![]() | 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 |
Hello, i have to say I am dissapointed with the general tone of discussion on this page. I think if we work together a bit more on it we can move it of the disputed list.
I am studying a second degree in theology in Madrid at the moment and am working on an exegesis of Ephesians so I have tried to start the ball rolling by rewriting the section on Ephesians. I have attempted to present a wider presentation of current academic opinion, not just from the English Speaking World, in a more objective tone. I will be interested to see what you think. Please dont let this descend into bickering. -- Timsj 17:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is there still any interest in merging this article with Pauline epistles? If not, I think the mergerequest tag can probably be removed. Wesley 16:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I believe recent computer analysis of word frequency and patterns in the epistles has come to the conclusion that he only wrote the first 4 epistles, regarded as his major ones, plus probably Hebrews. The others are all by different authors, except the the 2 to Thessalonians are by the same author, as are the 2 to Timothy. This view at least deserves a mention. A very small number of theologians did already hold this view. PatGallacher
The following is the article's complete text bearing on this subject:
This announcement contains very little information. The reasons for the universal acceptance of the undisputed epistles would provide the reader information. And some thought to this subject would correct the current imbalance focussed on disproving all textual and history-based reservations. I'd do this myself if I were capable. -- Wetman 00:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I think some of the stuff is the section starting with This entire procedure is subject to criticism towards the end of Talk:Epistle to Galatians#Authorship of Galatians would be a good addition to this article. As an evangelical christian I have my prejudices of course ;-), but applying statistics to such short letters letters would in my eyes seem to be the same as applying statistics to Hamlets Act I Scene 1 and Act I Scene 1 of The Merchant of Venice, and concluding that they were written by different authors. (Comparison is not ideal, I know, scene 1 of the Merchant has about 1500 words, Ephesians in an average modern translation about 3000). However, some arguments of opponents of this approach might be mentioned for npov sake. TeunSpaans 02:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that in this article views aren't attributed nearly as much as they should be. As I understand it, besides the seven "undisputed" epistles, only Colossians and 2 Thessalonians have had any serious scholars in the last 70 years or so who support Pauline authorship. The Pastorals and Ephesians seem to be generally agreed to not be the work of Paul, in the same way that nobody really believes that Peter wrote the Gospels attributed to him, or that James brother of Jesus wrote the Epistle attributed to him. The article as it stands seems, like so many wikipedia articles on early Christian themes, to present the case as one between "skeptics" who don't accept much of anything, and conservative Christians who except the traditional attributions. If we're going to do this, each questionable Gospel ought to quote the specific scholars who argue specific points, rather than lengthy disquisitions. Material at earlychristianwitings.com would probably provide useful summariez, and so forth, of the various debates (they conclude that, besides the 7 undisputed gospels, only Colossians might plausibly be the work of Paul. john k 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Peter Kirby runs earlychristianwitings.com, maybe he might like to look over the article?
As for R Brown's argument, it could equally be said that it was written by people who didn't ever come within 1000 miles of Paul but who sincerely believed they were expounding his ideas (possibly due to schizophrenia, misplaced self-worth, or just plain old pious self-delusion), and consequently the Pastorals may not have been written by people who knew Paul, but by people who thought they did (or by people who deliberately lied). While R Brown's argument is interesting, its a bit of a damp squib - it doesn't really add anything; while it demonstrates that the epistles might have a connection to Paul even if not written by him directly, it also leaves wide open the possibility that they have none whatsoever.
More importantly, R Brown's argument doesn't address the substantial difference in theology between the Pastorals and the remainder; if someone else wrote it and it has noticeably different theology to the remainder, then occam's razor says that its more likely that it doesnt derive from the same writer as the rest, not even via people who knew him.
Clinkophonist 21:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
section
opening paragraph
"Nearly every modern scholar agrees that Paul was the author of the seven letters"
"but are disputed mainly by many scholars today"
"The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (which does not bear Paul's name) had been disputed in the early centuries of the church, and very few modern scholars (even conservatives) believe Paul to be its author"
Criteria used by scholars "Scholars use a number of methods"
"However, scholars often disagree about how to weigh these criteria in a specific instance. For example, suppose two letters use similar vocabulary."
