Talk:Authorship of the Pauline epistles

Statistics
I wonder where this figure came from? ''A majority of scholars (about 2/3) consider that Colossians is not written by Paul. '' Sound as if it came from a particular survey of the field of scholars; if so, that would be a helpful citation. Thanks. Wesley 04:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Its one of the references in the references section of the page. Unfortunately I have forgotten which, although it will be one of Richard Heard, Udo Schnelle, Norman Perrin. The exact statistic expressed in the reference is 60% (2/3 is 66.66666(etc.)%). CheeseDreams 18:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. But that makes it 2/3 of all the scholars you mentioned. So write it as such. You haven't written about every scholar who has ever published someting about the Pauline Epistles!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have understood my response. The statistic is mentioned by one of the authors I refer to above, I didn't mean that the statistic was the authors I referred to above. It is in fact a 2/3 of ALL biblical scholars everywhere statistic, which is, I believe, how I wrote it in the article. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Then cite who believes it. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wesley, Raymond E. Brown in his An Introduction to the New Testament offers percentages of the "critical scholarship" who believe whether Paul wrote which Epistle. For the ones where there is serious doubt, here are Brown's numbers:


 * 2 Thessalonians -- "evenly divided"
 * Colossians -- 60%
 * Ephesians -- 70 to 80% (with Erasmus mentioned as one)
 * Titus -- 80 to 90%
 * 1 Timothy -- 80 to 90%
 * 2 Timothy -- 80 to 90%
 * Hebrews -- almost all scholars, with Origen & Tertullian being 2 early sceptics.

Brown's book is an excellent guide to the issues (both textual & of content) of the NT, & should be consulted by everyone who wants to contribute to New Testament articles. Although he admits at the beginning of this book that he is a Catholic scholar (& wrote extensively about the Johannine books before his death), he makes his own POV very clear, & provides intelligent discussions of POVs opposing his. -- llywrch 23:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * llywrch, thank you very much for the source. Can I assume that those percentages of "critical scholarship" that do not believe that Paul wrote the book in question? Also, I presume based on the fact that ranges are given, that these figures are not the result of an actual survey but rather Brown's general impression of what "critical scholarship" thinks. Is this a fair assessment? Wesley 03:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Wesley, I'm not sure I understand your question, so forgive me if I don't properly answer it.


 * Nowhere in his book does Brown explain how he arrived at these numbers; I would assume, for lack of better evidence that it was based on his extensive reading of the secondary literature & years of associating with other NT scholars. In other words, these numbers are not hard & verifable, but provide a useful gauge of just how likely Paul wrote each one of these works. I find his numbers a better tool than the usual Wikipedia practice of either stating something along the lines of "a concensus", "many people believe", "some people believe", or "an articulate minority believe" -- plus we're quoting the opinion of an acknowledged expert, rather than an anonymous Wikipedian's unverifiable impression.


 * And these numbers only tell one piece of the story -- which is why I made the pitch to read his book. (And do -- I believe that it has something of value for every student of the NT, despite her/his beliefs.) Brown spends a chapter explaining the complex issue of authorship at the time these works were written: while admitting that it is possible that some of these works were not the direct work of Paul -- either by his hand or a scribe by dictation -- he emphasizes that they were very likely written by his own followers who wanted to preserve some of his ideas that had not been set down in writing. In other words, very much like the difference between a professor's own essay & a student's paraphrase based on that professor's works. -- llywrch 20:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, you answered my question. I agree that Brown's general impression is probably far more accurate than most based on his involvement in the given field, as you say. I'm sure it's a fine book, but I can't be sure when I'll get to it, as I'm already behind on my personal reading list. Thanks for the recommendation though. Wesley 17:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tags

 * I dispute the merge.

This article, like Authorship of John, is about textual criticism, and is fairly seperate to the main article on these epistles. This is also quite a large page, as is the Pauline epistles page, merging them would push the page quite high. Further, this page is linked from many textual criticism pages, it would be quite odd to be directed to a page discussing the content, in the same way as merging Markan priority with Gospel of Mark would be really quite odd. I have no issue with a small summary being placed there though. CheeseDreams 18:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why is this page totally disputed? Try it yourself. Seperate the two sets of epistles (the 7 undisputed, vs. those that are not the 7 undisputed). Read one whole set, then read the other. It is really quite different.
 * I totally dispute it because you are pushing a POV. See the next section that I wrote below. Oh, and btw. The Authorship of John article is pretty NPOV, even if it has got stuff I don't agree with in there. You should read NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Totally disputed requires npov AND factual accuracy disputes. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I have altered this. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can check the epistles yourself if you want, the points made in the article are true. The language is different, the greek does have large differences, the theology and style does have large differences. The vast majority of most scholars do consider that Paul did not write the pastorals. Most do not think that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. CheeseDreams 18:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What factual accuracy do you dispute?


