| Revision as of 04:01, 25 January 2014 edit23haveblue (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users703 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:27, 26 January 2014 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,312,106 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 7) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == ] == | |||
| {{collapsetop}} | |||
| The scope of an article is the topic or subject matter, which is defined by reliable sources. I am now willing to concede to ] that reliable tertiary sources would be helpful in this regard. | |||
| ===Verification=== | |||
| {{policy shortcut|WP:PSTS|WP:PRIMARY|WP:SECONDARY|WP:TERTIARY}} | |||
| '''Verifiability:''' Remember other people have to be able to check that editors didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. NOTE:verifiability, not truth. | |||
| Tertiary sources such as encyclopedias and dictionaries remain difficult to verify. | |||
| *With the downturn in the global economy many libraries do not have the most recent encyclopedias etc. | |||
| *Inter library loans policy generally does not cover encyclopedias etc. | |||
| *POD is generally not available for encyclopedias etc. | |||
| *Google books is generally prohibited from most reference books. | |||
| *Many editors are not in a position to buy an encyclopedia to verify a fact. | |||
| Therefore, verification has become a practical problem. Also because of the internet, publishers have had to cut costs which means that many "new" Encyclopedias etc are already out of date. Also, Online Encyclopedias ie The Net Bible must be handled with care. | |||
| Yesterday, I undertook the tedious task of going to the seminary library and reading through the Biblical companions, study Bibles, commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias etc. The good news is that reliable sources are united on one point. In their articles or sections on the ], they refer to Papias and "his trustworthiness". He is considered important as he provides the earliest information about the composition of Matthew. (See Note also many reliable reference books do not have a Google preview, therefore a trip to the library will be necessary) Also page numbers tend to be movable depending on the edition of a work. Also different libraries tend to have different editions of reference works. To verify one must go to the ] section found in the reference work. | |||
| * (2010) p 301, | |||
| * (2008) p 256, | |||
| * | |||
| * (2012) p 1815, | |||
| * (1990) p 558 | |||
| * (2013) p 891, | |||
| * | |||
| Over in their articles on the Gospel of Matthew, devote a section to Papias, and the trustworthiness of his testimony re Matthew's ''Hebrew Gospel''. | |||
| ====== | |||
| I have chosen Blackwell as my main tertiary source as it is 1) up to date, 2) has an online preview to verify 3) is representative of tertiary sources on topic. 4) has been vetted as a reliable source at Misplaced Pages. | |||
| {{quotation|'''''Author and Setting''''': | |||
| The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together the sayings in Matthew the Hebrew dialect and each one translated them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew (or Aramaic, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302)}} | |||
| By saying, "and each one translated them as he was able," gives allowance for Greek translations to be made with omissions and/or mistranslations, as well as paraphrases, in the text. Hmmmmmmm. I wonder now about our current canonical text of Matthew.] (]) 12:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I've wondered about that for some time myself, but, unfortunately, without sources indicating what material might be added or deleted, and without any real sources wondering is all we can do. Ehrman's ''Misquoting Jesus'' actually does a great job indicating all the ways the text of the NT could be, and in some ways pretty much has been verified to have been, changed. But, in a sense, by the same token, there is perhaps also a question as to whether the author of the original Matthew himself were necessarily the ideal source, and whether in some cases the editing to whatever the original was might not have been in some ways improved, particularly if they were based on, for instance, the word of people who had been direct witnesses to things the author of Matthew himself might not have been witness to. This is unfortunately a line of speculation which can't ever be taken to a real, conclusive, end, though, and on that basis this probably isn't the best place to dwell too much on it. ] (]) 14:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| John, yes, we can only speculate about the matter, since the oldest manuscript of the Gospels is John Rylands P52, and it is merely a fragment. Still, no scholar worth his salt can be numb to the fact that (1) “The books are not heard of till 150 A.D., that is, till Jesus had been dead nearly a hundred and twenty years. No writer before 150 A.D. makes the slightest mention of them.” - Bronson, C. Keeler, ''“A Short History of the Bible;”'' and (2) “In AD 303... the pagan emperor Diocletian had undertaken to destroy all Christian writings that could be found. As a result Christian documents- especially in Rome- all but vanished. When Constantine commissioned new versions of these documents, it enabled the custodians of orthodoxy to revise, edit, and rewrite their material as they saw fit, in accordance with their tenets. It was at this point that most of the crucial alterations in the New Testament were probably made and Jesus assumed the unique status he has enjoyed ever since. The importance of Constantine's commission must not be underestimated. Of the five thousand extant early manuscript versions of the New Testament, no complete edition pre-dates the fourth century. The New Testament, as it exists today, is essentially a product of fourth-century editors and writers – custodians of orthodoxy, ‘adherents of the message’, with vested interests to protect.” - Michael Baigent, ''“Holy Blood, Holy Grail,”'' pp. 388-389. | |||
