Talk:Matthew the Apostle/Archive 1

Sub-Caspian Ethiopia
I removed the reference to the country called Ethiopia, south of the Caspian. I think the contributor may have been confused by the fact that there is debate on whether he died in Ethiopia or in Parthia (which was indeed south of Caspian).Ordinary Person 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Proofreading
This article is a mess. There are a number of redundancies that need to be cleared up, so don't feel bad if I delete information you posted.Dafhgadsrhadjtb 07:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)dafhgadsrhadjtb

Levi, son of Alphaeus
There is no proof Levi is Matthew. Yes they both appear to have been recruited by Jesus under similar conditions. Yes they both are tax collectors. But I think Levi is James, the son of Alphaeus or Lebbaeus Thaddaeus/Judas the brother of James. He is James brother so obviously a son of Alphaeus.


 * Well, you'll need some type of proof to back up that assertion. It's generally accepted that Levi and Matthew are the same person (cf. Saul and Paul). Most of the Apostles have multiple names. Fuzzform (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

cleanup
I am going to cleanup and edit this article so that it meets wiki standards. I have already started by adding in sections and citing sources more accurately. Stanselmdoc 15:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Name
I think the original argument is getting lost in the name section. All I can currently understand from it is that Matthew was a tax collector and Levi was a tax collector and the two may have been synonymous. But I can not understand the other points about james etc. Could the author try to clarify his/her argument there please?82.6.25.132 09:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Salerno
Salerno claims to have what's left of Matthew in the crypt of its cathedral. I'd edit that in, but I don't do "biographies", just texts.--Wetman (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Monkees
Shouldnt there be a link for the monkees song St.Matthew? Can someone take care of that? :)--D3t3ctiv3 (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

 * There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bartholomew the Apostle which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 18:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That discussion was closed as "no concensus after 14 days". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Matthew the Evangelist → Saint Matthew — I know this was recently dealt with as part of a proposed block move of four articles, but it appeared that some people did not regard the issues as quite identical in each of the four cases. I have therefore decided to deal with these four articles on an individual basis, starting with what appears to me to be the clearest-cut case, and see how it goes. "Saint Matthew" already redirects here, it is surely his common name, "Matthew the Evangelist" is an unusual title. The only objection seems to be from somebody putting forward a peculiar minority theological POV, objecting to describing anyone as a saint. PatGallacher (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely there are many minor "St. Matthews" - and therefore "St. Matthew" should be reserved for a disambiguation page? (can it be there is only one?)Shortfatlad (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As it happens it appears that he is the only St. Matthew with a biography on Wikipedia. PatGallacher (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And the only St. Matthew with an entry on the Catholic Church's Calendar of Saints: http://www.americancatholic.org/features/saints/ByName.aspx?letter=M . Seems uncontroversial from that point of view.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weakly oppose; this name is more precise. A reader may well expect Saint Matthew to be a dab page among several saints; there is only one Evangelist of this name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's an argument the other way round. Evangelist is a very broad term, and by some interpretations could cover a very large number of people.  Even if we don't move this article, "Saint Matthew" would remain a redirect here, not a disambiguation. PatGallacher (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is possible that evangelist may be broad; but there are four Evangelists.


 * I have no objection to Saint, and have defended it elsewhere; but it seems the vaguer choice here.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That last argument might be tenable if we confine "the Evangelist" to the authors of the 4 gospels, but should we? PatGallacher (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The subject of this article is Saint Matthew. He is widely regognized under that (de facto 'his common') name. Create a dab-page if you want (for the sake of other minor Saint Matthew's). Flamarande (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Are there in fact any other "Saint Matthew"s? They are hard to find on WP if there are - no disam page I can see. I might not support this for John. What is "precision" for some readers will be confusion for many. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Precedence of Matthew's Gospel vs. Mark's
"Matthew's Gospel was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews... and it was once believed that it was the original to the Greek Matthew found in the Bible, but this has been largely disproved by modern Biblical Scholars.[who?][32]"

