these "most"/"many"/"majority"/"minority"/"some"/"virtually all" characterizations we hear about all over WP. It really isn't a "poll the scholars or RSes" contest, nor is it a vote. Quality of scholarship must count heavily, and close, prolonged study counts for much as well. (Although "specialization" can also create tunnel vision.) So, given the excellence of awareness about Matthew scholarship we have in this community, the bibliography should be a pretty good resource from which to identify the prominent dates. I'm hearing that 70 is about as early as those sources go - so I ask, why have we been mentioning "pre-70"? Either Casey is alone there, or someone else is in that category too. That's important for establishing proper weight in the article.
But given Casey's recognition as meticulous, one question I'm not clear on is how closely and meticulously he examined this composition date for Matthew in his research. I don't think it's enough just to look at his conclusion. It's important to see how intermingled that date is within his other theses, and how much attention it receives among those considerations. Especially because his scholarly area was outside the "Matthew expert" arena, it may be that he has some insight to offer to those inside that arena, because of related matters they might not have considered in the same light. On the other hand, it may not be that significant to his work, and his whole book may then have been peripheral to this matter. I think it's quite early to know anything beyond an initial reaction to the book here and there. It will get continuing attention (or it won't) in unknown measure. This community can get a feel for all these questions, but in the end, there's not a lot we can do about the need to wait for more thorough looks. Criticisms or possible shortcomings are quicker to get to print (like sugar to digest), while scholarly challenges or insights take more time for everyone to absorb (like protein). What we want to know is the nutritional content, and the metabolism can't say yet.
So I return to my opinion that it's too early to enter Casey into the article. The jury is out. Evensteven ( talk) 21:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
This is lifted word for word from France "a pre-70 date remains a minority view" A pre-70 date for Matthew remains a minority view, but one which has been strongly supported," This is not acceptable! - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think further argument is going to be fruitful. What should we do? PiCo ( talk) 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Some of you may be wondering why I believe Casey 2014 is so very important. Many other scholars have over the years argued for an early date for Matthew. It is not just that Casey is a respected historian. It is that he is a non-Christian. Therefore, he has no bias toward an early date (as some conservative scholars). He has done an excellent job of weighing the evidence and coming to a scholarly conclusion! Please read Casey 2014 pp 93-96! Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 15:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The way the article reads is a total misrepresentation of what France says! It is blatant POV pushing! He believes the early date for Matthew remains a minority view, "but one which has been strongly supported". Distorting the meaning of a reliable source in not acceptable at Wikipedia! We can and must do better!- Ret.Prof ( talk) 12:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
There clearly is a serious edit war breaking out here. I think it would be a good idea for the parties to step back and take a dispassionate look. Andrevan and StAnselm, could you both state your opinions - just opinions - on what the problem is? PiCo ( talk) 09:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Andrevan, please state why you think there's a violation of NPOV. Just to focus the discussion, NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." What significant view regarding the date of Matthew do you think has been omitted, or represented unfairly, or disproportionately, and in a biased manner? On the other hand, if you've changed your mind and no longer want to edit this article (several voices above are advising you to take a step back), then please remove the tag. PiCo ( talk) 16:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
(Added the break to make editing easier) Andrevan, since the NPOV tags are yours, I think it's reasonable to ask you to explain and defend them. That's what this thread is about, please don't be quite so defensive. So, following on from what's been said immediately above, I understand it that you feel that "sourced, valid information is being deleted" (to quote your first post in the thread). Presumably this is a reference to this edit of yours in the Setting and Date subsection (your edit in bold):
You feel (correct me if I'm wrong) that this must be mentioned in the article because Maurice Casey is a reliable source.
I and the majority of editors feel this is faulty reasoning, and I'll run through the reasons:
Now a slightly different matter. Your rejected edit states that Casey "has been a proponent of an Aramaic source for Matthew." This isn't quite true. Casey believes that fragments written in Aramaic are to be found embedded in the Q source and the Special M source, and also in Mark. Fragments are not sources. The sources of sources, but not in themselves sources - rather like your grandfather not being your father. The comment about the Augustinean hypothesis seems to be entirely your own.
