00:1600:16, 3 July 2020diffhist+288
Gospel of Matthew
(1) "is resurrected" - Is this phrasing better? (2) the cited source actually says more than what was written, including parts that are shown in the other source I have provided. (3) No it is not. (4) the material is digitally hosted through biblegateway but is a physically published scholarly source. If the source should refer to the physical version of the work, then that can be done. Neither are primary sources. (5) Multiple source have different scholarly interpretation, new source included
10:2510:25, 2 July 2020diffhist+263
Gospel of Matthew
Edits consistent with currently cited material. Also added citations to other scholarly teams. Namely from The Passion Translation by Dr. Simmons et al and The Original Aramaic New Testament By Rev. David Bauscher
06:1706:17, 15 January 2020diffhist+37
Gospel of Matthew
The page 17 Luz phrase, "we have said it is... fictitious" is a reference to his earlier "my hypothesis" statement from page 5. On page 17, Luz states "(the story is partly fictitious)" before discussing "the core of its story". Luz doesn't necessarily say that "the core is partly fictitious" as the previous edit suggests, only that overall story has some hypothetically fictitious parts (such as his theory on some of the doublets).
06:0206:02, 16 December 2019diffhist+202
Gospel of Matthew
Large sections appear to be plagiarised from an uncited source (see Talk Section) which are falsely directly attributed to Luz-2005 (term used out of context/ unrelated pages cited). Phrasing and cited pages have been adjusted to follow the context represented by the source. Further rv and rollbacks ought follow source. Please use Talk section.
05:4005:40, 22 November 2016diffhist−40 m
Burden of proof (philosophy)
→Example: The 'proposition' line wasn't quite right, but I think there's a less cluttered way to express the idea that "p?" and "~p?" both examine the truth-state of "p". I'll come back to this if I can think of more effective phrasing