The undisputed epistles "Almost every scholar, ancient and modern, conservative and liberal, attributes the following epistles to Paul:"
"Traditionally the Roman imprisonment was assumed, but recent scholars have suggested that Paul could have been briefly imprisoned during his time in Ephesus"
"Although Philemon has connections to Colossians, even those scholars who believe Colossians to be inauthentic accept that Philemon was written by Paul, because a forger would have had no motive to create this short, personal note with little theological import"
Colossians
"Some scholars consider that Colossians was not written by Paul. One group of arguments against Paul's authorship relate to differences in vocabulary and style."
"Other arguments rely on the polemical content of the letter, certain concepts, and false-teacher arguments, not expressed by other Christian writers until the end of the first century, making an appearance in Colossians."
"However, due to the apparent consideration of the letter as genuine by the author of the Ephesians, then those scholars who claim that if Colossians is forged, it is very early."
"Those who contest Paul's authorship claim that such parallels are merely due to a careful forger, deliberately introducing unnecessary additional greetings for the purpose of making the text appear more genuine. Scholars who advocate Paul's authorship point out that since Philemon was a personal letter, it is unlikely that it was as widely copied as Paul's more famous letters. So if a forger wanted Colossians to sound like Paul, argue supporters, why not include personal names from his more famous letters instead of names from a minor letter."
Recent arguments against Pauline Authorship
"More modern scholars point to a different author. Their arguments can be summarised into four main areas:"
"Strong evidence of the reliance on the authentic Pauline Epistle to the Colossians"
"Scholars know that Paul spent years in Ephesus building up the church there."
The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians "Some scholars argue that it would be hypocritical for a pseudepigrapher to warn against forged letters (2:2),"
The Pastoral Epistles
"Beginning in the early 19th century, many German Biblical scholars began to question the traditional attribution of these letters to Paul".
"Some scholars claim that these offices could not have appeared during Paul's lifetime."
"Thus scholars of this view claim that the early church faced a serious threat from such teachers, as the prior epistles either supported or accepted their view, and thus the church fabricated the Pastoral Epistles to support their case."
"In the 19th century, Europe-based scholars claimed that the Pastoral Epistles must have been written in the late 2nd century. Today, scholars generally agree that these epistles were known by Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch, and may have also been known by Clement of Rome."
"Regardless of the critical views of most scholars, conservatives"
Hebrews
"Most individuals, even strongly conservative and religious scholars, have rejected Pauline authorship of Hebrews"
"Scholars are divided about the significance of Marcion's omission of the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews.
Could someone NAME these scholars, please. Thanks LoveMonkey 04:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I have attempted to rewrite the first section of the article and intro so as to include references and remove such words. Personally, I find the current state of the article embarrassing. Arguments were made with no reference at all, and sound almost whimsical. I hope this page gets its needed attention soon. I will try, but more and differing opinions are needed. Lostcaesar 14:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I just read through the discussion page and wanted to express my appreciation for the efforts of the people involved to get to a high quality article. It seems to me that you have succeeded at least to some degree. This is a link to an article with a POV about the authorship that I enjoyed. If somebody felt there was some value they might consider adding it in as an external link. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/epistles.html I thought the Wikipedia article did a better job of covering most of the tobin's points though. Davefoc 05:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"..,W M Ramsey entertained the time of Paul's Roman captivity,.." What was meant? Rich 15:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The following has been deleted: "Regardless of the critical views of most scholars, conservatives continue to insist on the traditional view that the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul." Is that not the essence of the conservative view, that the critical reading is dismissed in favor of the traditional attribution? Has deleting this sentence truly been done with a view to enlightening the reader? -- Wetman 08:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The citation given is from a source that I do not believe meets the requirements of a "reliable source". To state that the citation covers "various scholars" seems misleading. I understand that there are probably seriously scholars who argue for genuineness, but I would seriously prefer a much more scholarly citation to support the claim. I was not trying to create a strawman, but instead have the wording accurately represent the citation. If we are going to cite Tekton, the POV needs to be qualified. Hope this explains the reasoning behind my edit, and hopefully inspires someone to find a more reliable source!-- Andrew c 20:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Just so we aren't only citing Ehrman, I found this "...(3)All three Pastorals are pseudonymous, but II Tim was written not long after Paul's death as a farewell testament by someone who knew Paul's last days, so that the biographical details therein would be largerly historical, even if dramatized with some license. Titus and I Tim were written pseudonymously later, most likely towards the end of the 1st century, partly in imitation of II Tim. A "second career" was created. (4)All three Pastorals are pseudonymous, written in the order Titus, I-II Tim most likely towards the end of the 1st century. A "second career" was shapred (probably fictionally) for Paul with a second Roman imprisonment, so that he might speak final words about issues now troubling areas once evengelized by the apostle.... Although the majority of scholars favors a variant of (4), in my judgement (3) best meets some of the problems listed in Chapter 30 above in discussing the authorship of Titus and I Tim, and the implications of pseudeprigraphy." Brown, Raymond E. Introduction to the New Testament. Anchor Bible; 1ST edition (October 13, 1997) ISBN: 0385247672 p.675.