If, after reading the above, you take off the tags, I think that would be the best outcome. If, on the other hand, you remain convinced that policy has been breached, then we have to proceed to arbitration. PiCo ( talk) 07:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Just thought I'd clarify a policy point. On 14 September one editor reverted this passage which had been added to the "setting and date" section, with the edit summary that it was a point of view that had not gained academic traction:
The original poster then put this comment on that editor's user page:
I regard this as important for two reasons. First, "academic traction" is indeed a policy - it falls under discovering and assigning due and undue weight. Second, warning another editor on his user page about "danger" can be misinterpreted - it should be avoided. We need all the editors we can find, and we shouldn't be warning anyone like this. PiCo ( talk) 14:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
See Evaluating claims and Notability vs. acceptance. Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context – e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." – but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight.... Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. Casey and Edwards are two leading academics, not wacko prognosticators on some fringe website. Their views are in a long-standing historical tradition as documented in our separate articles. The main article deals with this and needs to cover this. Andrevan @ 02:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
User: Ignocrates ! User: Ret.Prof ! Both of you appear to be stubbornly ignoring the clear statements of User: Guy Macon, the dispute resolution moderator. You are both talking about arbitration and the timetable for arbitration, as if dispute resolution and arbitration can run in parallel. You appear to be ignoring Guy Macon’s clear statements that he isn’t planning to moderate content dispute resolution while other remedies are in progress. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Ignocrates: Is there a reason why you still think that arbitration will be necessary? Have you concluded that dispute resolution will not work, or that you will cause dispute resolution to fail, or have you decided that Ret. Prof will cause it to fail, or is there some other reason why you both think that arbitration will be in order and why you have decided that it has to be scheduled to get a timely resolution before the arbitration election? What will you be requesting in arbitration? Will the benefits to you of arbitration exceed the risks to you of the boomerang on arbitration? Ignocrates: Please re-read your 24 September statement https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AGospel_of_Matthew&diff=626923016&oldid=626921939 and let us know whether that really is what you mean. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It is my reading, and Guy Macon can correct me if I am mistaken, that Guy Macon will shut down dispute resolution if the discussion of arbitration continues. One likely eventual outcome in that case could be that the content dispute resolution could be archived, and resumed after the arbitration is complete, minus any parties who were topic-banned, including for failure to cooperate with dispute resolution. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
If this case does go to arbitration, two likely outcomes are discretionary sanctions, a form of draconian restriction on editing, and topic-bans. While it does appear to me that arbitration is likely, everyone should be trying to avoid that last stop by other remedies, rather than insisting on factoring it into a timetable. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It appears that considerable progress has been made in dispute resolution. More progress can be made if certain editors will, at least for the time being, stop dragging their dislike of each other into the arena. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I have checked the essay "Determining the Date of Matthew" by Donald A. Hagner in Jesus, Matthew's Gospel, and Early Christianity ed by Daniel M. Gurtner et al ISBN HB 978-0-567-50085-4, published by T & T Clark in 2011.
According to page 76, "'Everybody knows' ... that Matthew was written in the 80s.... This is a matter of critical othodoxy." It mentions other proposed dates, including one proposal in a 1912 book placing it a few years before or after 70. It also indicates other proposals made since the mid 1980s roughly since Graham Stanton's "The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel," published in 1985, which lists the then current proposals. Among the proposals mentioned on pp 76-78 of Hagner's 2011 essay, are proposals placing it as early as 40, 50s or earlier, mid to late 50s, 58-69, late 50s-early 60s, circa 60, 60s (2 different proposals), 65-67, and before 70.
Page 78 discusses a proposal placing it in the 90-100 period.
Page 82 discusses a proposal placing it at some time after 70.
