Talk:Gospel of Matthew

Matthew's Account of Rejection and Crucifixion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=== 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark's Christology

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

The question of the meaning of "son of man" is indeed complex and debated, but this is just a brief article to introduce the general reader to this specific gospel. Adding a sentence at the end saying that "son of man" is a debated title really doesn't tell him/her much - if they want more they should go to the relevant article, and if they want more than that there are books. Our article here says that "As Son of Man he [Jesus] will return to judge the world...", which would seem to be enough to tell the reader how Matthew's gospel uses the figure.

As for the broader issue of the son of man title, Dunn is probably the leading expert, and if you want to know more for your own curiosity he's probably where you should start (or perhaps a good bible encyclopedia like Eerdmans would be better?). My own understanding is the "son of" part identifies the person referred to as belonging to a certain group or class - so Arab tribal names to this day are very frequently in the form "Beni Something", the people of Something (in the Bible the tribe of Benjamin is an example of this - Ben Yamin). It's the "man" part that's problematic - a "son of man" is simply a man (you could also say Beni Adam, the tribe of Adam, the first man); but in Daniel 7 there's "one like a son of man", clearly meaning having the form of a man, but also clearly divine in some sense, since he comes from the throne of the Ancient of Days - so a man who comes from God - did Jesus and/or his followers see himself as Daniel's man from God? That's the question Dunn and others try to address.Achar Sva (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is Matthean Priority not allowed to be stated here?

Dear friends,

The Gospel of St. Matthew the Apostle is of great importance to Christians in particular as a Sacred Book, and to all people generally, as a historical biography of the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, by one of His close Apostles. The Church Fathers are unanimous in telling us St. Matthew the Apostle wrote it.

We understand some modern liberal scholars favor Markan Priority. Ok, fine. But why is Matthean Priority at least not allowed as a legitimate alternative alongside it?

Peace and God Bless. Nishant Xavier NishantXavier (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RNPOV and WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi George. Are the beliefs of 2.5 billion Christians today, and of many Christians throughout history, "fringe" to you? By definition, they are not. There are more Christians than Atheists and Agnostics combined. Therefore, if anything is fringe, relatively speaking, it is Atheism and Agnosticism.

Matthean Priority is a Legitimate Scholarly Hypothesis. Would you disagree with that? If it is not, why does Wikipedia have a page on the Augustinian Hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_hypothesis which is a form of Matthean Priority? St. Irenaeus' testimony has historical value.

Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NishantXavier (talk • contribs) 14:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

We also have an article on flat Earth—it does not mean that Wikipedia endorses flat earthism. A rule of thumb explanation for fringe is WP:CHOPSY. We do not hold opinion polls in order to establish fringeness, we only discuss reliable sources, i.e. sources written by WP:MAINSTREAM Bible professors and such. So, yeah, if it cannot be taught as true fact at Ivy Plus, we do not teach it either. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Just from curiosity, why can't Christians believe that Mark was the first gospel?Achar Sva (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi George and Achar. I respect Wikipedia's work. It's been a treasure trove of important information at so many. But I feel legitimate hypotheses should be allowed for academic discussion.

I stress, there are two competing theories, and both are respected and serious. (1) Two Gospel Hypothesis with Matthean Priority. (2) Two Source Hypothesis with Markan Priority.

Just look at the language in which Wikipedia itself refers to each of these ideas respectively, it clearly treats it as serious and respectable, not at all like "flat earth" ideas.

(I) Two Gospel Hypothesis: "The hypothesis, following an original proposal by Augustine of Hippo and expanded by Johann Jakob Griesbach (it was once called the Griesbach hypothesis), was introduced in its current form by William Farmer in 1964.[2] This hypothesis is the most serious alternative to the two-source hypothesis.[3] Its main advantages over the two-source hypothesis include the fact that it relies not just on internal evidence, that it does not require lost sources like the Q document, and that it is supported by the view of the early Church. Unlike the two-source hypothesis, the two-gospel hypothesis concludes that the traditional accounts of the gospels (order and date of publication, as well as authorship) are accurate.[4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-gospel_hypothesis and

(II) the Augustinian Hypothesis in particular: "Unlike some competing hypotheses, this hypothesis does not rely on, nor does it argue for, the existence of any document that is not explicitly mentioned in historical testimony. Instead, the hypothesis draws primarily upon historical testimony, rather than textual criticism, as the central line of evidence. The foundation of evidence for the hypothesis is the writings of the Church Fathers: historical sources dating back to as early as the first half of the 2nd century, which have been held as authoritative by most Christians for nearly two millennia. Adherents to the Augustinian hypothesis view it as a simple, coherent solution to the synoptic problem." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_hypothesis

Have both of you read the historical testimony of St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, France, on the Gospels and their Priority? Isn't that acceptable history?