As for how we should present dissent among scholars, I feel that we should represent the majority view, and then have one sentence regarding minority views (instead of having a rebuttle to each statement). Just a thought. -- Andrew c 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
For history's sake, I have moved sentences that have been tagged for over a month to talk:
And we still need a citation of the one tradition cited in antiquity for the so-called 'second career' of Paul.-- Andrew c 03:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I took a quick look through Brown, and the only relevant statement I could find was a footnote on page 672: "The first clear reference to a second imprisonment in Rome occurs early in the 4th century in Eusebius, EH 2.22.2." I didn't see anything relevant to anything being cited in antiquity on page 675. -- Cat Whisperer 17:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been following the recent (minor) edit dispute over whether Hebrews is in the traditional Pauline Corpus. Based on my small library, I think it is:
Accordingly, I think the article should say that Hebrews is "traditionally" called Pauline. (Of course I'm not saying Paul is the author). Rocksong 06:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sure that the piece of the criteria for admission of an article into the corpus of an author could be applied in many places, but precisely for that reason it is not appropriate here. This kind of didactic article may deserve a separate place in WP but is is excessive in the context. (As for Hebrews, it is confusing to include it under St. Paul. Scarcely anyone can be found who will justify its inclusion, which is understandable given the difference in outlook,concepts and worldview. The only justification for keeping it is that someone might undertake the exercise of relating it chronologically and theologically to St. Paul's work as being from the same mind. As soon as one contemplates the task one realises that it is unhelpful even to suggest that the AV attribution should usefully be perpetuated.) Roger Arguile 11:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi ADM, i notice you recently created the page on the authorship of the Petrine epistles. What has led up to this? paulgear ( talk) 06:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
75.14.222.244 ( talk) 19:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
"When Marcion (the 2nd century founder of Marcionism, similar to gnosticism) listed the epistles by Paul, he did not mention the pastorals (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus). The author of Ephesians itself draws on most of Paul's epistles in its style but seems to lack any reliance on 2 Thessalonians or the pastorals. For this reason, authorship of many of the epistles traditionally attributed to Paul have been in doubt for many centuries by critical scholars."
Wow. Marcion was opposed by many people. That doesn't even cop a mention. I'm marking this as totally disputed. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The 27 books we have in the New Testament were first listed as a group by Athanasius in one of his pastoral letters in the mid fourth century. They were then agreed on in a series of synods, and yes I think the Syond of Laodicea was one of those, in the last half of the fourth century. I think it's fine to mention Marcion's canon, but it's also well worth noting that no one else paid much attention to it (besides the Marcionsites) and his list was controversial even then, and not just because of the pauline epistles. I'll do some checking into when the pastorals were first mentioned; do you happen to have a reference saying Irenaeus was the first, just to save me some time? Thanks, Wesley 17:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm considering to elaborate more on the the idea from Radical Criticism that there is insufficient external proof to seriously maintain that the legendary Paul was in fact the author of any of the letters that Marcion was the first to use in his canon. If you strip the teachings in the letters of their later edits, what you are left with are the teachings of bishop Marcion. It seems plausible that Marcion, since he also edited the Lucan gospel in a way to support his theology, would have created these letters himself to give apostolic authority to his own teachings. The central letters could have then been written by Marcion himself and the letters betraying another style by others of the Marcion School.-- Brithnoth ( talk) 09:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This section needs to be rewritten so that it does not adopt a particular religious viewpoint, instead ascribing that viewpoint to the sources. Grover cleveland ( talk) 19:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to add agreement To Grover cleveland's comments above. Although, it is not clear to me that the section can be rewritten into something that is appropriate. If this was an article that I was significantly involved with I would delete it. Davefoc ( talk) 02:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It should be borne in mind that authorship and authority are not necessarily linked when it comes to assessing the value of the Bible for Christian faith. An assertion that the Epistle to the Ephesians, for example, probably did not originate with Paul himself, does not render that document worthless or spurious. If that were so, then we should have to dispense with nearly all of the biblical writings, since few of the books identify their authorship. For example, even though all the prophetic books record the words of the particular named prophet, the only prophetic book to identify its author is Ezekiel. Attaching the name of a revered authority from the past to a sacred and traditional document was a well-recognised and authentic practice signfying the community's endorsement. Indeed, it was the usual practice, and certainly does not imply dishonesty or fraud {ref>Chapter on pseudonymity in McDonald & Sanders, editors. The Canon Debate. 2002.(/ref> (ref links deliberately broken - Manning ( talk) 03:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC))
This sentence seems like original research. Unless someone can provide a citation (which may be easy to do), it needs to be deleted. I'll move forward with this in a week (12/17/11 or so) unless someone has an objection.
