![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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.
Who's Matthew's parent
When did he born
Is he a Prophet 172.193.98.240 ( talk) 09:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
didn't like to be touched 2600:1700:91C0:9F0:A361:75EC:3E9B:4553 ( talk) 18:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The claim of his gospel authorship is rejected by most biblical scholars...
IMO, this is unacceptable usage of 2 words by Wikipedia standards.
#1 "rejected" How is this a fact or even reliable interpretation?
#2 "most" How is this a fact or even reliable interpretation?
I proposed the following update to this first sentence (that quickly resulted in an Edit war with @ Newimpartial even though I made changes to my original edit).
Here's my proposed edit:
The early church accepts Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. The claim of his gospel authorship is questioned by some modern biblical scholars,
My edit acknowledges the early widely held and recorded beliefs about the author of the book of Matthew (which, at a minimum, is reliable interpretation). I have also replaced the words "rejected" and "most" to "questioned" and "some" as the editor does not site evidence of the word most factually or by reliable interpretation (the word most being significantly more than 50%). The word rejected should be rejected because it is simply an unacceptable characterization of how biblical scholars truely felt about their doubts Matthew as the author (unless a factual study can be produced that shows an overwhelming percentage (most) reject Matthew the Apostle as the author.
Finally, @ Newimpartial reverted one of my edits by saying, "we start with recent, not ancient traditions." The early church is not ancient tradition. it is an historical era characterized by people who recorded powerful words, stories, facts, and events that billions of people study, read, and care about today...and for thousands of years to come. Williehillie223740 ( talk) 16:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
rejectedby the vast majority of relevant scholarship, not
questioned. The tradition if Matthew as author is reported in this article - as it should be - but cannot be presented as fact because that is not what the best sources say. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
this conversation is overmight be a bit harsh, Williehillie will not see the kind of changes they want to see in this article based on the existing sourcing and Wikipedia policies that currently exist. There is a scholarly consensus on this topic, and the current article text rather timidly reflects that scholarly consensus. An appeal to tradition is not going to change that - the facts of the matter are reflected in the article (the tradition exists, and it is not supported as a factual claim by recent WP:HQRS). Newimpartial ( talk) 15:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
any bibilical scholar from over 100 years agois simply not relevant to the current academic consensus on any topic.
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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.
Who's Matthew's parent
When did he born
Is he a Prophet 172.193.98.240 ( talk) 09:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
didn't like to be touched 2600:1700:91C0:9F0:A361:75EC:3E9B:4553 ( talk) 18:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The claim of his gospel authorship is rejected by most biblical scholars...
IMO, this is unacceptable usage of 2 words by Wikipedia standards.
#1 "rejected" How is this a fact or even reliable interpretation?
#2 "most" How is this a fact or even reliable interpretation?
I proposed the following update to this first sentence (that quickly resulted in an Edit war with @ Newimpartial even though I made changes to my original edit).
Here's my proposed edit:
The early church accepts Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. The claim of his gospel authorship is questioned by some modern biblical scholars,
My edit acknowledges the early widely held and recorded beliefs about the author of the book of Matthew (which, at a minimum, is reliable interpretation). I have also replaced the words "rejected" and "most" to "questioned" and "some" as the editor does not site evidence of the word most factually or by reliable interpretation (the word most being significantly more than 50%). The word rejected should be rejected because it is simply an unacceptable characterization of how biblical scholars truely felt about their doubts Matthew as the author (unless a factual study can be produced that shows an overwhelming percentage (most) reject Matthew the Apostle as the author.
Finally, @ Newimpartial reverted one of my edits by saying, "we start with recent, not ancient traditions." The early church is not ancient tradition. it is an historical era characterized by people who recorded powerful words, stories, facts, and events that billions of people study, read, and care about today...and for thousands of years to come. Williehillie223740 ( talk) 16:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
rejectedby the vast majority of relevant scholarship, not
questioned. The tradition if Matthew as author is reported in this article - as it should be - but cannot be presented as fact because that is not what the best sources say. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
this conversation is overmight be a bit harsh, Williehillie will not see the kind of changes they want to see in this article based on the existing sourcing and Wikipedia policies that currently exist. There is a scholarly consensus on this topic, and the current article text rather timidly reflects that scholarly consensus. An appeal to tradition is not going to change that - the facts of the matter are reflected in the article (the tradition exists, and it is not supported as a factual claim by recent WP:HQRS). Newimpartial ( talk) 15:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
any bibilical scholar from over 100 years agois simply not relevant to the current academic consensus on any topic.