![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If 60% of scholars don't believe Paul wrote it, why does our analysis simply assume it was written by Paul? I'll put an NPOV notice up. john k 20:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
tooMuchData
18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)The extensive quotations have been questioned regarding copyright infringement. None were "copied and pasted"; all were attributed. In the case of the Clarke quotations, since they are from a 1831 publication, I don't think there is any potential for infringement. The quotations from The Interpreter's Bible are from a 1955 publication; that is the most quoted source. There are a few quotations from The New Jerome Biblical Commentary published in 1990, but I don't think they are exensive enough to create a problem. A Georgian ( talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not so much that the quotes have not been cited, but that the entire article appears to be quotations, and the quotations are badly cited. Is there any original writing (ie. original summaries of referenced material) in the article apart from the first two paragraphs in each section (which have been there for a long time)? I've changed the template accordingly from Copy and Paste to quotefarm.
Maybe the first step in cleaning up the article is to properly footnote each quoted paragraph, instead of using of ellipses to join paragraphs in a single quotation. Sam Rae ( talk) 13:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
That's 60% of CRITICAL scholars not all scholars. This figure is rather misleading as it excludes those non-critical scholars who nearly all support Pauline authorship. Critical scholars usually question Pauline authorship. If you have two parties one orange and one yellow and I said, "Sixty percent of the yellow party voted yellow that would mean that %40 voted orange and to make this example accurate the orange would all vote orange meaning that 99% of the orange party and 40% of the yellow party voted orange.
I'm going to remove the link to "Nick Whyte's Commentary on Colossians". It's not a commentary, just a couple sentences about personal issues and it states that Colossians is "pretty good". It's of no use. -- Victoria h 06:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the Whyte link again. The link sucks and is musings about the subject, nothing exciting or relevant is added to the discussion. - Chad Hart
I think the Authorship section should be towards the beginning. This being because the rest of the article refers to Paul as the author and his authorship should be established first. Also this format would fit with the rest of the article dealing with books of the bible. I'm going to go ahead and do this. Let me know if there are any objections.
Seraphim84 18:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Not only that, but it has been universally noted that Colossians has indisputably Pauline stylistic characteristics, found nowhere else in the New Testament.. Is this self contradicting line a joke? If is is simply poorly written let me point out that I haven't noted this, hence obviously not "universally noted". Still, I was more concerned with the fact that its style is found no where else in the bible making it obviously from Paul.
75.191.151.75 (
talk) 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The page was terrible. I overhauled it, and now it's just bad. Anyone care to pitch in? Leadwind ( talk) 00:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The references are out of order and need to be cleaned up a lot. Perhaps if I have some time, I'd like to help. WorldTravelerPhil ( talk) 20:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Why are there sources cited from the Jesus Seminar? They are definitely not mainstream in scholarly communities; they like to figure themselves as cutting-edge, but they're usually off the deep end of fringe, and they accept no criticism: even by their own members, in fact, as their system of votes and entire methodology seems able to turn-out results against the majority of votes at some times, and the opposite at others. This article needs a rewrite.
tooMuchData
18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
After all I am sorry to state that not only the page is poor - the bibliography is even worse. Maybe someone can help me out.. I don't get the clue about the second "source" there: "(Karissa), "The World we cannot see"". If there is no verified bibliographical information on that one, I am afraid we have to delete it. -- Inawe ( talk) 13:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
In the Doctrinal Sections section it says that all things were created through and for Christ and that the universe is sustained by Christ. And then it reads "God had chosen for his complete being to dwell in Christ." Shouldn't the article somehow discuss these highly enigmatic statements? I.e. what does it mean that something is created "through and for" someone? And how can we understand that the universe is sustained by Christ? Sustained in what sense? energetically? morphologically? Have any thinkers, scholars or scientists published discussions or theories about how it this this could be understood? And I am particularly confounded by the last sentence about God dwelling in Christ. I do realize and appreciate that such opaque scriptural passages might become clearer to the one who meditates on them and requests divine spiritual guidance in absorbing this information, and that perhaps the writers of these passages intended them to be hidden gems to be unveiled to such people who truly exert themselves to integrate the meaning and significance of them. But since this is an encyclopedia, we would be amiss in not presenting relevant discussion on the questions that the passages will naturally spawn and that has been appropriately published. __ meco ( talk) 15:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a problem about the presence of a reference which discusses the thinking of scholars on the authorship of this book. Two editors are reverting one another. I suggest the discussion be brought here and a consensus reached. I have no comment to make either way. Please be mindful of the three revert rule. JodyB talk 15:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I think one brief, good, scholarly, reliable reference should be enough. If it's available for free online, all the better. Presenting a wall of text in the form of quotations that, whether or not they are taken out of context, they certainly give that impression. I don't actually have a problem with the content being included in the article-body one way or the other (which is why I amn't changing it), but the massive footnote looks suspicious. Also, the Georgian is blankly reverting me with no explanation, even though my edit also removed the POV assumption in the previous sentence that Paul must have been the author. Justification by faith alone ( talk) 16:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Epistle to the Romans which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 16:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@ A Georgian: Greerings! Regarding this revert with the edit summary "deleted unsourced statement.": The statement cites the primary text, which reads, for example in the New International Version:
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.
