Talk:Matthew Henry
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 22, 2019. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes
editIf he was born at Iscoyd, Flintshire, surely that makes him Welsh not English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coraldesigns (talk • contribs) 16:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
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."
Should not read like a book review
editI 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)
- Once again, that language is directly from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the original source of the article. Feel free to improve. --Rpresser 23:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
How is Matthew Henry and Philip Henry related to Alexander Henry the Elder?
editHow are they related? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryfamily (talk • contribs) 07:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
On the papacy
editHow are the latter comments about the "son of perdition" relevant or approaching a NPOV? If the article is going to pursue Henry's arguments (assuming that's whose arguments these are), it should thoroughly examine those arguments and place them against counter-arguments and/or critiques. Otherwise this feels irrelevant in its specificity, along with feeling like it was written by an apologist for Henry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.l.schwab (talk • contribs) 18:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The title of his complete commentary begins with the word "An"
editIt looks to me like the title of Matthew Henry's complete commentary begins with the word "An".
Reference:
The title of his complete commentary ends with the word "Testament" (singular)
editIt looks to me like the title of Matthew Henry's complete commentary ends with the word "Testament" (singular), not "Testaments" (plural).
Reference: