Talk:Matthew Henry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. |
 |
Matthew Henry falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
|
|
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
[edit] Notes
This article seems a little biased. For example, to say that his commentary is of "no value" as criticism (and a few other comments like this) seems to express a point of view more than they express a statement of the fact.
This article is also a bit short. I'm not sure if it qualifies as a stub or not but it could certainly use some expansion, since it's not especially useful right now.
Definitely needs to be expanded, especially as many people use Matthew Henry's Bible commentry every day.
The information was enough to help me find more details in other web sites. Thank you to the author.
The article does not state that his commentary is of "'no value' as criticism, as the above writer claims. It states that his commentary is of a practical and devotional and not of a critical nature, and that it is not a work of textual criticism. Both of these statements are true.
- The "of no value" quote was apparently from the 1911 encyclopedia, as it appears in the initial version of the page. It was edited out on April 25th.
Henry's commentaries are primarily exegetical, dealing with the scripture text as presented. Henry's prime intention was explanation, not translation or textual research.
--I'd just like to point out that the phrase "of no value as criticism" may appear to be biased on the face of it, but it may also be accurate. As another poster pointed out, Henry intended for his commentary to be exegetical (that is, to explain the meaning of the text). If Henry had no intention of being critical in his commentary (that is, of questioning the validity, authorship, and accuracy of the text) then one might be justified in saying that it has no value as criticism. Of course it doesn't--it's not meant to be cricitism! Perhaps this issue might be resolved with a simple rewrite--something like, "Given that Henry's intent was to prepare an exegetical commentary, his work has little value in terms of textual criticism; indeed, Henry does not appear to have engaged in such criticism in his commentary."
[edit] Should not read like a book review
I take issue with the phrase "its unfailing good sense, its discriminating thought, its high moral tone, its simple piety and its practical application, combined with the well-sustained flow of its racy English style, made it one of the best works of its type." Even if there are sources who have made such claims, they need to be cited and the language of the article changed to reflect who has made these appraisals, whether it is a majority consensus, as well as if the appraisals are current. This is not simply a matter of tacking on some references; there needs to be some re-working to make this more professional. JECompton 03:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
