Talk:Acts of the Apostles

Size of the article's wikitext over time. File size at the beginning of each month (UTC).

Editorializing
Ever wonder why the number of engaged editors is decreasing on Wikipedia? Mrs. January (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Silliness or not, this is a bizarre passage to retain in Wikivoice. Elizium23 (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And, yet, I've been reverted twice in trying to remove/fix it. Mrs. January (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And quite rightly so - it's reliably sourced. Achar Sva (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * the number of engaged editors is decreasing on Wikipedia because editing requirements have become very academic and professional-like. Not everybody is up to such task. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't tell readers what to think or to do with our facts. This is editorializing and a clear breach of WP:NPOV. Would you like me to tag the dispute thusly in the article or just remove it and then we can discuss its reinsertion, since you lack consensus to keep it? Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody has claimed till now that it fails WP:V, nor that the source would be unreliable. If anything, WP:PRESERVE applies. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone talking about WP:V. Sure it's verifiable that scholars have opinions on this. Wikipedia can also have opinions on it. What we object to is that you're telling editors what opinion to have. This is in the style of: https://xkcd.com/149/ Elizium23 (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored
See WP:CENSOR. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * But it's OK to tell readers to censor their own thoughts? Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not the POV of Wikipedia editors, it is the opinion of an expert on the subject. Claiming that the Bible is inconsistent is WP:BLUE in the mainstream academia. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Claiming that the Bible is inconsistent is WP:BLUE in the mainstream academia." It is also painfully obvious to anyone who ever bothered to compare the four gospels in the New Testament, which constantly contradict each other. So what? The Bible is an anthology, and its books often represent entirely different points of view. Dimadick (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I bought the Bible with Apocrypha, cross-reference edition, NRSV anglicized edition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-100016-7. The cross-references take the form of bold or italic letters in the text, referring to similar marks in the margins or page foot, which give book, chapter and verse of similar or related material. It's very comprehensive: within Matthew 1:1 alone, we have six notes: a, a, b, b, c and d; the associated marginal notes extend halfway down the page. So, a directs us to Luke 3:23-38, and similarly, note j at Luke 3:23 directs us to Matthew 1:1-16. According to Matthew, Jesus was descended from Abraham by 42 generations; but counting the names in Luke, Jesus was 56th-generation direct descendant of Abraham. One of them must be wrong. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why the mutually exclusive hermeneutic? The Gospels don't contradict anything, they're just explaining something from a different point of view. Just ask journalist Lee Strobel: eyewitness accounts that differ on details are more likely to be true and accurate, because different eyewitnesses see and describe things different ways. Elizium23 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All three of you ought to remember that this is not a forum; it is a place for discussing improvements to the article. I recommend you take discussions like these to an actual forum. Seb773 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you notice that the last comment was more than twelve days before you posted? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC
Per MOS:NOTE, should Wikipedia advise the reader of a "need for caution" when interpreting Scripture such as in the currently disputed edit? Elizium23 (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, since the original audience of the source are Bible scholars and students of Bible scholarship, not the general readers of Wikipedia. It is the Bible scholars who need to have such caution. I don't see how Wikipedians tell the reader what to think. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's very simple: ensure that Wikipedia's core content policies are observed. Is the phrase these differences do suggest the need for caution in seeking too much consistency in books written in essence as popular literature directly supported by Parsons 1993 (pages 17–18)? If so, it can stay, per WP:V; if not, is there another source that does support it? If so, add that source, again per WP:V; if not, does it rely on one person's interpretation of Parsons in view of another unspecified source? If so, it should go per WP:SYNTH (part of WP:NOR); if entirely unsupported, it certainly reads like an opinion so again it should go, this time per WP:NPOV. Whichever one of these applies, you don't need a full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC for this. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Parsons says in a sentence overlapping pages 17/18 that readers (I think he means scholarly readers) have felt "discomfort" over the differing and even conflicting theological interests of Luke and Acts; the next sentence, on page 18, says, "To be sure, scholars have demanded too much consistency from documents which represent ancient popular literature". That seems to support the sentence in our article, and does not represent editorial advice to readers of Wikipedia (unless you think Parsons was addressing Wikipedia readers). Achar Sva (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Elizium, the article is not advising the reader, it's simply reflecting a reliable source. Achar Sva (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove. The present text: "differences do suggest the need for caution in seeking too much consistency in books written in essence as popular literature." is certainly not the same sentiment as the sentence from Parsons "To be sure, scholars have demanded too much consistency from documents which represent ancient popular literature." For one thing, the reader of this Wiki article is not necessarily a "scholar", and they are not necessarily "demanding" anything. But, more to the point, the sentence from Parsons is not suggesting "caution". IMO, the problematic sentence in the article, which I've twice tried to remove/fix (only to be reverted each time), is simply unencyclopedic. Thank you. Mrs. January (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Information: Here is the edit that introduced the sentence under RFC: . Mrs. January (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Objection to the misleading/non-neutral framing of the RfC: it's not "Wikipedia" advising readers of a need for caution as though this is some maintenance template. It's part of an article with a citation. The question is should we include the line, not "should Wikipedia advise the reader". On the actual question, no objection to retaining more or less as-is if additional sourcing is included; as long as it's just the one, I'd probably recommend just attributing it. In fact, the way it's clumsily written now seems like attribution was in there at some point (I haven't checked if it was). Maybe the best way is "There are similar conflicts over the theology. As the books were written in essence as popular literature, Parsons advises against expecting a high degree of consistency." or something along those lines. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a sourced statement, not some Wikipedia-editorializing warning. However it is a bit odd, and I'm 100% sure it reflects the source quite right. I'm not quite sure if it's appropriate to include. I'd say I'm skeptical about inclusion, unless someone can cite an additional source making approximately the same point. That would provide more clarity, as well as supporting WP:Due weight for the point. Alsee (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposal I would support rewording the passage in a way that it doesn't break the fourth wall. Such as: Scholars such as X, Y, and Z do not seriously question the authorship of Luke-Acts, but are cautious against seeking too much consistency in books which they consider to be written as popular literature. Elizium23 (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The fourth wall guideline of Wikipedia, MOS:OUR, suggests not to mention it. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I tend to concur with Elizium23; the information isn't the problem, it's the fourth-wall-breaking way of presenting it, and it would be better attributed to some specific reliable sources than expressed in Wikipedia's own voice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Exclude as POV editorialising, even if it is a scholar's opinion. StAnselm (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Is the RFC still in place?

Mrs. January (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * THirty days have passed, so the RfC banner has been removed, and it is no longer listed at WP:RFC/A. But it's not been formally closed, so discussion may continue. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Jewish rejection of Christ's message and opening to Gentiles.
The lede contains a phrase which I don't think is very accurate: "the message of Christ was sent to the Gentiles because as a whole Jews rejected it". A source is cited (Burkett 2002, p. 263), but I can't fully access at the moment. Still, on the face of it, the phrase seems wrong to me. As I understand it, most (not all) Jews rejected Christ's message. But, independent of that (not because of it), Christ's message we opened to Gentiles anyway. What are people's opinions of this present phrasing, and is it really consistent with authoritative sources? Thank you, Mrs. January (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * tgeorgescu (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not following you. Yes, most Jews rejected Jesus's message, but that his message was (also) opened to Gentiles seems like a different issue. Mrs. January (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup, Jesus by and large did not preach for Gentiles (taking the Gospels at face value). That Christianity should be opened to Gentiles is Paul's take. One of his letters says explicitly that since Jews have rejected Christ, he (Paul) will turn to the Gentiles. Since nowadays Christianity mainly means Paulanity, his POV is normative for Christianity. St. Peter's adepts were hunted down as heretics, and they became a footnote in history. If I learned anything from mainstream Bible scholars, is to distrust claims that Peter got convinced by Paul. We know very few about what Peter thought, but it seems he lost the power fight over controlling Christianity. tgeorgescu (talk)  06:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, but let's focus on the issue, which is the text in the lede. Note that this forum is about the text of article, how to improve it, etc. Mrs. January (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Christian Communism
https://thebricktestament.com/acts_of_the_apostles/accept_communism_or_die/ac04_32p34-35.html tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Christian communism is mentioned nowhere in the body of the article, nor in any of the sources that I could see. As was explained in the edit summary, the way it is formatted on the page implies that Christian communism is inherent to the scripture which is ahistorical and unsupported by sources. Whether or not the Apostles were 'communistic' -- which may or may not be true -- Christian communism is a theological view, as per the page. It also is not consistent with the manual of style: Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links that require the reader to open them...before understanding where they lead. Linking sharing everything in common, which is a scriptural quotation, to Christian communism, which is a theological view that the teachings of Jesus compel Christians to support religious communism, is a WP:EASTEREGG. Quite ironically, WP:RNPOV does apply here -- the piped link should not imply that Christian communism is inherent to scripture.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 05:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm neither a Christian, nor a Communist, but for me it is hard to see Christian Communism as anything else than Sola Scriptura. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That means literally nothing, and even if it did, it isn't relevant to the page. Sola scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. Christian communism is -- once again -- the theological view that the teachings of Jesus compel Christians to support religious communism. If you are saying that Christian communism is synonymous with sola scriptura, well, you're wrong. If you're saying that sola scriptura implies Christian communism because of Acts 4, well, that is a position some people surely hold -- but it is not present in the sources, and even if it was, WP:RNPOV dictates that it should not be presented as mere fact, especially not by means of a WP:EASTEREGG. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 08:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Removing and/or Heavily Editing the "Comparison with other writings" Section.
Specifically the section where it speaks of contradictions between Acts and the Epistles is what needs removed or revised. The section is glaringly opinionated and biased, not only this but the contradictions it speaks of have been disproven for years. It almost looks as if the section was copy and pasted out of an argumentative paper against The Book of Acts. ConDud (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem here is your ignorance of biblical scholarship. By all means edit the article, but don't delete RS material, and use RS yourself - and make sure you reflect mainstream modern scholarly opinion.Achar Sva (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I think keeping a section on scholarly critiques of the text (Although I disagree with them myself) my main problem is the way it is written currently in the article. Currently multiple sentences (As I said in my initial comment) are written as if the person who wrote it is actively trying to persuade the reader to an idea. Quotes such as, "There are also differences between Luke and Acts, amounting at times to outright contradiction." should not be be in an article that is supposed to be unbiased. The idea of Contradictions in the Bible is a heavily debated topic and this article does an abysmal job presenting that fact. Another quote, "Acts speaks of "Christians" and "disciples", but Paul never uses either term, and it is striking that Acts never brings Paul into conflict with the Jerusalem church and places Paul under the authority of the Jerusalem church and its leaders, especially James and Peter " This passage uses argumentative tone, as if (Again) the writer is trying to persuade the writer. Placing something like this without any arguments placed against it presents it as fact, and on a topic as heavily debated as this that should NOT HAPPEN.
 * I have not and will not make edits to the page until I receive enough support to do such a thing, but I do think it is worth doing a major overhaul of the section or else it is not worth having at all. The debate over contradictions and reliability of the Bible is still one that does not have one consensus and it should not be presented as such. ConDud (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A few typos in this, my apologies for such errors. ConDud (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the two books used as sources for the section that disturbs you. Then find other books that can give further information, Then come here and suggest an edit (although as I said, you're welcome to edit the article itself). Achar Sva (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)