If you are going to state that something "has been largely disproved", you should cite a source that actually does that. Although it is no doubt true that the majority of biblical scholars "subscribe" to the idea that Mark's gospel was first, that is in truth a matter of debate among such scholars and is certainly not something that has been "largely proved". The truth is that there is not one shred of evidence that Mark preceded Matthew, while practically every passage in those gospels contains evidence that it was in fact the original (Hebrew) version of Matthew's gospel that preceded Mark's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.242.101 (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing
Please see my comment at the Gospel of Matthew. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Matthew as author
I am trying to make some very minor changes on the issue of authorship, but keep having my changes reverted without discussion. Many (maybe or maybe not a minority though certainly not a fringe minority) scholars hold that Matthew wrote his gospel, and I have sources supporting this. I am not trying to delete or minimize the point that many do not agree with this, but rather add this other widely-held view while mentioning that it is a minority view. Wikipedia policy states that non-fringe minority views should be given due weight and not ignored. I also believe blanket reverts without discussions are also against Wikipedia policy.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If they're minor, let's discuss them. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to modify this one anymore. It is acceptable as it is.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * RomanHistorian, I have left a message on your Talkpage to look at deletion proposal.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Death of St. Matthew
So, what about his death? In the article it is claimed he died a natural death either in Ethiopia or Macedonia (as if they are very close and can be easily mixed up). I added "by whom" and "citation needed" tags, as such a claim definitely needs one, not to mention a clarification. I think that this claim should either be properly sourced or removed entirely.Steloukos (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Untitled
Each of the evangelists is represented in art by a winged creature, which represents some aspect of their respective gospels, some a little more forced than others. St. Mark is represented by a winged lion because he begins his gospel with the voice of John the Baptist crying in the desert. St. Luke is represented by a winged ox because his gospel begins with the story of Zechariah offering a sacrifice in the Temple. St. John is represented by an eagle because the prologue of his gospel soars like an eagle. And so, St. Matthew is represented by a winged man (it is not an angel) because his gospel begins with the human genealogy of Jesus.68.65.122.80 14:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Language translations
This is a basic wikipedia formatting/manual of style issue. We don't provide unrelated foreign language translations in the parentheses after the title in the header. Translations are provided in the inter-wiki links in the left hand column. We only provide etymological, root language information. Matthew did not speak English, so his name isn't really Matthew. It is Aramaic/Hebrew. His name is attested to in the Greek texts of the New Testament gospels. Therefore, we provide those languages with transliteration in the intro, per our MoS. We don't say what his name is in French or German or Russian or any other language that isn't directly related to what he was called when he was living. Again, interwiki links are the place to provide translations. So under our guidelines, I see no reason to include "Irish". I apologize for calling your edit a "joke". I'd be glad to discuss the other items you changed if you want. But my main concern was something so jarring as adding the Irish (but I can understand if you didn't understand what the parentheses were for, and what interwiki links are). -Andrew c [talk] 23:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate cut and paste section removed
This section [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Matthew&action=historysubmit&diff=420255488&oldid=420235534 As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. etc.] was moved here, in good faith as inappropriate to the content of Gospel of Matthew, however it now turns out that the section, which is heavily Messianic POV and OR was itself a cut-and-paste duplication into Gospel of Matthew on 15th March from a essay style article Canonical gospels (POV/OR) (created 27 October from a REDIRECT to Gospel) and before that from an unknown source during a merger of material 3 October 2010 from Authentic Gospel of Matthew (Fringe/POV/OR), into Gospel of the Hebrews (POV). Consequently the same material is duplicate cut and paste on at least 4 articles and is deleted here.
 * CUT AND PASTE POV MATERIAL REMOVED
 * It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish.[9][10][11][12] They remained in and about Jerusalem and proclaimed that Jesus son of Joseph was the promised Messiah. These early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes.[13][14] It is near certain that Matthew belonged to this sect, as both the New Testament and the early Talmud affirm this to be true.[5][15][16][17][18][19]
 * As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This Oral Tradition interpreted the Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.[20][21][22] It was in this cultural context or Sitz im Leben that the Christian Oral Tradition had its roots, as Jesus and later Christian 'Rabbis' developed the oral "Gospel" or Logia to interpret the written Law given to Moses by God.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]
 * This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the consequent upheaval of Jewish/Christian social and legal norms. Jewish Christians were required to face a new reality— without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study), the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period of upheaval, that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing.[20][22][25][26][27][31][32][33]
 * The resulting diaspora, (or Tefutzot תפוצות, "scattered") after the defeat in the Great Jewish Revolt meant Jews were scattered throughout the Empire. Matthew (one of the Twelve disciples and a Jew) was part of the Diaspora.[34] The Church Fathers recognized this and Matthew was said to have written the first Gospel out of necessity. [35][36]
 * END OF DELETED DUPLICATE SECTION.