Therefore, I think that recent scholarship can be said based on this material, to have a fairly clear acadmic consensus for around the 80s (as a "matter of critical orthodoxy") and other recent proposals placing it some time between the 40s and the end of the first century. I could check Stanton's essay as well when I find it but I doubt that it will expland the period of proposed dates much. John Carter ( talk) 20:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
As an edit summary this is inadequate. You can't 'date' Matthew from Mark, and the link is indirect, consisting of weighing the pros and contras of 'priority', which means, determining which was earlier. That Mark looks earlier doesn't help us 'date' Matthew, in any other sense than saying the latter is 'later'. But when ('dating')is something determined by internal analysis of Matthew. Nitpicky? Yes, but that's how scholarship works. Nishidani ( talk) 18:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
For all three editors above; @Nishidani, In the above note I had assumed that you knew of the extensive discussion on the dating of Matthew currently taking place here [1], and that the edit posted was in agreement with Andrevan's noted there. @Ignocrates, The purpose of this edit was for readers to gain a clear picture of the difference between existing manuscripts on the one hand, and scholarly estimates of dates in the absence of manuscripts on the other hand in a "Background" section which currently does not exist on this page. The editors here [2] at dispute resolution know the difference, readers generally cannot be assumed to know the details of the "art" of estimates as a general rule. @PiCo, The poor wording you indicate in your reference is adapted directly from the FA for "Jesus". If you feel the FA at "Jesus" is illiterate and ready for a de-listing then you can nominate it for de-listing. A short section of this Background here is still justified in some form if you have a suggestion. Note that this is Background of what manuscripts and dating practices are for Matthew; it was meant as a short supplement to the discussion of "majority estimates, minority estimates, and fringe estimates" currently taking place (as they should) at Dispute Resolution, and not to replace them. A short edit for a small Background section would be useful for readers. FelixRosch ( talk) 14:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no autograph (copy) of the complete Matthew gospel from the second century in existence. There is no autograph (copied) edition of the complete Matthew gospel from the third century.
Autographs do not survive for ancient books. They survive in scribal copies propagated over time. In the process of recopying, variations slipped in, different regional manuscript traditions emerged with multiple streams of transmission, and corrections and adjustments were made, for theological reasons or to iron out incongruencies between copies or different translations into numerous languages. The editions of biblical and other ancient texts we read today are established by collating all major surviving manuscripts, using also the evidence from citations of them in Patristic writers, in order to produce a version which, by the consensus of scholars of textual criticism, most likely approximates to the form of the lost autographs. [1] In the case of the New Testament, the oldest exemplars of relatively complete manuscripts are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Most scholars agree, following what is known as the "Marcan hypothesis", [2] that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source when writing their gospels after the Gospel of Mark was completed (written 60-75 AD). [3]
References
@Nishidani, My addition of the final sentence to the @Andrevan abridgment which we had previously discussed shows the importance of the edit for a Background section. The Background section is for readers using Wikipedia, and not for editors who have participated in the discussion and may or may not be familiar with it. The readers is why the short section on Background is useful. In comment to your question about a source for the Marcan hypothesis and the Marcan priority theory, this material is of high importance and you may read it in the Stoldt book on the subject. No matter how you date Matthew, early or late, it infers that you must give your case for an earlier date for Mark along with whichever date is presented for Matthew [Stoldt, Hans-Herbert, History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis, Hardcover, 302 pages, Mercer Univ Pr; First Edition edition (October 1980), ISBN 978-0865540026]. @PiCo, My edit as adapted is directly from the FA article for "Jesus", if you need to state that it is poorly written or illiterate you need to nominate it for de-listing there, at that Page, since most believe it to be well written and useful as it is now. FelixRosch ( talk) 14:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The dispute resolution moderator, User:Guy Macon, has said at the dispute resolution noticeboard that it appears that there is disagreement, and that moderated dispute resolution will end and an RFC instead will be used to obtain consensus. The issue appears to have to do with exactly what to say about the 50-60 AD theory. What are the two or three proposed wordings to be offered in the RFC? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've made an edit to the article. Since there are 3 or 4 people reverting each other it seems unlikely to stand, but it should give you an idea of where my head is with respect to the direction of the article. Please note it should be stated that I am not "beyond reason" nor is it the case that I won't respect a consensus - but a number of editors forming a consensus that policies regarding NPOV do not apply to this article is not a consensus that has power. This article presents speculation about the authorship of an ancient document without qualifying it as speculation or explaining where it came from and how it evolved over time. That means it is not NPOV. Andrevan @ 00:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Focus on content and not contributors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Does anyone have an alternate idea for what the wording should be about the dating of the book? Clearly the current wording, usually thought to be 60-70 CE, with a minority for earlier, is one of them. Does anyone have any specific ideas for an alternate lede sentence about the date of this book? If no one really has an alternate idea, then do we really have a consensus, or do we need an RFC? I don't want to go to an RFC until we know what the ideas are for the lede sentence. The current wording is one version. Is there another, or are we willing to agree that the current wording has consensus? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
In Gospel of Matthew#Author, there is a quotation about the book showing no telltale signs of translation, but this is followed by two refs side by side. Which one does the quotation come from? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Conservative evangelical scholars (read: fundamentalists) are a minority in the Bible scholarship taught at the main US universities. I have restored WP:RS/AC claims and reverted WP:UNDUE violations, for the reasons mentioned. The term "liberal", as was used in the article, is a misnomer for non-fundamentalist. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I mean: whoever did not subscribe to biblical inerrancy got smeared as "liberal". Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Eric the fever, for the lead and the date of composition, we have as our source Dennis Duling, who says: "Most scholars prefer a date for Matthew ... about 80-90 CE"; R.T. France is the source for the parenthesis to the effect that a pre-70 date is a minority view, which in effect simply makes explicit what is implicit in Duling. This sentence therefore gives a sourced statement of the state of scholarship on dating, and your suggested additional sentence is unnecessary.