Peace. Nishant Xavier NishantXavier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Everything published by mainstream Bible scholars in the past 100 years is severely slanted against Matthean priority. We have to abide by WP:DUE. Also note that the Church Fathers aren't in any sense modern scholars, and Wikipedia sides with modern scholars, not with the Ancients and definitely not with the large popular masses. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi George. The Church Fathers were acquainted with the Apostles and their first disciples. St. Irenaeus for e.g. knew St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle. This is what St. Irenaeus wrote: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm This is a historical testimony. The historical method requires taking historical sources seriously. This second century testimony says St. Matthew wrote when Ss. Peter and Paul were in Rome.

Here's a source with historical analysis. Is it inadmissible? "Robert Thomas and F. David Farnell concur with this view that the early church fathers taught that Matthew wrote both a Hebrew and Greek version of his Gospel when they write, “Without exception they held that the apostle Matthew wrote the canonical Matthew and that he wrote it first in a Semitic language.”1 ... Irenaeus (c.120–c.202) was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the Apostle so his testimony concerning the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew, both in Hebrew and Greek is extremely important." http://hebrewgospel.com/Matthew%20Two%20Gospels%20Main%20Evidence.php

Otto Van Bismarck, mainly for political reasons, did a lot to popularize the theory of Markan priority. http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/farmer.pdf In a fair debate, Markan priority would lose; because there is not one single historical source, from someone who knew the Apostles or their first disciples, that supports it in the slightest. It was universally rejected for nearly 1900 years. Even today, many scholars reject Markan Priority altogether. Please see A.T. Robinson's work on the "tyranny of unexamined assumptions": "Although Robinson was considered a liberal theologian, he challenged the work of like-minded colleagues in the field of exegetical criticism. Specifically, Robinson examined the reliability of the New Testament as he believed that it had been the subject of very little original research during the 20th century. He also wrote that past scholarship was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and an "almost wilful blindness".[30] Robinson concluded that much of the New Testament was written before AD 64 ... Robinson placed Matthew as being written sometime between AD 40 and the AD 60s" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robinson_(bishop_of_Woolwich)#Redating_the_New_Testament_(1976)

Nishant Xavier. 28 March 1:44 IST NishantXavier (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:RGW. And read WP:FRINGE if you didn't.

@Proveallthings: I did overlook Stephen Miller's reasoning, and I did it intentionally. And it's because me and you are attempting to do two different things right now. You're attempting to use evidence to find what is true. I'm attempting to survey the literature to find out what most scholars say about this particular question. That's because Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of truth, but a service for summarizing what the scholarly community says. If we were here to discover what is true together on the Wikipedia talk pages, then you would be doing what is right (marshalling the linguistic arguments), and I would be doing something wrong (just quoting a bunch of authorities and pointing out that "your side" here consists only of people with a particular theological set of commitments). So let me be clear. I'm not saying you're wrong about "father". You, and Kenneth Kitchen, might be right. I'm just saying that, in terms of the way Wikipedia weighs sources, Kenneth Kitchen's opinion is out on the fringes in the scholarly world. Alephb (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

NishantXavier, instead of debating theology, you can help your case with providing Reliable sources which either support of discuss Matthean Priority. It is a minority view at best, but if there are modern scholars maintaining the view, we could use their arguments on the topic. Dimadick (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No, the proper place for discussing Matthean priority is the article on the synoptic problem, it would be overweight here considering that Markan priority is the almost-consensus. Or perhaps there's a Matthean priority article. But the sources NishantXavier is using wouldn't be regarded as reliable.Achar Sva (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a source to demonstrate "consensus" Ephemerance (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Jews or Judeans

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)

Ephemerance objects to the use of the word "Jews" in this ghalf-sentence and wishes to replace it with something else (presumably he objects to the anti-Semitism inherent in the phrase, but Matthew is notoriously anti-Semitic):

