Talk:Gospel of Matthew

proposed Messiah

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:

• 1. the article is not about whether or not Jesus actually was the messiah or not.
• 2. the article summarizes the Gospel of Matthew and Matthew states unequivocably in 1:1, "Jesus the Messiah" - whether or not this is a true claim is outside the scope of this article, it is what Matthew said and the gospel is written from that point of view.
• 3. "proposed" is a weasel word like supposed, purported, alleged, so-called and as such is best avoided - MOS:ALLEGED.
• 4. the article is about what Matthew wrote and to add "proposed" is editorializing, adding an interpretive viewpoint - WP:EDITORIALIZING.
• 5. no citation is given for adding the modifier "proposed" so this falls under opinion, original research - WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY

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)

Copies of copies of copies ...

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, [1]

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, [2]

About William L. Petersen, Eldon J. Epp, AnneMarie Luijendijk, Kim Haines-Eitzen and David C. Parker. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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)