| I have actually seen a book in Hebrew which approaches the subject from Textual criticism of the N.T. gospel, pointing out translation errors in Matthew's Gospel. I do not possess a copy of that Hebrew source, although I read it once. When I find again its name and author, I will quote it here for our readers.] (]) 15:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The only real comment I can make here is that I am really, really astounded that you seem to think Michael Baigent's sensationalist drivel would even remotely qualify as anything remotely reliable, considering virtually every published work he has has been more or less laughed at from publication on. Maybe it is just a personal opinion, but if there is any single individual out there who writes about early Christianity who should be, basically, completely ignored, it's him. ] (]) 15:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{quote|If this interpretation of Papias is correct, there are several historical problems. First, modern specialists in language hold that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Second, most scholars accept the Two-Source theory (see Chapter 15, "The Synoptic Problem," in this volume). This theory requires that the author of Matthew knew and used Greek versions of Mark and Greek Q as sources. Third, the gospel ''contains'' sayings and sayings collections, but is itself not a collection of sayings such as Proverbs or ''The Gospel of Thomas''. In short, Papias' description does not correspond well with the New Testament.|Duling|p. 302}} | |||
| ::Quoted by ] (]) 20:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I beg to differ for the following reasons: | |||
| ::::# - Papias' opinion about the authorship of the original Matthew and, subsequently, later translations of the Aramaic text, is not bound by what modern scholars think or do not think about the canonical Gospel's authorship. The two are not necessarily connected. | |||
| ::::# - As for "specialists in language" who examined the canonical text of the Gospel of Matthew, their findings may have indeed been true about the canonical Gospel of Matthew (the Greek ''Evangelion''). A Greek speaker may have transcribed it and may have been familiar with proper Greek usages and idioms in light of the Aramaic text. This, too, has no real bearing on the original book of Matthew which Papias spoke about. As a professional translator, I have often translated Hebrew idioms into a colloquial English that could be understood by the reader, rather than translate idioms verbatim, and which would be senseless to the reader. It is not inconceivable to think that the author of the canonical Gospel of Matthew did the same thing (IMHO). | |||
| ::::# - As for the "Synoptic Problem," and the author's acquaintance with at least the Gospel of Mark and/or the Gospel of Luke, this problem can only be ascribed to the author who spoke Greek and who transcribed the book from his available sources - be they Greek, Latin or Aramaic sources. Again, the author of the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew cannot be linked to this "Synoptic Problem," since the Synoptic Problem is only concerned with the relationship between the Greek Gospels themselves, and no more. | |||
| ::::I do not understand what you mean by saying the Gospel is not a "collection" of sayings. What is its significance? | |||
| ::::On a lighter note, gentlemen, have any of you seen this enlightened article? ]. While I might not agree with all that is stated therein, it still brings down invaluable sources which can help us all to better understand this matter.] (]) 17:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You have to decide if you consider that source reliable or unreliable. It certainly cannot be both at the same time. Besides, if you will continue with pushing ] arguments you will get a topic ban. Papias' testimony means nothing as long as he speaks of the disciple called Matthew while there is a broad academic consensus that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew. There is a board scholarly consensus that the author of the Gospel of Matthew was anonymous and that the gospel was written in Greek, i.e. it was not a translation. You have expressed apologies for your behavior at ] but you still continue with the same problematic behavior you had to apologize for. That's why the topic ban is getting closer. Nobody has anything against a newbie who does not know the rules, but you are obviously a newbie who is unwilling to learn the rules and abide by them. ] (]) 20:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::David, please remember we are not all men. And those of us who are, don't necessarily claim to be ''gentlemen''.--] (]) 21:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapsebottom}} | |||
| == Just another liberal rag attempt to discredit the Bible == | == Just another liberal rag attempt to discredit the Bible == | ||
Revision as of 00:27, 26 January 2014
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gospel of Matthew article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gospel of Matthew article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
Just another liberal rag attempt to discredit the Bible