This is a notable passage because it concerns the debate over whether the Bible supports slavery, as already mentioned at The Bible and slavery#Epistles. -- Beland ( talk) 21:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If 60% of scholars don't believe Paul wrote it, why does our analysis simply assume it was written by Paul? I'll put an NPOV notice up. john k 20:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
tooMuchData
18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)The extensive quotations have been questioned regarding copyright infringement. None were "copied and pasted"; all were attributed. In the case of the Clarke quotations, since they are from a 1831 publication, I don't think there is any potential for infringement. The quotations from The Interpreter's Bible are from a 1955 publication; that is the most quoted source. There are a few quotations from The New Jerome Biblical Commentary published in 1990, but I don't think they are exensive enough to create a problem. A Georgian ( talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not so much that the quotes have not been cited, but that the entire article appears to be quotations, and the quotations are badly cited. Is there any original writing (ie. original summaries of referenced material) in the article apart from the first two paragraphs in each section (which have been there for a long time)? I've changed the template accordingly from Copy and Paste to quotefarm.
Maybe the first step in cleaning up the article is to properly footnote each quoted paragraph, instead of using of ellipses to join paragraphs in a single quotation. Sam Rae ( talk) 13:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
That's 60% of CRITICAL scholars not all scholars. This figure is rather misleading as it excludes those non-critical scholars who nearly all support Pauline authorship. Critical scholars usually question Pauline authorship. If you have two parties one orange and one yellow and I said, "Sixty percent of the yellow party voted yellow that would mean that %40 voted orange and to make this example accurate the orange would all vote orange meaning that 99% of the orange party and 40% of the yellow party voted orange.
I'm going to remove the link to "Nick Whyte's Commentary on Colossians". It's not a commentary, just a couple sentences about personal issues and it states that Colossians is "pretty good". It's of no use. -- Victoria h 06:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the Whyte link again. The link sucks and is musings about the subject, nothing exciting or relevant is added to the discussion. - Chad Hart
I think the Authorship section should be towards the beginning. This being because the rest of the article refers to Paul as the author and his authorship should be established first. Also this format would fit with the rest of the article dealing with books of the bible. I'm going to go ahead and do this. Let me know if there are any objections.
Seraphim84 18:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Not only that, but it has been universally noted that Colossians has indisputably Pauline stylistic characteristics, found nowhere else in the New Testament.. Is this self contradicting line a joke? If is is simply poorly written let me point out that I haven't noted this, hence obviously not "universally noted". Still, I was more concerned with the fact that its style is found no where else in the bible making it obviously from Paul.
75.191.151.75 (
talk) 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The page was terrible. I overhauled it, and now it's just bad. Anyone care to pitch in? Leadwind ( talk) 00:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The references are out of order and need to be cleaned up a lot. Perhaps if I have some time, I'd like to help. WorldTravelerPhil ( talk) 20:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Why are there sources cited from the Jesus Seminar? They are definitely not mainstream in scholarly communities; they like to figure themselves as cutting-edge, but they're usually off the deep end of fringe, and they accept no criticism: even by their own members, in fact, as their system of votes and entire methodology seems able to turn-out results against the majority of votes at some times, and the opposite at others. This article needs a rewrite.
tooMuchData
18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
After all I am sorry to state that not only the page is poor - the bibliography is even worse. Maybe someone can help me out.. I don't get the clue about the second "source" there: "(Karissa), "The World we cannot see"". If there is no verified bibliographical information on that one, I am afraid we have to delete it. -- Inawe ( talk) 13:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
In the Doctrinal Sections section it says that all things were created through and for Christ and that the universe is sustained by Christ. And then it reads "God had chosen for his complete being to dwell in Christ." Shouldn't the article somehow discuss these highly enigmatic statements? I.e. what does it mean that something is created "through and for" someone? And how can we understand that the universe is sustained by Christ? Sustained in what sense? energetically? morphologically? Have any thinkers, scholars or scientists published discussions or theories about how it this this could be understood? And I am particularly confounded by the last sentence about God dwelling in Christ. I do realize and appreciate that such opaque scriptural passages might become clearer to the one who meditates on them and requests divine spiritual guidance in absorbing this information, and that perhaps the writers of these passages intended them to be hidden gems to be unveiled to such people who truly exert themselves to integrate the meaning and significance of them. But since this is an encyclopedia, we would be amiss in not presenting relevant discussion on the questions that the passages will naturally spawn and that has been appropriately published. __ meco ( talk) 15:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a problem about the presence of a reference which discusses the thinking of scholars on the authorship of this book. Two editors are reverting one another. I suggest the discussion be brought here and a consensus reached. I have no comment to make either way. Please be mindful of the three revert rule. JodyB talk 15:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I think one brief, good, scholarly, reliable reference should be enough. If it's available for free online, all the better. Presenting a wall of text in the form of quotations that, whether or not they are taken out of context, they certainly give that impression. I don't actually have a problem with the content being included in the article-body one way or the other (which is why I amn't changing it), but the massive footnote looks suspicious. Also, the Georgian is blankly reverting me with no explanation, even though my edit also removed the POV assumption in the previous sentence that Paul must have been the author. Justification by faith alone ( talk) 16:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Epistle to the Romans which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 16:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@ A Georgian: Greerings! Regarding this revert with the edit summary "deleted unsourced statement.": The statement cites the primary text, which reads, for example in the New International Version:
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.
This is a notable passage because it concerns the debate over whether the Bible supports slavery, as already mentioned at The Bible and slavery#Epistles. -- Beland ( talk) 21:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)