Elsteve9 ( talk) 04:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
This also looks rather non-encyclopedic: "The reasoning is spurious in that it assumes what it tries to prove." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.54.203 ( talk) 22:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Note this introductory text;
does not align with either Pauline epistles or the referenced source;
Perhaps(?) it should read;
Richardbrucebaxter ( talk) 01:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Authorship of the Pauline epistles. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Many of the citations are merely the last name of an author and a page number, this is utterly mystifying to me. I don't know who Easton is, and if I did I assume he's written more than one book.
Also seriously what book does 'Easton' refer to? I'm trying to get the context and reasoning of that particular passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.160.118.46 ( talk) 17:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Authorship of the Pauline epistles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Not only is the term deutero-Pauline used in this article without any definition or clarifying discussion, but other WP articles point to this one when the term is used elsewhere in WP. There is even a "Deutero-Pauline" WP redirect to this article. Can someone knowledgeable add a brief explanation of this term, or else remove it and substitute a non-technical phrase in its place? Ross Fraser ( talk) 17:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
Hello, i have to say I am dissapointed with the general tone of discussion on this page. I think if we work together a bit more on it we can move it of the disputed list.
I am studying a second degree in theology in Madrid at the moment and am working on an exegesis of Ephesians so I have tried to start the ball rolling by rewriting the section on Ephesians. I have attempted to present a wider presentation of current academic opinion, not just from the English Speaking World, in a more objective tone. I will be interested to see what you think. Please dont let this descend into bickering. -- Timsj 17:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is there still any interest in merging this article with Pauline epistles? If not, I think the mergerequest tag can probably be removed. Wesley 16:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I believe recent computer analysis of word frequency and patterns in the epistles has come to the conclusion that he only wrote the first 4 epistles, regarded as his major ones, plus probably Hebrews. The others are all by different authors, except the the 2 to Thessalonians are by the same author, as are the 2 to Timothy. This view at least deserves a mention. A very small number of theologians did already hold this view. PatGallacher
The following is the article's complete text bearing on this subject:
This announcement contains very little information. The reasons for the universal acceptance of the undisputed epistles would provide the reader information. And some thought to this subject would correct the current imbalance focussed on disproving all textual and history-based reservations. I'd do this myself if I were capable. -- Wetman 00:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I think some of the stuff is the section starting with This entire procedure is subject to criticism towards the end of Talk:Epistle to Galatians#Authorship of Galatians would be a good addition to this article. As an evangelical christian I have my prejudices of course ;-), but applying statistics to such short letters letters would in my eyes seem to be the same as applying statistics to Hamlets Act I Scene 1 and Act I Scene 1 of The Merchant of Venice, and concluding that they were written by different authors. (Comparison is not ideal, I know, scene 1 of the Merchant has about 1500 words, Ephesians in an average modern translation about 3000). However, some arguments of opponents of this approach might be mentioned for npov sake. TeunSpaans 02:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that in this article views aren't attributed nearly as much as they should be. As I understand it, besides the seven "undisputed" epistles, only Colossians and 2 Thessalonians have had any serious scholars in the last 70 years or so who support Pauline authorship. The Pastorals and Ephesians seem to be generally agreed to not be the work of Paul, in the same way that nobody really believes that Peter wrote the Gospels attributed to him, or that James brother of Jesus wrote the Epistle attributed to him. The article as it stands seems, like so many wikipedia articles on early Christian themes, to present the case as one between "skeptics" who don't accept much of anything, and conservative Christians who except the traditional attributions. If we're going to do this, each questionable Gospel ought to quote the specific scholars who argue specific points, rather than lengthy disquisitions. Material at earlychristianwitings.com would probably provide useful summariez, and so forth, of the various debates (they conclude that, besides the 7 undisputed gospels, only Colossians might plausibly be the work of Paul. john k 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Peter Kirby runs earlychristianwitings.com, maybe he might like to look over the article?