In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor who pasted it from Gospel of the Hebrews to Gospel of Matthew has restored it here. Proposal = remove. Likewise there is a duplicate proposal to remove the same duplicate text on Talk:Gospel of Matthew If anyone supports or opposes they should add support or oppose here, or there, or at Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews, or Talk:Canonical gospelsIn ictu oculi (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Keeping Ictu Honest: Actually, I spent a lot of time fixing the duplication. Then you reverted my edits. And then complained about duplication. In the Gospel you have done some "strange" duplicating. Please do some serious clean up. You have made quite a mess. Thanks- Ret.Prof (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot do a clean up can I, as you are Edit warring. I now propose the same as here as for the other pages on which your section below is duplicated. Matthew, a Galilean and the son of Alpheus [2] collected taxes from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas.[3][4][5] Matthew was "called" by Jesus of Nazareth to be one of the Twelve Disciples.[2][4][6][7][8] As a disciple, Matthew followed Christ, and was one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and the Ascension.

It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish.[9][10][11][12] They remained in and about Jerusalem and proclaimed that Jesus son of Joseph was the promised Messiah. These early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes.[13][14] It is near certain that Matthew belonged to this sect, as both the New Testament and the early Talmud affirm this to be true.[5][15][16][17][18][19]

As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This Oral Tradition interpreted the Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.[20][21][22] It was in this cultural context or Sitz im Leben that the Christian Oral Tradition had its roots, as Jesus and later Christian 'Rabbis' developed the oral "Gospel" or Logia to interpret the written Law given to Moses by God.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]

This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the consequent upheaval of Jewish/Christian social and legal norms. Jewish Christians were required to face a new reality— without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study), the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period of upheaval, that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing.[20][22][25][26][27][31][32][33]

The resulting diaspora, (or Tefutzot תפוצות, "scattered") after the defeat in the Great Jewish Revolt meant Jews were scattered throughout the Empire. Matthew (one of the Twelve disciples and a Jew) was part of the Diaspora.[34] The Church Fathers recognized this and Matthew was said to have written the first Gospel out of necessity. [35][36]

Proposal: Remove duplicate cut and paste section. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

where is Ethiopia?
The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia makes a point that the Ethiopia relevant to the death of St Matthew is not the modern Ethiopia, but south of the Caspian Sea. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10056b.htm Does anyone know where this is? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Patron Saint of accountants, bankers, bookkeepers, stock brokers and tax collectors
This seems made up and does not any references. --Bĭjiert (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It comes from SPQN.com, the first reference. I have removed the section, however, as it doesn't add any meaningful info that isn't already in the infobox. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Time to review 2010 RM result? (see Archive 1 above)
With all respect to proposer and 2 of 3 supporters, I'm not sure that Matthew the Evangelist → Saint Matthew was an advisable move. "Saint Matthew" is clearly not WP:NPOV regarding a historical figure (as much as most "historical figures" in the first century) and Wikipedia isn't, or shouldn't be, a Christian blog. This individual lived centuries before the concept of sainthood and "Saint Matthew" sounds wikt:anachronistic, in addition to a little bit too non-objective for an encyclopedia. Also the RM for 1 of 4 articles after non-move result of the proposed block move of four Evangelist articles, to have just 1 out of synch goes against WP:AT:

In ictu oculi (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Saint Matthew vs. Matthew the Apostle
Could we please retitle this article "Matthew the Apostle"? Not everyone recognizes this man as a saint. "Saint Matthew" is biased to certain Christian traditions, and "Matthew the Apostle" is acceptable to all. (This is similar to the difference between Mohandas Gandhi and Mahatama Gandhi, as well as between Jesus and Jesus Christ. Under both aforementioned circumstances, the name without the religious title is chosen for the Wikipedia title.) &mdash;Wikipedian77 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved as suggested.  Sandstein   20:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Saint Matthew → Matthew the Apostle – "Saint Matthew" is a subjective name to certain Christian traditions. "Matthew the Apostle" is objective and suitable to all. Wikipedian77 (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support, per nom and WP:NCCL. --JFH (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support, per nom and WP:NCCL as cited by JFH, also WP:HONORIFIC, WP:NPOV, and definition of "reliable" sources for WP:IRS and WP:AT. Scholarly sources do not use "Saint" for the historical individual, the New Testament only describes these men as "apostles" not "saint". In ictu oculi (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The proposed title is better than the current one. But where this article should be is Matthew. That lemma is currently a disambiguation page. If you look at the entries, there is no other "Matthew" topic that is even in the running as a potential primary. Kauffner (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per the above arguments. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that Matthew (disciple of Jesus) may actually be the best name for this article. I'm fine with that, "Matthew", or "Matthew the Apostle". &mdash;Wikipedian77 (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also fine, but for the time being happy to stick with nom. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No preference for me. --JFH (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Apostle Matthew ? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose any move, but Matthew the Evangelist would be the most appropriate and common alternative. Names are not "subjective", they are names. What would you move Sitting Bull to?  WP:NCCL is being badly misinterpreted here - I suggest people look at it more carefully. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Johnbod. Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion. For example, Ulrich of Augsburg but Saint Patrick.. How is that being being misinterpreted? I would also be happy with Matthew the Evangelist as more notable in the evangelist function than Matthew the Apostle, if we're trying to avoid parenthetical disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly - the logic here would give Patrick (Irish saint) (or something more accurate). Isn't that totally obvious? The ability of some people to misread guidlines never ceases to amaze me. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, ad hominem is not helpful to this situation. Virtually everyone who refers to Saint Patrick refers to him as Saint Patrick. Not everyone who refers to this man refers to him as Saint Matthew. More specifically, throughout the entire New Testament, this man is referred to as Matthew&mdash;NOT Saint Matthew. To call this man Saint Matthew is biased to the Christian traditions which use the title "Saint" in reference to Biblical figures. Latter Day Saints, many traditional Protestants, evangelicals, and Jehovah's Witnesses all object to this and it is therefore not as objective as it could be. (For similar reasons, Wikipedia does not title Jesus' article Jesus Christ nor Mohandas Gandhi's article Mahatma Gandhi. See: WP:HONORIFIC.) &mdash;Wikipedian77 (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Also support Matthew (disciple of Jesus). WP:NPOV, WP:COMMONNAME.--Srleffler (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: See  for related discussion. &mdash;Wikipedian77 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, although this is not to be understood as a blanket agreement to all cases. There are a few ones (Saint Peter in particular) that I feel that the "saint" honorific is appropriate. José Luiz talk 02:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Saint Matthew" etc.
Potential changes to MOS:SAINTS at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Resurrection
The last Statment "According to the New Testament, he was one of the witnesses of the Resurrection'' and the Ascension".

Under Matthew Chapter 28 verses 1-7 (KJV) Only Mary of Magda and (so stated ) the other Mary went to the tomb to see Jesus. Matthew did not witness the Resurrection, at best this story of Jesus missing from the tomb and the two women being told that he was not here. The missing Jesus was told to Matthew, he did not personally witness the Resurrection.

Ref: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit Query&book=33&chapter=28&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richunix (talk • contribs) 12:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Literacy
The discussion on the certainty of Matthew's literacy is highly flawed. The assumption here is that a "tax-collector" would have need to be educated in the level of literary Greek used in The Gospel According to Matthew, rather than simply in what was needed to write tax receipts.

Reference 15 states: Mark A. Chancey Greco-Roman culture and the Galilee of Jesus 2005 p162 "After Galilee was put under direct Roman administration in 44 CE, there would have been greater impetus for members of the upper class who wanted to ... It is easy to demonstrate that Greek was the language of the governmental sphere." Where is there evidence that Matthew was part of the upper class? And the "Governmental sphere" is a large term encompassing hundreds of roles, big and small. Would a (by 44CE) man of advanced age be able to learn how to write highly literate Greek? I am learning it now, and I am 43. It's murderous.

The Heszer book used for Reference 7 is deeply misleading: Here's the full citation quote from Hezser's book, pp172-173, which I own and happen to be currently reading. This is the whole paragraph: "One may assume that the owners of large estates would have been confronted with various types of written deeds on a consistent basis: they needed documentation of the ownership of land, had to maintain accounts, would lease land to tenants and give them receipts for the dues they paid, purchased or sold land, and lent money to debtors 26" Reference 26 says "For these uses of writing see Harris (1989) 16-17". Hezser's reference 24 is what the article cites, which is from "All landowners will have been required to register their land and pay taxes on the basis of size. 24". But the paragraph past footnote 26 continues: "For the writing of all or at least most of these texts they would have their own (slave) secretaries at hand. Even if they were pious and able to read the Hebrew Bible and/or literate in Greek poetry and prose, the writing they had to do in every day life situations would probably be limited to the occasional note, personal letter, and signature to a business letter or document. In the Roman world estate owners tended to dwell in the cities, while their rural estates were supervised by middlemen. For these estate managers, who tended to be slaves, the ability to read simple non-literary texts and numbers and to write their own lists and accounts will have been advantageous, although perhaps not necessary, if there were others who could accomplish these tasks for them."

