@KorvinStarmast Regarding this, can I ask you a follow-up question? Do you feel like the final rephrasing (and expanding) of the question is substantially less "opinion based" than the title?

I see that sort of title as a concise way of capturing both the content of the question (Paul vs. Matthias as 12th apostle) and whose opinion I want (the people who say that Paul should have been picked). If your primary concern is with the title, and not the final rephrasing of the question ("What are the arguments..."), that's understandable; I've heard that objection before.

I prefer the more concise title, but I've been encouraged to expand them in the past as well. This question used to simply be, "If Lazarus was literally raised from the dead, why did Matthew, Mark, and Luke fail to mention it?" I thought (and still think) that was sufficient to indicate whose viewpoint I wanted, but others thought the current (longer) title is better.

Let me know if this clarifies anything for you. For what it's worth, I see the question as an attempt to better understand the biblical/rational basis for a tiny minority position in "Christianity" (particularly Protestantism), a position which I find interesting but ultimately unconvincing.

@Nathaniel I think that my reason is best described as "this is speculation/opinion based and thus off topic. I understand that revisionism is a thing, in history and elsewhere, so while I object to the question due to the subject being 100% speculation, I'll not further object as others seem to find it of interest.

I think that the "should" makes this a topic for a discussion forum rather than an SE site, but this is not worth dying in a ditch over.

@Nathaniel The issue is many people who answer, especially new users, will not read more than the title.

Perhaps you should change the title to: "What are the arguments that Paul is the 12th apostle instead of Matthias?"

@Nathaniel Are you saying the minority is those that believe Paul the 12th apostle?

I always thought that was the common position.

@Nathaniel It's important, I think, to put any scoping in the title, even if in abbreviated form. Some people don't read much more than the title--perhaps only skimming the body of the question, perhaps just skipping most or all of it--before firing off an answer. If the scoping isn't in the title, many users will just ignore it and answer from their own perspective.

@Nathaniel Also, it's important, I think not to assume that absent explicit scoping, the scoping should be assumed to be "mainstream Christianity" or "people who believe this" or "the most obvious people who would be interested in this question." People who disagree with the stance taken in the question may have strong views about it, and absent explicit scoping, there's no reason they won't feel entitled, and be entitled, to answer the question.

I got into a scrape about this early on in my C.SE career about an unscoped question regarding whether the Trinity is one God or three Gods. And I still think the mods and users here were wrong to delete my answer stating that the Trinity is three Gods. The question didn't specify "people who believe in the Trinity of Persons." It just assumed that scope. And that is sloppy scholarship and bad practice.

Is there a reason we have no tag for satisfaction theory? We do have one for penal substitution, which is the Protestant variation of satisfaction theory. But what if a question refers to satisfaction theory in general, or to the Catholic Church's variation of satisfaction theory? I'm asking because I looked for such a tag for the question below, but couldn't find one.