As for R Brown's argument, it could equally be said that it was written by people who didn't ever come within 1000 miles of Paul but who sincerely believed they were expounding his ideas (possibly due to schizophrenia, misplaced self-worth, or just plain old pious self-delusion), and consequently the Pastorals may not have been written by people who knew Paul, but by people who thought they did (or by people who deliberately lied). While R Brown's argument is interesting, its a bit of a damp squib - it doesn't really add anything; while it demonstrates that the epistles might have a connection to Paul even if not written by him directly, it also leaves wide open the possibility that they have none whatsoever.
More importantly, R Brown's argument doesn't address the substantial difference in theology between the Pastorals and the remainder; if someone else wrote it and it has noticeably different theology to the remainder, then occam's razor says that its more likely that it doesnt derive from the same writer as the rest, not even via people who knew him.
Clinkophonist 21:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
section
opening paragraph
"Nearly every modern scholar agrees that Paul was the author of the seven letters"
"but are disputed mainly by many scholars today"
"The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (which does not bear Paul's name) had been disputed in the early centuries of the church, and very few modern scholars (even conservatives) believe Paul to be its author"
Criteria used by scholars "Scholars use a number of methods"
"However, scholars often disagree about how to weigh these criteria in a specific instance. For example, suppose two letters use similar vocabulary."
The undisputed epistles "Almost every scholar, ancient and modern, conservative and liberal, attributes the following epistles to Paul:"
"Traditionally the Roman imprisonment was assumed, but recent scholars have suggested that Paul could have been briefly imprisoned during his time in Ephesus"
"Although Philemon has connections to Colossians, even those scholars who believe Colossians to be inauthentic accept that Philemon was written by Paul, because a forger would have had no motive to create this short, personal note with little theological import"
Colossians
"Some scholars consider that Colossians was not written by Paul. One group of arguments against Paul's authorship relate to differences in vocabulary and style."
"Other arguments rely on the polemical content of the letter, certain concepts, and false-teacher arguments, not expressed by other Christian writers until the end of the first century, making an appearance in Colossians."
"However, due to the apparent consideration of the letter as genuine by the author of the Ephesians, then those scholars who claim that if Colossians is forged, it is very early."
"Those who contest Paul's authorship claim that such parallels are merely due to a careful forger, deliberately introducing unnecessary additional greetings for the purpose of making the text appear more genuine. Scholars who advocate Paul's authorship point out that since Philemon was a personal letter, it is unlikely that it was as widely copied as Paul's more famous letters. So if a forger wanted Colossians to sound like Paul, argue supporters, why not include personal names from his more famous letters instead of names from a minor letter."
Recent arguments against Pauline Authorship
"More modern scholars point to a different author. Their arguments can be summarised into four main areas:"
"Strong evidence of the reliance on the authentic Pauline Epistle to the Colossians"
"Scholars know that Paul spent years in Ephesus building up the church there."
The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians "Some scholars argue that it would be hypocritical for a pseudepigrapher to warn against forged letters (2:2),"
The Pastoral Epistles
"Beginning in the early 19th century, many German Biblical scholars began to question the traditional attribution of these letters to Paul".
"Some scholars claim that these offices could not have appeared during Paul's lifetime."
"Thus scholars of this view claim that the early church faced a serious threat from such teachers, as the prior epistles either supported or accepted their view, and thus the church fabricated the Pastoral Epistles to support their case."
"In the 19th century, Europe-based scholars claimed that the Pastoral Epistles must have been written in the late 2nd century. Today, scholars generally agree that these epistles were known by Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch, and may have also been known by Clement of Rome."
"Regardless of the critical views of most scholars, conservatives"
Hebrews
"Most individuals, even strongly conservative and religious scholars, have rejected Pauline authorship of Hebrews"
"Scholars are divided about the significance of Marcion's omission of the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews.
Could someone NAME these scholars, please. Thanks LoveMonkey 04:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I have attempted to rewrite the first section of the article and intro so as to include references and remove such words. Personally, I find the current state of the article embarrassing. Arguments were made with no reference at all, and sound almost whimsical. I hope this page gets its needed attention soon. I will try, but more and differing opinions are needed. Lostcaesar 14:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I just read through the discussion page and wanted to express my appreciation for the efforts of the people involved to get to a high quality article. It seems to me that you have succeeded at least to some degree. This is a link to an article with a POV about the authorship that I enjoyed. If somebody felt there was some value they might consider adding it in as an external link. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/epistles.html I thought the Wikipedia article did a better job of covering most of the tobin's points though. Davefoc 05:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"..,W M Ramsey entertained the time of Paul's Roman captivity,.." What was meant? Rich 15:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The following has been deleted: "Regardless of the critical views of most scholars, conservatives continue to insist on the traditional view that the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul." Is that not the essence of the conservative view, that the critical reading is dismissed in favor of the traditional attribution? Has deleting this sentence truly been done with a view to enlightening the reader? -- Wetman 08:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The citation given is from a source that I do not believe meets the requirements of a "reliable source". To state that the citation covers "various scholars" seems misleading. I understand that there are probably seriously scholars who argue for genuineness, but I would seriously prefer a much more scholarly citation to support the claim. I was not trying to create a strawman, but instead have the wording accurately represent the citation. If we are going to cite Tekton, the POV needs to be qualified. Hope this explains the reasoning behind my edit, and hopefully inspires someone to find a more reliable source!-- Andrew c 20:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Just so we aren't only citing Ehrman, I found this "...(3)All three Pastorals are pseudonymous, but II Tim was written not long after Paul's death as a farewell testament by someone who knew Paul's last days, so that the biographical details therein would be largerly historical, even if dramatized with some license. Titus and I Tim were written pseudonymously later, most likely towards the end of the 1st century, partly in imitation of II Tim. A "second career" was created. (4)All three Pastorals are pseudonymous, written in the order Titus, I-II Tim most likely towards the end of the 1st century. A "second career" was shapred (probably fictionally) for Paul with a second Roman imprisonment, so that he might speak final words about issues now troubling areas once evengelized by the apostle.... Although the majority of scholars favors a variant of (4), in my judgement (3) best meets some of the problems listed in Chapter 30 above in discussing the authorship of Titus and I Tim, and the implications of pseudeprigraphy." Brown, Raymond E. Introduction to the New Testament. Anchor Bible; 1ST edition (October 13, 1997) ISBN: 0385247672 p.675.
As for how we should present dissent among scholars, I feel that we should represent the majority view, and then have one sentence regarding minority views (instead of having a rebuttle to each statement). Just a thought. -- Andrew c 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
For history's sake, I have moved sentences that have been tagged for over a month to talk:
And we still need a citation of the one tradition cited in antiquity for the so-called 'second career' of Paul.-- Andrew c 03:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I took a quick look through Brown, and the only relevant statement I could find was a footnote on page 672: "The first clear reference to a second imprisonment in Rome occurs early in the 4th century in Eusebius, EH 2.22.2." I didn't see anything relevant to anything being cited in antiquity on page 675. -- Cat Whisperer 17:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been following the recent (minor) edit dispute over whether Hebrews is in the traditional Pauline Corpus. Based on my small library, I think it is:
Accordingly, I think the article should say that Hebrews is "traditionally" called Pauline. (Of course I'm not saying Paul is the author). Rocksong 06:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sure that the piece of the criteria for admission of an article into the corpus of an author could be applied in many places, but precisely for that reason it is not appropriate here. This kind of didactic article may deserve a separate place in WP but is is excessive in the context. (As for Hebrews, it is confusing to include it under St. Paul. Scarcely anyone can be found who will justify its inclusion, which is understandable given the difference in outlook,concepts and worldview. The only justification for keeping it is that someone might undertake the exercise of relating it chronologically and theologically to St. Paul's work as being from the same mind. As soon as one contemplates the task one realises that it is unhelpful even to suggest that the AV attribution should usefully be perpetuated.) Roger Arguile 11:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi ADM, i notice you recently created the page on the authorship of the Petrine epistles. What has led up to this? paulgear ( talk) 06:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
75.14.222.244 ( talk) 19:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
"When Marcion (the 2nd century founder of Marcionism, similar to gnosticism) listed the epistles by Paul, he did not mention the pastorals (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus). The author of Ephesians itself draws on most of Paul's epistles in its style but seems to lack any reliance on 2 Thessalonians or the pastorals. For this reason, authorship of many of the epistles traditionally attributed to Paul have been in doubt for many centuries by critical scholars."