So do you Bible hating liberals ever get tired of writing only your own views and pretending they are facts? Odd that not one view other then the Liberal "The Bible was written later then the Apostles because it is all made up" crap is ever seen on Anti-Christpedia. FACT - Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and it was written before 70 AD. but since you liberals can't muster the faith to believe that Jesus could actually predict the Destruction of the temple then you make up lies and justify it by adding the world "Most Biblical Scholars believe" Well only the lame liberal morons that reject the Bible think that, but you are to bigoted to allow any other view point such as the writings of Walvoord, Moody, Bruce etc. You know actual BIBLE SCHOLARS THAT TEACH THE BIBLE AT CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITIES. Typical liberal Free speech means MY SPEECH NOT YOURS. Do me a favor and prove me wrong by going to the Koran site and attack the Muslim Book with the same liberal hate that you use on the Bible. You won't because 1) you are a coward and 2) you don't hate Allah as much as you hate JESUS and Christianity. OK quick, delete this because it disagrees with you and the Christaphobic bigot rules of Anti-Christapedia. I added some things to the Article but I'm sure you will remove it all because it doesn't attack the Bible like the rest of the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
..............Like I said, my addition was up for 3 mins before one of the Christian-haters took it down. No wonder Misplaced Pages is now a joke and not accepted as a legitimate source by any professional teacher. To bad, it started out to be a good thing u but like everything that liberals control, they destroyed it and made it a joke. So let me ask a real question. If a white person tried to rewrite all of Black history and refused to post anything by black authors because they were considered just POV wouldn't that be called RACISM? so what is it called when Anti-Christs and liberals who don't believe the Bible rewrite Bible history?????? I call it Christaphobic Bigotry. Whatever you call it, it is just as evil a Racism!--69.14.97.53 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- The article on the Quran says in the lede: "However, major textual variations and deficiencies in scripts mean the relationship between the text of today's Quran and an original text is unclear." That is a reflection of the scholarship on the issue, and certainly does not accord with a certain Muslim belief. No one is attacking the Bible, we are just trying to the best of our ability to represent the scholarship on the issues. We are just volunteers who enjoy this topic. Our criteria for inclusion and representation of points of view are not based on what or who is "liberal" and what or who is "conservative". If you wish to see a relevant policy, please go to WP:V. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your edit misrepresents what the reliable sources say (e.g., they do not say merely that Liberal scholars believe that it is anonymous; they say that it is anonymous). Your only source for the other material you included was a .gif of unknown provenance which does not support most of the claims you included. You have to supply a reliable source for a challenged claim. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- You want sources then try anything written by Bible Believing Scholars at any of the 1000s of Biblical Universities. Try any book published by Moody Press, Eerdmans Press, Zondervan Press - you know all the publishers that you Liberal Bible haters are afraid to reference. The fact is that Misplaced Pages is run and controlled by Anti-theists and will use any excuse to keep their articles as Christaphobic as possible. I wonder if Richard Dawkins isn't the Commander & Chief of Misplaced Pages. For instance, what is you view of God - I would bet my life that if you told the truth, you are a Anti-Theist or you wouldn't be a editor here. No matter what a REAL BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN wrote, Misplaced Pages would delete it as just a POV because you view belief in God as just a POV. The Koran post above proves nothing. Try saying that the Koran was written 300 years after Mohamed was dead and that he copied it all from someone else and see how long you live. Fact is Misplaced Pages treats the Bible with pure HATE unlike it's treatment of other so-called Holy Text. OK you can ban me now and delete all this for speaking out against the GREAT LIBERAL RAG of Anti-Christapedia - like always happen. I guess another library IP address will be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- BTW since Liberals are to lazy to look up facts, here are a few (just a few) references for you:
- R.T. France, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 1, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 2007)
- William L. Lane, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 2, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 1974)
- Norval Geldenhuys, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 3, The Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 1983)
- Everett F. Herrison, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 1964)
- Robert G Gromacki, New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House., 1979)
- Irving L. Jensen, Jensen's Survey of the New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981)
- Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Handbook (Chicago: Moody Press, 1967)
- Let me guess, since these are Christian Bible Believing Scholars that can't be trusted. well before you look foolish I looked up just one of the authors GELDENHUYS and he served at both Princeton & Cambridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, so here is the report from a book published by Eerdmans:
The author of the Gospel does not identify himself within the narrative. ... In this commentary the anonymous author of the Gospel will be referred to interchangeably as "the author of Matthew," "the author of the Gospel," of "Matthew".
