Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:27, 3 March 2014 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Gospel of Matthew) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions about Gospel of Matthew. 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.

The New Scholarship

This article needs to be updated with the 21st scholarship.

(1) Early Attestations Our article states: "The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, nowhere does he claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was not part of the first editions" This is accurate and properly sourced.

BUT

the following citation from the early MSS is omitted: "Here ends the Gospel of the Apostle Matthew. He wrote it in the land of Palestine, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the Hebrew language." William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602

This is a statement of fact which ALL scholars agree did exist in the early MSS. It also provides insight into how the Gospel of Matthew got its name. It has also been a subject of scholarly debate which has in turn given rise to other important issues. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Good grief. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll second that motion. This "fact" is a pious fiction. A note in an Arabic manuscript doesn't make it "true" any more than titling the gospel "according to Matthew" proves that Matthew wrote it. Based on what I could read of the article, its purpose is clearly apologetic. Imo, rather than reflecting the best 21st century scholarship, this is a time machine back to the 19th century. Ignocrates (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You may indeed be correct. Do you have any reliable sources to support your position?? In any event I am not sure of what you are disputing. Are you denying the existence of these Early Attestations or are you saying that they are wrong OR not "true" OR "pious fiction". Look forward to hearing from you! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for not being more precise with my words; I was thinking about the content as I was reading through it. There is no dispute that an Arabic manuscript exists with that statement. The problem is that the source interpreting the significance of that manuscript is a theological commentary; it is not academic scholarship. That's what I meant by a time machine back to the 19th century, when the distinction between scholarship and religious commentary was more ambiguous. The bit about calling it a "pious fiction" was just me being frustrated with your "statement of fact (upon) which ALL scholars agree", and I shouldn't have said it. Ignocrates (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology but it was not necessary as you raised some valid points. I am going to go to the library to see if I can find some reliable sources that address the concerns that have been raised. In case you have not noticed, I am once again enjoying Misplaced Pages thanks to your work! - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC) PS in the real world I will be watching the President. My greatest concern is the growing gap between rich and poor. Things like police in Detroit having their pensions cut keep me awake night while Justin Bieber and Mayor Rob Ford ... well... - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"statement of fact (upon) which ALL scholars agree", to me says that RetProf has no hope of ever coming within the ballpark of reputable scholarship and a topic ban after all these years of incessantly trying to promote the "Hebrew Matthew" nonsense is the only solution. It's simply incredibly time-wasting to have to watch so many pages where RetProf has tried before to add this stuff. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

200 year old scholarship is irrelevant. BTW, the article RetProf refers to isn't by William Lane Craig (he's the editor),it's by Timothy and Lydia McGrew. I googled the Mcgrews. Do you speak crow? Crows say "Faaaaaaaaaaaak!" Lydia has a webpage, on which she says, "I am a homemaker and home schooling mom, and I do analytic philosophy in some of my spare time." Faaaaaaaaaaaaak! Timothy's a bit better, he's chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Western Michigan University, and writes articles on "the rational reconstruction of design inferences" - ID-lite, William Lane Criag style. Is America truly going down the intellectual plughole? PiCo (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally RetProf, your concern for the growing level of income inequality in the US is commendable, but the problem may be more deep-rooted than you image - see this article in the Economist. We live at the dawn of a new age, and it's not a pretty sight.PiCo (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You have a point, In ictu oculi. Whatever happened to I ... will be voluntarily stepping back from this topic? Ignocrates (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggested a WP:RfC/U twice for Ret.Prof (e.g., see here), upon which he temporarily "retired" each time, only to resume the same behavior. I see no value in proposing an RfC again; it's all been said, here and on related talk pages. Ignocrates (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi, your statement "It's simply incredibly time-wasting to have to watch so many pages where RetProf has tried before to add this stuff." I believe is mistaken. We have spent little time discussing the "attestations" on any talk page before. Rather than personal attacks or threats, reliable sources denying the existence of the "Attestations" would be helpful. Finally, discussing the references on a topic is NOT "incredibly time-wasting". It is what we should be doing rather than edit warring. That is why I have stepped back from editing this topic. In other words let's examine the published scholarship on the "attestations" in good faith. Look forward to working with you! - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@PiCo Your scholarly argument "Do you speak crow? Crows say 'Faaaaaaaaaaaak!' " is interesting but needs to be backed up by reliable sources. Blackwell 2009 is a vetted reliable source and the the editors can be trusted not allow the attestation if it did not exist. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is not the existence of the "attestation" (the mysterious Arabic manuscript?) but the credentials of the Blackwells contributors - a home-schooling amateur analytic philosopher and an academic from another discipline who wants to involve himself in biblical studies. It's frankly appalling. PiCo (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with PiCo above, and shame on Blackwells, used to be a decent publisher. But even without knowing this RetProf a basic minimal level of knowledge of the subject of the articles you keep returning to edit would have let you know that this was nonsense. As "why I have stepped back from editing this topic." - your edit history shows again and again and again nothing else but constantly returning to this topic and no other topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)