User talk:RodneyKilgore

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18 February 2021 19:42:48 (UTC)

I understand why you would post this extensive list on my page. However, in this situation, it is largely inapplicable. The portion I have removed from the opening section is faulty for 2 reason: 1.) As previously mentioned, it is factually inaccurate/misleading. Within the Gospel of Matthew, the Judeans are referred to as such ("Jews") on multiple occasions before the crucifixion. If you want to be factually accurate, you need to add a qualifier like "in a narrative text" (Per Luz 2005, p. 611). While the term "Israelites" is also used to describe a potentially synonymous group throughout Matthew, one use of "Judean" after the crucifixion does little more than denote a group of people among whom a rumor exists (Matt. 28:15). But, 2.) Per the following citation (more examples could be cited), the position you've presented is not the current "majority scholarly position," as noted below

Please see Luz commentary on this, printed for your convenience below and bolded the appropriate sections

"Matthew ends the story with a look to his own present: “This rumor has been spread among Jews until this day.” Naturally, Matthew’s Jewish Christian readers know that all too well; the evangelist is not telling them anything new. Thus we should pay particular attention to what the text says to the readers beyond the simple information it contains. In particular, two observations are to be explored. First, the word “Jews” appears here for the first and only time in a narrative text. Second, there is no definite article with “Jews.”20 Here there are two opposing interpretations.

Both are associated with the name of Hubert Frankemölle, who has decisively retracted his earlier interpretation. According to that earlier interpretation (= Frankemölle A), here Matthew wants to portray “the unbelief of the ‘Jews’ as a dark foil for the proclamation of the faith of the Christians.” “Jesus’ rejection by his people and their unbelief is recorded once again at the end of the Gospel in lapidary brevity.” “The Jewish people are obdurate ‘until this day’ (μέχρι τῆς σήμερον).” The first-and-only appearance of “Jews” in v. 15* is a decisive factor for this interpretation. With it Matthew indicates that “Israel [has] lost its salvation-history quality and [has been degraded] to an ethnic quantity like other nations.” By contrast, according to his newer interpretation (= Frankemölle B) “the chief priests and elders … at the end of the Gospel (can) not be called ‘representatives’ of Israel or of the Jews.” Instead, there is a “contrast between the various leaders of the Jewish groups and the crowds”24 so that in Matthew’s day “a missionary-recruiting aspect toward the Jewish people (is connected) with the proof of the criminal origin of the hypothesis of the disciples’ deception.” Just as in 27:20* the people had been “persuaded” to call for crucifixion, here also many Jews—here the absence of the definite article before “Jews” is important—appear as victims of the deception of their evil leaders. In this interpretation “Jews” is a neutral term that the Jews used throughout the Diaspora to refer to themselves.26 I would maintain against the first interpretation that the text speaks of the wickedness of Israel’s leaders who were enemies of Jesus and not of the unbelief or even of the stubbornness of the entire nation. The harshness of the pointed saying of 27:25* is not repeated here. The narrator implies with some restraint that the deception of the Jewish leaders had consequences for the people. That “among Jews” is formulated without an article is unusual and hardly insignificant.27 It is not all of “the Jews” who believe this rumor; at least the Jewish disciples of Jesus do not believe it. While it is true that v. 15b* forms a contrast to the next section that again ends with a view toward the present (v. 20*), it is all the more noteworthy that “the” or even “all Jews” are not contrasted with “all the nations” (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη). In my judgment, even more speaks against the second interpretation. The text implies no contrast between the leaders and the people; it says rather that the deception of the Jewish leaders was successful among (many) Jews until the present day. It is impossible that “Jews” can be meant as a self-designation of Israel that includes Matthew and his church. For that the narrator has used the word “the people” (ὁ λαός) in the entire Gospel in narrative texts. In direct speech he distinguishes carefully between Jews who refer to themselves as “Israel”29 and Gentiles who use the word “Jews” as a designation of outsiders. Therefore, it is strange for the readers when the narrator speaks of “Jews” here. Matthew the Israelite no longer wants to leave the honorific title “Israel” to the people of his nation who believe that the disciples stole Jesus’ body, nor does he want to speak of the “people of God.”31 I am not able to discover anything in this text of a “missionary-recruiting aspect” toward the Jewish people. One can say at the most that with his nonexclusive formulation “among Jews” the narrator indirectly leaves the door of hope open a crack.

'''Neither of the interpretations does justice to the text. The former goes far beyond the meaning potential of the text; the latter completely reverses its impulse. It is true that the separation of the church from the majority of Israel has influenced the use of “Jews” in v. 15*.32 In that sense it seems to me that the impulse of the first interpretation is correct. But only its impulse. While Matthew contrasts antithetically the majority of Israel in his day who reject Jesus with Jesus’ disciples whom the exalted Lord and thus God himself accompanies on their way to the nations, he poses no salvation-history thesis such as that now the church as the “new Israel” takes the place of the previous people of God, Israel, who are now called “Jews.” While he maintains that “among Jews” the deceptive rumor of the theft of the corpse has survived “until this day” and implies no hope that this will change before the parousia, he does not say that in salvation history the time of hope for Israel has run out. Matthew says less than his interpreters say, and we should not read into him later theological concepts. For Matthew such concepts are anachronistic. The experience of the no to Jesus of Israel’s large majority is still new; the parousia of the judge of the world is near (cf. 24:29*), and the Lord’s mission to his church now to proclaim his commandments to all nations is more important than everything else.''' The evangelist wants to lead his readers to obedience to him. Matthew “leaves” to his exegetes the devising of salvation-history theories about the Israel that does not believe in Jesus"

Luz, U. (2005). Matthew 21–28: a commentary. (H. Koester, Ed.) (pp. 611–613). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.

At least, you need to include an opposing opinion as the position in the wikipedia article does not represent the majority opinion.Italic text RodneyKilgore (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * – Hi, I checked the source, Strecker, Theology of the New Testament, which is available on Google Books, and he does say on page 370 that Matthew used Israel to refer to the Jewish people before the crucifixion and Jews afterwards – Israel is used as a collective noun and not for individuals – so there is a source for the content in the article – if there are sources that say otherwise, check Conflicting sources – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * - Epinoia - thanks for your reply. The issue isn't that Strecker says this in his book. The issue, at the very least, as I mentioned, is 1.) as the statement stands in the article, it is incorrect/misleading as demonstrated by the content of Matthew itself. (I gave recommendations to fix at least the inaccuracy, relying upon Luz, a late oft cited Matthean expert {died in 2019}). But, perhaps more importantly from Wikipedia's standpoint, 2.) the opinion presented is, at best, a minority opinion regarding the interpretation of the passage. And per the page you directed me:

"In the case of a conflict stemming from the fact that the general or academic consensus about the subject has changed, the current consensus should be given preference. Older works, if referenced at all, should then be clearly distinguished as such and be used primarily to show the historical development of the subject. Be aware that sometimes older works are re-published with very minor changes making their statements seem newer than they really are.

If the conflict is about an interpretation of the facts rather than a simple matter of fact, and cannot be resolved by demonstrating some of the conflicting sources to be in error, in order to maintain a neutral point of view, include all significant points of view with appropriate attributions. In those cases, it is up to the reader to choose which source they want to believe personally and not the task of Wikipedia editors to choose for them. Instead, the article should contain a mention that different points of view exist. If the issue is a simple matter of fact (e.g., a birth date) but cannot be resolved, this can be reported by presenting the apparently most plausible choice in the text while adding a footnote with the alternatives.

'''If the conflicting fact is of marginal encyclopedic interest, reporting on several views may lead to giving it undue prominence. A reasonable approach in that case would be to omit it entirely.'''"

As I said, at the very least, the article needs to present the current consensus on the passage, and Strecker's is not it.


 * – Matthew is a primary source, Wikipedia depends on reliable secondary sources, see WP:PSTS – if Luz (whom I have not read) conflicts with Strecker, then both positions can be stated in the article, if relevant, but it's not something that needs to be in the lead of the article, the conflicting sources can be referenced in the body of the article – to that end, I have removed the contentious statement from the lead – if you can find a place to add the disagreement between Strecker and Luz to the body of the article, you are free to do so, but be sure to include references to reliable sources – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No original research of Ancient or Medieval sources
Please read Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244. Read it slowly and carefully and you'll find out why is it of application. If WP:CHOPSY say that the Bible is wrong something, so says Wikipedia. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. I oppose WP:PROFRINGE in our articles. You may read the full rationale at WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18 February 2021 19:42:48 (UTC)