— Saldarini, "Matthew" in Dunn & Rogerson (eds.), Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Eerdmans, 2003), p. 1000. - In your latest edit you've supplied a bunch of sources, but no page numbers. Would you mind telling me where the claims you have included occur in these works? These works are from over five hundred pages long to over one thousand pages long (as in the case of the France); it is a bit hard to find the support for your claims without knowing where to look. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, so here is the report from a book published by Eerdmans:
- BTW since Liberals are to lazy to look up facts, here are a few (just a few) references for you:
- You want sources then try anything written by Bible Believing Scholars at any of the 1000s of Biblical Universities. Try any book published by Moody Press, Eerdmans Press, Zondervan Press - you know all the publishers that you Liberal Bible haters are afraid to reference. The fact is that Misplaced Pages is run and controlled by Anti-theists and will use any excuse to keep their articles as Christaphobic as possible. I wonder if Richard Dawkins isn't the Commander & Chief of Misplaced Pages. For instance, what is you view of God - I would bet my life that if you told the truth, you are a Anti-Theist or you wouldn't be a editor here. No matter what a REAL BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN wrote, Misplaced Pages would delete it as just a POV because you view belief in God as just a POV. The Koran post above proves nothing. Try saying that the Koran was written 300 years after Mohamed was dead and that he copied it all from someone else and see how long you live. Fact is Misplaced Pages treats the Bible with pure HATE unlike it's treatment of other so-called Holy Text. OK you can ban me now and delete all this for speaking out against the GREAT LIBERAL RAG of Anti-Christapedia - like always happen. I guess another library IP address will be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
OK I give up. Like I said, you anti-theists will do anything or say anything to get your way. What happens after I SUPPLY YOU WITH THE PAGE #. WHAT EXCUSE WILL YOU USE THEN?? FORGET IT, JUST DELETE EVERYTHING LIKE WE BOTH KNOW YOU WILL ANYWAY. YOU CAN'T WIN WITH ANTI-THEISTS FASCISTS and let me be clear, you are Fascists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- With full sincerity I can assure you that I am not a fascist. It is just hard for me to verify your claims when I have to go through around five thousand pages of material in order to find it; I am liable to miss something. Since you know where the claims are, it would be helpful to me and others if you just gave the page number for the different claims. For example, on which page in which work is there the claim that disputes that the Gospel of Matthew is anonymous? I haven't seen anything in the France 2007 yet (he didn't dispute this in the introduction where he talks about authorship, where I imagine he would say it, since the rest is just commentary on the text), but there are over one thousand pages, and I haven't started with the other works. If you just tell me where you read it, then I won't have to go through so many pages. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- didn't even bother to read your bull story. Like I said. I knew when I started this post that Anti-Christapedia would never allow any Conservative Bible Believing stuff on the site that is run by Fascist christaphobic bigots. but you do help to prove one thing, Jesus was right when he said Christians will be treated like this. Don't worry one day soon all you Christaphoblcs will be allowed to murder us Christians at will just like the Nazi's killed the Jews. Seems that is always where fascism & Socialism end up. Like I said having Anti-theist rewrite Christian History is like having the KKK write Black History - it is the same evil.--69.14.97.53 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, well I'm sorry if you feel that way. You and everyone else are always welcome to contribute positively. There are inevitably many biases in this encyclopedia as in perhaps any, and it's always nice to have people to offer verifiable information to help correct any. This can only be done with collaboration however, and we would actually have to read one another's questions and comments in order to have collaboration. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- didn't even bother to read your bull story. Like I said. I knew when I started this post that Anti-Christapedia would never allow any Conservative Bible Believing stuff on the site that is run by Fascist christaphobic bigots. but you do help to prove one thing, Jesus was right when he said Christians will be treated like this. Don't worry one day soon all you Christaphoblcs will be allowed to murder us Christians at will just like the Nazi's killed the Jews. Seems that is always where fascism & Socialism end up. Like I said having Anti-theist rewrite Christian History is like having the KKK write Black History - it is the same evil.--69.14.97.53 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- In a way, the IP is right: the bulk of the theological and historical research has become increasingly liberal (by theological standards) and Misplaced Pages is forced by its policies to reflect and give due weight to the mainstream view, which happens to be liberal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- For why is it so see 3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship by Peter Enns. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well before the Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis lie was birthed in hell, even the most moronic person knew that one couldn't be a Christian and reject the Bible. After the lie was pimped by all the fake Christians and pseudo-intellectuals in Germany, it closed the door on God and opened the door for the demonic invasion that gave Germany Hitler, Nazism and the Jewish Holocaust. In the 1950 the JEDP Liberal theology cam to America and began to infect Mainline cults like the Methodist church. Once again, God and His Word was rejected and that allowed for the Demonic cloud to descend over her and gave us the Holocaust on the Unborn. Soon usher in the judgment of God just as every nation that choose to love self and Gnosticism over the True Word of God. Well just like in Germany of the 1930s there were 100's of true Christians that have never bowed a knee to Baal so in America there are 1000's that know that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and that these Anti-theist Fascists will one day bow their knee to Jesus as His word says. Well I actually sopke the truth so I'm sure this post will soon disappear just like any post that speaks the truth about the Misplaced Pages god Obama.--69.14.97.53 (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is bound by its policies to side with the academia, meaning mainstream, secular universities, mostly from the Western world since most of the significant research happens there. As you perhaps know, secular does not mean atheist. I do not wish to repeat the same arguments over and over in talk pages, so I wrote WP:ABIAS instead of telling again the same story, you might want to read it in order to understand that the mainstream views of the academia get the lion's share inside Misplaced Pages. As Enns said, historical-critical scholarship still rules in theological and historical departments of mainstream universities, so it is futile to argue that it does not belong in Misplaced Pages because most fundamentalist Christians do not like it. Just for the record, Misplaced Pages is written and read by people with diverse religious persuasions, e.g. Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Shintoists, Confucianists, Taoists, Wiccans, agnostics, atheists and so on, so it is an extremely subjective argument that every knee will bow down to Jesus instead of, say, Zeus or Krishna. What I mean is that Misplaced Pages renders objective facts and objective facts about opinions, it does not pretend that subjective views would be objectively true. Unless you understand the difference between a subjective view and an objective fact, you will have a hard time editing Misplaced Pages. So, you would have to begin with showing proof that you understand this difference, otherwise you are doomed as an editor according to Misplaced Pages:Competence is required#Bias-based. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know why you say that Misplaced Pages is bound to side with secular universities. If there is valid scholarship coming out of religious universities then it is perfectly within the bounds of reason to use it in religious articles, if not more so because the competence of religious Biblical scholars exceeds that of secular ones who might have an agenda of deconstructing the Christian faith. That being said, we still need to stand on reliable secondary sources from reputable publishers, which excludes blogs, self-published websites, self-published vanity press, and other Mickey-Mouse operations likely to be run by one independent pastor out of his garage chapel. But our IP interlocutor has a valid point that Misplaced Pages is dominated by secularists who would rather write religious articles from an atheistic viewpoint. Misplaced Pages policies are firmly against this kind of skew, and requires all valid viewpoints to be represented with due weight. In my opinion, that is going to mean that religious articles must adequately represent the preponderance of religious scholarship working within their own faith. I am not much of a Bible scholar and I don't have access to a vast library, so I can't comment on the particulars of the IP's additions, but his talk page presence is nothing but blatant POV-pushing and his behavior in the article has verged on edit-warring, so this needs to stop and quickly. Elizium23 (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is absolutely NOT true that Misplaced Pages is "bound by its policies to side with the academia, meaning mainstream, secular universities". Throwing this out is simply a red herring and is counter-productive to the thread discussion. Statements like this only CREATE the same silly arguments that litter Talk pages of Biblical topics all over Misplaced Pages. Ckruschke (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
- It is true, according to WP:RNPOV, in matters of theology, all notable views have to be rendered. In matters of history, the mainstream view receives the lion's share. History is not the same as theology, and what is vanilla in theology could be fringe in history and therefore may fall under WP:UNDUE (as history, not as theology). Theology decides what should be believed by a given church, while historical facts should not depend on the religious persuasion of the audience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- In history there could be a consensus view or a mainstream view, in theology there is no mainstream or consensus view, since most of theology depends upon the church membership of the theologian. Historical scholarship aims at universality and objectivity, while theology makes no such claims. It is true that there are millions who believe that JEDP was birthed in hell (or would believe it if they knew what JEDP means), so in principle their view is notable, but as Enns said, it is a fringe view in the academe, even among scholars who actually disagree with JEDP. The sources used to build Misplaced Pages are academic sources, therefore JEDP and its 20-21st century offspring are given by default the weight they have inside the academia, while the view of the fundamentalists is treated according to WP:UNDUE. This does not mean that Misplaced Pages