As for Footnote 26 in her book, the one wrongly used in this article, the "Section II.2.C" is mostly a discussion the "Babatha archive", which is a collection of a large amount of deeds and receipts and such legal documents that she says "With the exception of no. 36, which seems to have been written in Herodian times, the deeds stem from the time between 93/4 and 132 CE." (p309) Number 36 is is refereed to in the section on Aramaic and Nabatean documents (NOT Greek) on pages 315 and 316. 36 was written in Nabatean: "Of the rest of the Nabatean documents one (no. 36: contract of debt) seems to have been written in Herodian times already" A full discussion of Babatha herself can be found online. . Unfortunately the reference for the Herodian citation is not available electronically. The citations she cites is a French book which I can only find in a German library in World cat. .

So the only (possibly) period-relevant writing this reference cites is in Nabatean, not Greek, and is not a tax receipt. The reference is wrongly used as it only applies to 2nd Century Palestine, long after Matthew died. Matthew was not an aristocrat, and was seated at a tax booth (Mat 9:9, already cited in the main article). This is not the vision of a highly educated man who could write in the literate Greek that the Gospel According to Matthew demands.

I would edit all references to the certainty of Matthews literacy to suggest that while literacy for Matthew is not provably impossible, there is no evidence that a man working a tax booth could have had the need nor resources to learn highly literary Greek, and was therefore improbable. Xyloplax (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Xyloplax

Annoyance
This is annoying. This article is placed in Category:Four Evangelists, but when I look on the category page, I don't see this article. Why?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Try making a null edit on the category page. (Click "edit this page" then "save" without making any changes.) Then refresh the page and see if it's there. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   03:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Gospel is anonymous
It's a pretty vanilla claim in mainstream Bible scholarship that all NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. I have restored the academic consensus claim according to WP:CITELEAD. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The WP:RS/AC is that the apostle Matthew had nothing to do with writing any gospel. It is highly probable that he was illiterate, and if he ever was literate, he wasn't literate in Greek and he wasn't having command of rhetoric. As wrote, there is no evidence that a man working a tax booth could have had the need nor resources to learn highly literary Greek.

About Anne Catherine Emmerich: she did not write academic-level theology, she did not write academic-level history, she was just a pseudohistorian inventing stuff out of whole cloth.

Removed WP:RS were either outdated, or not mainstream. Matthew's literacy is a gullible claim (fideism) at worst and a red herring at best. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure if all of this was directed at me. I have absolutely no idea who Anne Catherine Emmerich was and I was not questioning whether Matthew wrote the gospel or did not. I just felt that it was out of place, since the article merely mentioned what Christian tradition was. But, if the consensus is that we need that in the intro, then let it be. I also have no idea how one would establish how literate Matthew was, nor have I ever attempted to... Again, assuming that this was directed at me. JimboBuckets99 (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: JimboBuckets99 comments struck per WP:BE (sock of GoogleMeNowPlease). — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"Winged man"
The "Veneration" section describes Mark's symbol as a "winged man", is there a reason not to just say angel? Richard75 (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, there might be - the symbols are sufficiently old to possibly predate the consistent depiction of angels as having wings. Plus of course, angels have no gender. And Revelations 4:7-8 says:
 * "And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.
 * And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come"

- Chapter 5 has an "angel" who is distinguished from the "beasts". So yes. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Elaboration needed
This article needs more elaboration on his life, his role in the Bible, and his work and martyrdom in Ethiopia 2600:1008:B055:AB5F:EDD4:3541:198F:3A8A (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Revert mischief
I said I was reverting mischief, I didn't say it was your mischief. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But what do you mean by "take it to the talk page"? Did you even check the references? Neither one says that tax collectors were not literate - all Ehrman says is that the author was well educated and literate. Your haven't responded to L0ckz0r's point at all. StAnselm (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * was not opposing me, they made a little mistake thinking that I had reverted them. Ehrman (1999: 45) says that all of Jesus's direct disciples could at most speak some rough form of Greek, and certainly the could not write (relatively) highly educated Greek. He makes an allowance that it wasn't the best Greek of all ancient Greek writings, but that's all he allows for. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote here? tgeorgescu (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the claim that tax collectors were illiterate was unsupported. StAnselm (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And Ehrman doesn't say all: he says they were "mainly lower class peasants". StAnselm (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)