![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I've converted the article to a table format, as I believe this will make it easier to study. The information has been supplemented at some points from the article Dating the Bible. The information is substantially the same as before. More work needs to be done to check sources and references. PiCo ( talk) 10:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Perkins 2003 and 2009 shortened footnotes appear to lack the corresponding source in the bibliography. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 01:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Hey User:PiCo, why are there two bibliographies? Any objection if I just fold everything in Bibliography 2 into the first one? Alephb ( talk) 01:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
If you feel inclined to take the trouble, dates could be moved to the narrow left-hand column and the right-side column used for composition histories. PiCo ( talk) 04:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Lionboy-Renae: You are
promoting minority views, which is contrary to
WP:DUE. Explain instead of edit warring. Also is believed to quote from
is
WP:Editorializing.
WP:RS quote at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
13:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I seem to be engaged in an edit war with another user regarding the adding of sources supporting both early and late composition of the General Epistles of James and Peter, on this article.
The version my edit was reverted back to is a version which promotes a minority view of a highly late composition of the epistle of James, with the earliest offered date being after James' death. There is NOT a scholarly consensus on the pseudonymity of James. The pseudonymity of James is a minority view. As the article on the epistle clearly states, there is a widespread diversity of views on the dating of that epistle, with a solid majority of scholars placing it prior to James' death and being genuine, due to the strong interplay between it and the Pauline epistles concerning the matter of justification by faith. The majority position is that James is responding to, and refuting, Paul. Disunity between apostolic writings is a sign of a highly early composition date. In my edit, I made only a conservative change to this entry: I stated that the conclusion of James as being the work of a later author is not a consensus position, and added TWO sources supporting this statement. My edit was reverted.
The original version of the article which I modified also claimed 3 reasons for the late composition of the second epistle of Peter:
These are all poor reasons to assume late composition: Jude could have been quoting from 2 Peter rather than vice-versa; the Pauline epistles have very early composition dates circa CE 50; and the Transfiguration story originated from Peter's own account, so the epistle would not need to have been written after the gospel of Mark in order to include such a reference.
The previous edit also did NOT mention several GOOD reasons to support a late composition of 2 Peter:
I added all of this information, as well as two sources – one supporting early composition, and one supporting late composition. My edit was reverted.
I also added two or three additional sources for the dating of 1 Peter, and extended the beginning of the proposed date range from CE 75 back to CE 60, since CE 75 requires it to be pseudonymous, whereas, once again as with James, the pseudonymity of 1 Peter is not a consensus/majority position. My edit was reverted.
Concerning the matter of my addition of the phrases "appears to" or "is believed to" to the statements of 2 Peter quoting from Jude, I feel that these were appropriate additions, since it is the cited source, Perkins (2012), which makes these claims. It is not an objective claim that 2 Peter quotes from Jude, when Jude could just as easily be quoting from 2 Peter. That is the opinion of the author of the cited source, not an independent fact to be stated without equivocation.
I would ask that my edit not be reverted a second time. It was not biased, and it was not promoting any minority views. I added sources for each of my changes. Thank you.
Lionboy-Renae ( talk) 14:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Bart Ehrman (Forged) and Dale Martin (2009 (lecture). "24. Apocalyptic and Accommodation" on YouTube. Yale University. Accessed July 22, 2013. Lecture 24 (transcript)) opine that Peter did not write anything from the Bible, and that that's the view of the majority of Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
References
McCartney2009
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page)."The proposal that Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings make up a unified work (the Deuteronomistic history) was advanced by Martin Noth in 1943 and has been widely accepted, with revisions.[8] Noth proposed that the entire history was the creation of a single individual ... Few scholars accept his idea that the History was the work of a single individual.[36]"
This paragraph seems inconsistent and self-contradictory. It could at least use some better wording. I'm not good enough on the subject to edit anything, so I'm just writing there hoping someone better at this to take action. -- Betty ( talk) 03:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I was sorry to see my edit on 2021-01-15 quickly reverted. The point I was trying to make was that Corinthians is not simply 'Another of the genuine Pauline letters' but at least 2 letters, as is explained in the article on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. HuPi ( talk) 00:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I would like to point out that it is quite misleading to state that the Deutero-Pauline Epistles (2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians) are pseudoepigrapha; it is true, there are scholars who believe so, but there are also others who support their authenticity and the debate is still ongoing. On the other hand, this identification is correct for the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus), which most scholars see as pseudoepigrapha.-- Karma1998 ( talk) 15:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@ MaccWiki: Stop inserting that gullible WP:FRINGE trash. You cannot pass it for mainstream academic learning, so you have to stop! tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
No. It's a historical question. And by "theological points of view", you're not referring to the mainstream theological position but what is essentially a fringe theory held by fundamentalist theologians. The purpose of theological study of the bible is hermeneutical - it's about interpretation, and most respected theologians accept that Genesis was written somewhere between the reign of King David (c. 1000 BCE) and the exile period (560 BCE). Claritas ( talk) 14:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
If we speak about Simon J. Gathercole, he looks like a bona fide scholar. But he has an enormously difficult task to convince the majority of mainstream scholars that the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were really written by... Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John (i.e. Apostles chosen by Jesus himself, or companions of such Apostles). If that's not what he claims, please state it clearly. tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
He might have called it “The Gospel of Jesus Christ” or “The Life and Death of Our Savior”, or something similar, i.e. Mark would not have called it κατα Μαρκον. Source: Bart D. Ehrman (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-19-512474-3.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I've converted the article to a table format, as I believe this will make it easier to study. The information has been supplemented at some points from the article Dating the Bible. The information is substantially the same as before. More work needs to be done to check sources and references. PiCo ( talk) 10:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Perkins 2003 and 2009 shortened footnotes appear to lack the corresponding source in the bibliography. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 01:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Hey User:PiCo, why are there two bibliographies? Any objection if I just fold everything in Bibliography 2 into the first one? Alephb ( talk) 01:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
If you feel inclined to take the trouble, dates could be moved to the narrow left-hand column and the right-side column used for composition histories. PiCo ( talk) 04:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Lionboy-Renae: You are
promoting minority views, which is contrary to
WP:DUE. Explain instead of edit warring. Also is believed to quote from
is
WP:Editorializing.
WP:RS quote at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
13:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I seem to be engaged in an edit war with another user regarding the adding of sources supporting both early and late composition of the General Epistles of James and Peter, on this article.
The version my edit was reverted back to is a version which promotes a minority view of a highly late composition of the epistle of James, with the earliest offered date being after James' death. There is NOT a scholarly consensus on the pseudonymity of James. The pseudonymity of James is a minority view. As the article on the epistle clearly states, there is a widespread diversity of views on the dating of that epistle, with a solid majority of scholars placing it prior to James' death and being genuine, due to the strong interplay between it and the Pauline epistles concerning the matter of justification by faith. The majority position is that James is responding to, and refuting, Paul. Disunity between apostolic writings is a sign of a highly early composition date. In my edit, I made only a conservative change to this entry: I stated that the conclusion of James as being the work of a later author is not a consensus position, and added TWO sources supporting this statement. My edit was reverted.
The original version of the article which I modified also claimed 3 reasons for the late composition of the second epistle of Peter:
These are all poor reasons to assume late composition: Jude could have been quoting from 2 Peter rather than vice-versa; the Pauline epistles have very early composition dates circa CE 50; and the Transfiguration story originated from Peter's own account, so the epistle would not need to have been written after the gospel of Mark in order to include such a reference.
The previous edit also did NOT mention several GOOD reasons to support a late composition of 2 Peter:
I added all of this information, as well as two sources – one supporting early composition, and one supporting late composition. My edit was reverted.
I also added two or three additional sources for the dating of 1 Peter, and extended the beginning of the proposed date range from CE 75 back to CE 60, since CE 75 requires it to be pseudonymous, whereas, once again as with James, the pseudonymity of 1 Peter is not a consensus/majority position. My edit was reverted.
Concerning the matter of my addition of the phrases "appears to" or "is believed to" to the statements of 2 Peter quoting from Jude, I feel that these were appropriate additions, since it is the cited source, Perkins (2012), which makes these claims. It is not an objective claim that 2 Peter quotes from Jude, when Jude could just as easily be quoting from 2 Peter. That is the opinion of the author of the cited source, not an independent fact to be stated without equivocation.
I would ask that my edit not be reverted a second time. It was not biased, and it was not promoting any minority views. I added sources for each of my changes. Thank you.
Lionboy-Renae ( talk) 14:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Bart Ehrman (Forged) and Dale Martin (2009 (lecture). "24. Apocalyptic and Accommodation" on YouTube. Yale University. Accessed July 22, 2013. Lecture 24 (transcript)) opine that Peter did not write anything from the Bible, and that that's the view of the majority of Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
References
McCartney2009
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page)."The proposal that Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings make up a unified work (the Deuteronomistic history) was advanced by Martin Noth in 1943 and has been widely accepted, with revisions.[8] Noth proposed that the entire history was the creation of a single individual ... Few scholars accept his idea that the History was the work of a single individual.[36]"
This paragraph seems inconsistent and self-contradictory. It could at least use some better wording. I'm not good enough on the subject to edit anything, so I'm just writing there hoping someone better at this to take action. -- Betty ( talk) 03:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I was sorry to see my edit on 2021-01-15 quickly reverted. The point I was trying to make was that Corinthians is not simply 'Another of the genuine Pauline letters' but at least 2 letters, as is explained in the article on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. HuPi ( talk) 00:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I would like to point out that it is quite misleading to state that the Deutero-Pauline Epistles (2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians) are pseudoepigrapha; it is true, there are scholars who believe so, but there are also others who support their authenticity and the debate is still ongoing. On the other hand, this identification is correct for the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus), which most scholars see as pseudoepigrapha.-- Karma1998 ( talk) 15:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@ MaccWiki: Stop inserting that gullible WP:FRINGE trash. You cannot pass it for mainstream academic learning, so you have to stop! tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
No. It's a historical question. And by "theological points of view", you're not referring to the mainstream theological position but what is essentially a fringe theory held by fundamentalist theologians. The purpose of theological study of the bible is hermeneutical - it's about interpretation, and most respected theologians accept that Genesis was written somewhere between the reign of King David (c. 1000 BCE) and the exile period (560 BCE). Claritas ( talk) 14:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
If we speak about Simon J. Gathercole, he looks like a bona fide scholar. But he has an enormously difficult task to convince the majority of mainstream scholars that the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were really written by... Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John (i.e. Apostles chosen by Jesus himself, or companions of such Apostles). If that's not what he claims, please state it clearly. tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
He might have called it “The Gospel of Jesus Christ” or “The Life and Death of Our Savior”, or something similar, i.e. Mark would not have called it κατα Μαρκον. Source: Bart D. Ehrman (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-19-512474-3.