could say that the fundamentalists are theologically wrong (Misplaced Pages has no theology of its own), but it is entitled to say that inside historical scholarship they are a fringe view. Of course, this does not exclude serious scholarship done at religious faculties, since as Ehrman said in one of his bestsellers, US mainline Protestant and Catholic theological seminaries and divinity schools do teach mandatory historical criticism classes. So, in a sense, scholars from such faculties are thoroughly acquainted with historical criticism and built their careers upon its assumptions. Only fundamentalist seminaries and divinity schools choose to default against historical criticism. They are free to do this, but this cuts against their claims of being mainstream historians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Ckruschke: I explained below your answer what I meant by it and I add this: historical scholarship does not depend upon the religious persuasion of the audience, it aims to present facts which hold for all religious persuasions, meaning that they are independent of religious persuasions. Theology does not work that way, so I did not claim that the claim about "mainstream, secular universities" would hold for theology. But we, as Misplaced Pages editors may say that history which would be seen as ludicrous in most mainstream, secular universities should be considered fringe and handled according to WP:UNDUE. Most theological claims are only acceptable to persons which are members of a given church and are invalid for those who do not belong to this or that church, that's why theology isn't written in order to persuade mainstream, secular universities and should be taught to institutions affiliated to a certain church. I mean one does not graduate with a MDiv in Adventist theology at a Catholic faculty, nor in Baptist theology at a Mormon faculty. Each church teaches its own theology to members of its own. But history is taught regardless of church membership and we get a good picture of mainstream history from what is being taught at mainstream, secular universities, and especially from what is principally unfit to be taught in such universities. So, theology relies on preaching to the choir, but this does not hold for history. Theology is subjective, since it changes according to one's church membership, but history aims at objectivity, meaning that it should not depend upon one's church membership, and this is what makes it fit for being taught at mainstream, secular universities, appreciated and cultivated there. I mean one can attend courses in the history of Christianity without demanding that he/she is a Christian and facts about the history of Christianity should hold regardless of one's religious persuasion. A Misplaced Pages article about Christian history should be informative for agnostics, atheists, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. We cannot give special treatment to the theology of one church, since all other churches and religions would feel discriminated. And I pointed to Enns's blog because he is very close to the evangelical position (which the IP seemingly shares), but he can be trusted that the claim that historical criticism would be a thing of the past simply does not reflect what is happening in the academia (fundamentalist faculties excepted). In matters of history, Misplaced Pages has to go with the mainstream view, I think this is already settled by Misplaced Pages policies and we are not going to change it. So, if mainstream history has gone theologically liberal, Misplaced Pages is forced to go with this view, of course, without implying that one theology is better than another theology, but simply in as far as it describes facts pertaining to the history of Christianity. I think this is the honest answer, at least we should not delude our readers that Misplaced Pages panders to fundamentalist theology. Since they are intelligent enough to notice that Misplaced Pages does not reflect their theology and their fundamentalist views of history. I mean Misplaced Pages cannot claim that theologically fundamentalism would be wrong, but in matters of historical facts it should uncompromisingly render the mainstream view, even when this offends fundamentalist sensibilities. The way pictures are kept in the article Muhammad is more than telling that Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of religious sensibilities, be them Christian or Muslim or whatever. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I respect your long, polite, and well-thought answer. I know I've hijacked the conversation so I'm going to simply agree to disagree and stop. Ckruschke (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
"Saint Matthew" etc.
Potential changes to MOS:SAINTS at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (clergy) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:ERA
An IP editor has changed "CE" to "AD" here, but I don't want to revert it, because the edit history indicates that "AD" has been the preferred usage in this article over the years. (This particular use of CE had been added in 2012, when the rest of the article had had "AD", thus making the article inconsistent. Other occurrences of "AD" were removed in favour of a plain date, but this had remained.) StAnselm (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed the era entirely to be consistent with the rest of the article. StAnselm (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Disclaimer on "He drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, all of which probably derived ultimately from earlier oral gospel traditions."
Shouldn't we preface that with "Most modern textual scholarship have concluded that..."? As good as the Q source theory may be at solving things, it is still a theory and not Gospel truth. 23haveblue (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Categories: