Talk:Matthew the Apostle

Isn't he also recognized in the Anglican Church?
The article states "He is recognized as a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The Eastern Orthodox celebrate his feast day on November 16, whereas September 21 is observed in Latin churches." He is also recognized in the Anglica Church, same feast day I believe.

English
Who's Matthew's parent

When did he born

Is he a Prophet 172.193.98.240 (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

odd issues
didn't like to be touched 2600:1700:91C0:9F0:A361:75EC:3E9B:4553 (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

2nd paragraph, 1st sentence
The claim of his gospel authorship is rejected by most biblical scholars...

IMO, this is unacceptable usage of 2 words by Wikipedia standards.


 * 1) 1 "rejected" How is this a fact or even reliable interpretation?


 * 1) 2 "most" How is this a fact or even reliable interpretation?

I proposed the following update to this first sentence (that quickly resulted in an Edit war with @Newimpartial even though I made changes to my original edit).

Here's my proposed edit:

The early church accepts Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. The claim of his gospel authorship is questioned by some modern biblical scholars,

My edit acknowledges the early widely held and recorded beliefs about the author of the book of Matthew (which, at a minimum, is reliable interpretation). I have also replaced the words "rejected" and "most" to "questioned" and "some" as the editor does not site evidence of the word most factually or by reliable interpretation (the word most being significantly more than 50%). The word rejected should be rejected because it is simply an unacceptable characterization of how biblical scholars truely felt about their doubts Matthew as the author (unless a factual study can be produced that shows an overwhelming percentage (most) reject Matthew the Apostle as the author.

Finally, @Newimpartial reverted one of my edits by saying, "we start with recent, not ancient traditions." The early church is not ancient tradition. it is an historical era characterized by people who recorded powerful words, stories, facts, and events that billions of people study, read, and care about today...and for thousands of years to come. Williehillie223740 (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Given that the topic of this article is the traditionally ascribed author of the Gospel of Matthew (as stated in the first paragraph), the most important information for the reader to be given next is that the consensus of WP:HQRS on the topic is that this attributed authorship is unsupported by evidence - the claim is rejected by the vast majority of relevant scholarship, not questioned. The tradition if Matthew as author is reported in this article - as it should be - but cannot be presented as fact because that is not what the best sources say. Newimpartial (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please show me where the vast majority (or most as it is currently written in his article) of biblical scholars reject it? It is infinitely more responsible to use the words "questioned" and "some" until you produce the poll that factually shows that most of biblical scholars "reject" Matthew the Apostle as the author of the New Testament Gospel of Matthew. Williehillie223740 (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The scholarly source we currently use in the article says "most", which is why the article uses "most". Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please show me the source.
 * Please show me the study of the poll taken of biblical scholars confirming that most reject Matthew the Apostle as the author.
 * Williehillie223740 (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * According to WP:RS/AC we do not rely upon polls. Take it or leave it, it's part of the package. See for how scholars determine the academic consensus.
 * The mainstream academic view (WP:CHOPSY) is that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an opinion. You can use the word view but it is an opinion. Using words like reject, most, and the term "biblical scholars" implies something that is not factual in any way. Rejected cannot be proven and is an opinion based on, more than likely, a small sample of only modern bibilcal scholars. Using the word most is irresponsible. Using the phrase biblical scholars implies that this applies to bibilical scholars from many generations. To imply this knowing that any research of bibilical scholars applies to only "modern" biblical scholars and any bibilical scholar from over 100 years ago is dead and cannot weigh in on thismakes this entire paragraph indefensible.
 * I propose the entire paragraph be removed from this article if whomever of you have decided you are the judge and jury of this article and/or cannot be rational about the words used in this paragraph. I've tried to recommend edits that have been reverted by people who ultimately have as much say as I do (if in fact Wikipedia is dedicated to a neutral view and not a biased view based on opinions and emotions). I will keep pushing for this paragraph to use the appropriate words or for it to be eliminated from this article. Williehillie223740 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * &mdash;if you do not like our WP:RULES, leave, see WP:FREE for details.
 * We cannot force you love our WP:RULES, but let it be known that we will enforce our WP:RULES. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What rules am I violating? I am using the talk section to point out parts of an important article that is using words and statements that should be changed or removed? I love the rules. I am playing by the rules. I am simply using the proper channel to disagree with what is being published. Williehillie223740 (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RS/AC is a content guideline, and it foreclosed this discussion. Unless you can get WP:RS/AC annulled, this discussion is over. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, this conversation is over. Can you please help me understand what gives you the authority to decide this conversation is over? Williehillie223740 (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The authority isn't mine. The authority belongs to the content guideline. If you want to undo that content guideline, this talk page is not the place for advocating it.
 * &mdash;you have to dial down your vitriol. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't ask me, and my contribution on the substantive issues is below. But I would add that, while this conversation is over might be a bit harsh, Williehillie will not see the kind of changes they want to see in this article based on the existing sourcing and Wikipedia policies that currently exist. There is a scholarly consensus on this topic, and the current article text rather timidly reflects that scholarly consensus. An appeal to tradition is not going to change that - the facts of the matter are reflected in the article (the tradition exists, and it is not supported as a factual claim by recent WP:HQRS). Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, Wikipedia is based upon modern, mainstream (meaning WP:CHOPSY) Bible scholarship. Why? Because that's what Wikipedia is, while Conservapedia and OrthodoxWiki have different policies and guidelines.
 * And, sorry to say it, the POV of Williehillie223740 is the POV of people who have never read a book of mainstream Bible scholarship during their entire life. If they did, they would not consider news the anonymity of the Gospel of Matthew. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I am saying. I am happy to know we are in agreement that "modern" should be added to biblical scholars as a start. I will make this change as we agree on this and have consensus. Williehillie223740 (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia only listens to modern historians about the Roman Republic. It's no different with the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, Wikipedia articles are based - by policy - on recent reliable sources. The opinion of any bibilical scholar from over 100 years ago is simply not relevant to the current academic consensus on any topic.
 * Also, so long as you do not read and interpret the paragraph in the context of the sources included with it, it is nearly impossible to discuss any possible revisions. To date, I see no evidence that you have read the sources cited in the parageaph you have attempted to cut. Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)