• [P]rior to the Crucifixion they are referred to as Israelites, the honorific title of God's chosen people; after it, they are called simply Ioudaioi ("Jews"), a sign that through their rejection of the Christ the "Kingdom of Heaven" has been taken away from them and given instead to the church.[3] // <- this is from the Wikipedia Article, not Strecker

The source Georg Strecker, "Theology of the New Testament", this is on page 370: "After the crucifixion he (Matthew) replaces it ("Israel" as a title for the Jewish people) with the word "Ioudaioi", a term used elsewhere by gentiles to designate the Jewish people..." (There's a little more to the sentence, but it's not substantial to the meaning). This is what the source says, and we can't change it, much as Ephemerance would like to. Achar Sva (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

"Ioudaioi" = יהודים = Judeans etymologically; "Jews", which inexplicably drops the radical "D", is an English synonym that does not appear in the Old or the New Testament sources. A Georgian (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@ A Georgian. Incorrect. See: page 97-98 (viewable in preview) of Cohen, Shaye (1999). "Ioudaios, Iudaeus, Judaean, Jew". The Beginnings of Jewishness. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520211414. Also, debating the meaning of Ioudaioi belongs on the Ioudaioi page, the portion in question is specifically about how Strecker 2000 uses the term. Strecker only lists the Greek in the portion that is being cited. Strecker discusses in other parts of his work that the term Ioudaioi was used in contrast to Israelite to emphasise disinheritance of God's promise. "Jew" usually has an implied context of "God's chosen" of which Matthew removed. If we being true to the sourced Strecker work, "Judean" is the more fitting term as an aspect of 'just another group of people that happen to be from Judea' and not to be confused with the context of "Jew" meaning 'adherent of the God whose temple is in Jerusalem' (as the people were considered no longer adherent). The passage that Strecker is referring is Matthew 28:15, and the Aramaic Bible in Plain English does indeed translate Ioudaioi as "Judeans". We can either amend the Wikipedia Article to note "Jews or Judeans" with an additional scholarly source if so desired, or completely remove the dependent clause and let the "Ioudaioi" article speak for itself. You cannot read the Strecker pages in isolation. You must read his work in context.

@ Achar Sva we have had great discussions in the past that led to good negotiated edits. Your recent libel and "presumptiveness" are unwelcome. Focus on the facts. Don't make it personal. You will have my gratitude.

Ephemerance (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Beginning a dispute process

Ephemerance, it's clear that you intend to keep pushing for your preferred edit, and as I'm not convinced by your arguments this will lead only to an edit war if we don't head it off. I therefore suggest that you, as the one trying to introduce the edit, begin a dispute process. What form of process is up to you, but request for comment seems the best option. I can offer advice/help if you wish.Achar Sva (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If this is the case, please address the threads in the talk section that you have abandoned. Ephemerance (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Issues brought up in the recent edit dispute:

(1) Resurrection is a significant component of the Gospel of Matthew. (2) There are errors in the current phrasing that contradict primary and secondary sources (3) The argument: "becomes the salvation of the gentiles" is identical with "instructs all of his followers to make disciples of all nations" seems to have more to do with your expressed personal contempt for the Gospel of Matthew (Achar Sva, 25 April 2020: "Matthew is notoriously anti-Semitic") rather than a genuine scholarly observation based on sources. Primary and secondary sources agree (including the originally cited source) that the Great Commission is in reference to all nations, Jewish ones included. (4) Biblegateway is a host for different scholarly material that have been physically published. If the objection is that the physical publication must be referenced, this can easily be done. The Passions Translation bible led by Dr. Simmons is an annotated interpretation between the Greek and Aramaic primary sources (TPT is a secondary source in itself). The Original Aramaic New Testament is a translation by Rev. David Bauscher which demonstrates that "Ioudaioi" has been translated as "Judeans" by some sources. If Rev. David Bauscher's work is considered a primary source (is it?), this is still an appropriate use of a primary source. Even the originally cited source makes reference to "Ioudaioi" and later discusses "Jews" but does not state that "Ioudaioi" is exclusively translated as "Jews". Your objection to this was that you felt "Judeans" makes Matthew seem less "anti-semitic" <-- this makes no sense, it is not a scholarly approach, and brings to question an inappropriate editor's bias on your part. (5) Multiple source have different scholarly interpretations. Even if that source said "Ioudaioi = Jews; Ioudaioi =/= Judeans" (which it doesn't) it is appropriate and in good form to show the other scholarly sources that show "Ioudaioi = Jews OR Judeans". Ephemerance (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)