From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This user has a wife. |
 |
This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know. |
I am a knowledgeable amateur on subjects related to Biblical interpretation and translation, since I have set about making my own translation of the Bible. However, I’m not always clear on the finer points of Textual Criticism (Biblical or secular.). I’m not mainstream by any stretch, but I’d usually identify with someone who is traditional before someone who was skeptical.
My day job is as a computer technical support representative.
I started the page on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, since that’s where I decided to draw my primary source when I did my translation of Matthew. However, reading books like George Howard’s ‘’A Hebrew Gospel of Matthew’’ and others related to the subject have left me knowing that my personal opinions are well outside the mainstream of even this small pocket of extremists. As such, I’ve tried to keep them out and just present the facts.
In Encyclopedias in general (and Wikipedia is no exception) I find the out of hand disregard for the supernatural to be odd. I understand that no serious scientist studies the supernatural (and that by definition it cannot be studied.) However, I can’t see how this makes its existence invalid.
To that end, I’ve started looking around, getting my feet wet as it were. My Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was the first one I added for two reasons: the old article was just a redirect to the Gospel of the Hebrews, and it’s something where, even though I’m a novice, I’ve had more experience with it than most who would otherwise be called experts on the subject of Biblical criticism in general or even the Gospel of Matthew specifically, since most scholarship tends to be in the Greek manuscripts of Matthew.
Anyone who bothered to look at the change history would see that I am deeply indebted to User:Andrew_c for making the text actually readable and relevant, although he doesn’t seem to consider himself any more of an expert than I since he didn’t make any corrections or additions to the facts.
As time goes on, and I get more familiar with the traditions and practices of Wikipedia, I hope to make more contributions, bringing a more traditional voice to the articles on the Bible that seems so often to be missing or slighted, without disregarding the liberal and mainstream views that so often capture the spotlight in these articles. I’m also a Black Belt in a variant of Shaolin Kung Fu that combines techniques from traditional Long fist kung fu and Northern Praying Mantis, so I may end up contributing there, although the entries there seem pretty robust already and I’ll be the first to confess my knowledge of the history of these martial arts is limited.