Wow. Marcion was opposed by many people. That doesn't even cop a mention. I'm marking this as totally disputed. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The 27 books we have in the New Testament were first listed as a group by Athanasius in one of his pastoral letters in the mid fourth century. They were then agreed on in a series of synods, and yes I think the Syond of Laodicea was one of those, in the last half of the fourth century. I think it's fine to mention Marcion's canon, but it's also well worth noting that no one else paid much attention to it (besides the Marcionsites) and his list was controversial even then, and not just because of the pauline epistles. I'll do some checking into when the pastorals were first mentioned; do you happen to have a reference saying Irenaeus was the first, just to save me some time? Thanks, Wesley 17:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm considering to elaborate more on the the idea from Radical Criticism that there is insufficient external proof to seriously maintain that the legendary Paul was in fact the author of any of the letters that Marcion was the first to use in his canon. If you strip the teachings in the letters of their later edits, what you are left with are the teachings of bishop Marcion. It seems plausible that Marcion, since he also edited the Lucan gospel in a way to support his theology, would have created these letters himself to give apostolic authority to his own teachings. The central letters could have then been written by Marcion himself and the letters betraying another style by others of the Marcion School.-- Brithnoth ( talk) 09:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This section needs to be rewritten so that it does not adopt a particular religious viewpoint, instead ascribing that viewpoint to the sources. Grover cleveland ( talk) 19:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to add agreement To Grover cleveland's comments above. Although, it is not clear to me that the section can be rewritten into something that is appropriate. If this was an article that I was significantly involved with I would delete it. Davefoc ( talk) 02:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It should be borne in mind that authorship and authority are not necessarily linked when it comes to assessing the value of the Bible for Christian faith. An assertion that the Epistle to the Ephesians, for example, probably did not originate with Paul himself, does not render that document worthless or spurious. If that were so, then we should have to dispense with nearly all of the biblical writings, since few of the books identify their authorship. For example, even though all the prophetic books record the words of the particular named prophet, the only prophetic book to identify its author is Ezekiel. Attaching the name of a revered authority from the past to a sacred and traditional document was a well-recognised and authentic practice signfying the community's endorsement. Indeed, it was the usual practice, and certainly does not imply dishonesty or fraud {ref>Chapter on pseudonymity in McDonald & Sanders, editors. The Canon Debate. 2002.(/ref> (ref links deliberately broken - Manning ( talk) 03:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC))
This sentence seems like original research. Unless someone can provide a citation (which may be easy to do), it needs to be deleted. I'll move forward with this in a week (12/17/11 or so) unless someone has an objection.
Elsteve9 ( talk) 04:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
This also looks rather non-encyclopedic: "The reasoning is spurious in that it assumes what it tries to prove." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.54.203 ( talk) 22:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Note this introductory text;
does not align with either Pauline epistles or the referenced source;
Perhaps(?) it should read;
Richardbrucebaxter ( talk) 01:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Authorship of the Pauline epistles. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Many of the citations are merely the last name of an author and a page number, this is utterly mystifying to me. I don't know who Easton is, and if I did I assume he's written more than one book.
Also seriously what book does 'Easton' refer to? I'm trying to get the context and reasoning of that particular passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.160.118.46 ( talk) 17:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Authorship of the Pauline epistles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Not only is the term deutero-Pauline used in this article without any definition or clarifying discussion, but other WP articles point to this one when the term is used elsewhere in WP. There is even a "Deutero-Pauline" WP redirect to this article. Can someone knowledgeable add a brief explanation of this term, or else remove it and substitute a non-technical phrase in its place? Ross Fraser ( talk) 17:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)