Regarding your wish to include a sentence about a "vigorous debate" on the date, I haven't been aware, reading the literature, that such a debate exists - France, I believe, admits as much in characterising his own conclusion (he favours a pre-70 date) as a minority one. However, if you can find a sourced statement that such a debate exists, certainly I'd try to work it into the article, although not at such length as you had in your edit (my ideal is to use as few words as possible).
And no, I don't think you're a fundamentalist or a loonie :) PiCo ( talk) 07:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
(P.s. - when giving sources, it might help to use the sfn format (sfn means short foot note) - this lists the author, year and page number. I can't work out from your tag where in Wallace I should look to check your information. Also, Wallace is the editor of that volume - you need to find and note the author of the individual article, not the editor). PiCo ( talk) 07:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gospel of Matthew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Is it Gospel or gospel? Gentile or gentile? We're a bit inconsistent on this. 2602:306:CFEA:170:7028:87D2:559A:EC4F ( talk) 14:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Who would have thought one little word could cause so much trouble! I should note that I am not a Christian pushing my personal beliefs, but interested in maintaining the integrity of the article.
User:Stevenmitchell wants to add "proposed Messiah" to the lead. I believe this is inappropriate because:
I changed "proposed" to "promised" as Matthew presents many examples of Jesus fulfilling messianic prophecies from the Old Testament. I would like to know how other editors feel about this - cheers - Epinoia ( talk) 23:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The following view is the view of skeptics — that we don’t have the originals, we have only copies, and that thousands of copies have thousands and tens-of-thousands of mistakes.
And this is also the view of non-skeptics. It’s the view of every scholar who works in this field.
Everybody agrees we don’t have the originals, we have thousands of copies, and the thousand copies have tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of differences among them.
Are any of these differences important?
— Bart Ehrman, [5]
First of all, I believe that when Dan kept saying “radical skeptic” I think he was referring to me. [audience laughter] I’m not completely sure about it but I think that’s what he had in mind. The term radical refers to… a radical view is a view that is so extreme that very few people hold it.
The views I laid out for you are not radical in that sense at all. In fact, the are widely held among scholars in this field. Arguably the most erudite scholar in North American in recent decades is the lately deceased William Peterson whose book Collected Essays came out two weeks ago, who argues in essay after essay that it does not make sense for us any longer to talk about the original text.
The senior person in the field of New Testament textual criticism in North America is named Eldon Epp. He teaches the text criticism seminar at Harvard University. He also has written essays arguing that it no longer makes sense to talk about the original text. The chair of the New Testament Textual Criticism section of the national Society of Biblical literature meeting is AnneMarie Luijendijk who is a professor of religion at Princeton University. She also does not think that it makes sense to talk about the original text. Her predecessor was Kim Haines-Eitzen who’s chair of the Department of Religion at Cornell University. She also does not think that we can talk about getting back to the original text. The leading scholar in the field in the English speaking world is David Parker who teaches at the University of Birmingham in England. He’s written an entire book arguing that you cannot get back to the original text and it doesn’t make sense to talk about the original text. These are not extreme views. These are the views of the leading scholars in the English speaking world.
— Bart Ehrman, [6]
About William L. Petersen, Eldon J. Epp, AnneMarie Luijendijk, Kim Haines-Eitzen and David C. Parker. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=933939838&oldid=933919183
/info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
: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)
=== See above for unresolved Ioudaioi "Jew" vs "Jew or Judean" conflict. Strictly to the source, "Ioudaioi" should be mentioned only, as written by the author (see the source material p370). Please resolve in the Talk Section before further Article editing.
: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?
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)
@ 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)