 * How interesting that you are still making sweeping statements. There are many, many Christian Bible scholars who believe that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. So that proves your assertion false. Also, you haven't given me sources for your claims. Do you expect me to wade through all your books? If this was submitted as a college paper you'd fail. Why should we treat you any differently here? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not really. I didn't assert that they were Christian. Christians are only a subset of the set of all Biblical scholars. If it was submitted as a college paper, my college would wonder what I was doing submitting academic work to them rather than to the university. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I thought Americans called Univeristy college. I must have been wrong. Still, this would most definitely fail as a university paper. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could compromise by saying that most non Christian scholars believe that the evidence of textual criticism indicates that Paul did not write some of these epistles? As for reading them for myself, it's easy to imagine that someone might adopt a different style when writing to a bishop or apostle, then when writing to a congregation; this alone would easily explain the pastorals. As for different phrasings, perhaps he dictated his letters and some scribes didn't write down his words precisely word for word, altering the style or grammar slightly. I'm no expert so I won't make these suggestions in the text, but let's at least agree that we are not likely to convince each other, and also agree for the sake of civility that the other person's beliefs about this are not completely without merit. Wesley 13:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not really, the Pastorals are particularly extreme in their differences. (This is somewhat obscured by translation though). It is as likely as George W. Bush, with his standard and style of english, writing The Remains of the Day, with its. That's the level of difference in the pastorals. Which is basically the reason that virtually all scholars who do not let their religion get in the way of their objectivity are totally convinced that the pastorals are fakes. It is essentially easier to prove that George Bush wrote one of the most eloquent pieces of english ever written (the aforementioned book) than it is to show that Paul wrote the pastorals. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Right. I'm pulling out of this one (as suggested by Dr Zen). Let the article be written the way you want it. Let it remain a blight on Wikipedia, at least it'll be clear that you are pushing a POV. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Let me say this a little bit differently. We need to agree that we subscribe to different theories about the authorship of the Pauline epistles, and more importantly, agree that scholars also disagree about their authorship. My favorite theory, your favorite theory, and whoever else's favorite theory need to be presented neutrally, and objectively. This is how NPOV works on wikipedia. CheeseDreams, do you agree with this approach? If not, can you be specific about the flaws you see in this approach? Wesley 06:34, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is the majority opinion. But the text still contains the counter arguments. What is not neutral? CheeseDreams 18:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Why does this not appear neutral?
 * It's not neutral because you don't even bother to present the opposing view!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That is why other editors exist. Put the opposing case, Ta bu. If CheeseDreams reverts it without good reason, I will support you. But what you put in must be of an equivalent standard to be fair. Dr Zen 02:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, listing some opposing views will help the article. It would also be helpful to further qualify "majority of scholars" as to which scholars are really intended. You probably don't want to include every monk and priest among this group of scholars, for instance, even though many of them spend a great deal of time studying the Bible and related early texts. However, they don't all employ the tools of textual criticism. So how could we neutrally describe "most scholars" to indicate the scholars you do mean? Wesley 13:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * There must be some opposing scholars surely. For Collosians, it only just scrapes close to 2/3 so there must be a sizable minority (1/3) who think it genuine. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "Non-religious" scholars? I'm not sure it's all that controversial that Paul might not have written some of the epistles though, even among religious scholars who are not fundamentalists (literalists, if you prefer -- sorry, evangelicals just doesn't work for me!), just as we accept that the gospels were not necessarily the work of the apostles.Dr Zen 23:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Most religious scholars accept that Paul did not write the (anonymous) epistle to the Hebrews. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Merging and POVness
I think that this would be better merged with Pauline Epistles. Firstly, this is a general article that has to do with authorship, however this should be covered in the main article! It should be merged. As it is, this piece is a gigantic POV piece by one author. The central thesis of the piece is that the epistles weren't written by Paul and that most if not all scholars agree with this. No attempt at giving an opposing POV has been written although there is plenty of it around, especially amongst Christian scholars.

It sounds like an interesting debate and it would be great if you could fill in the other side!

Cheesedreams uses phrases such as the following: "For this reason, authorship of many of the epistles traditionally attributed to Paul have been in doubt for many centuries by critical scholars. By the end of the 20th century, the majority of scholars had rejected all but 7 as genuinely by Paul (consequently these 7 are known as the undisputed epistles)." and also "The pastorals were subjected to the level of computer analysis used in criminal trials for similarity of authorship, and failed that analysis." I have removed these comments as they are unsubstantiated and POV.

''You what? My understanding is that this is absolutely correct. Only seven of the epistles are considered to be undisputed. That doesn't mean that the others definitely weren't written by Paul, but that only these seven are accepted by all to have been. I'm no Biblical scholar but I do know that the provenance of much of the New Testament is contested. I know this is difficult ground for believing editors, but please, try to get it into perspective.''

More POV words are "weaker" and "stronger" arguments. We should not be calling them this, as we don't make value judgements!

Edit them out.
 * I have :) Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a basic tenant of Wikipedia, and CheeseDreams would do well to read about NPOV. Regrettably, no attempt at reading of this policy has obviously been made, and she's been busy stinking up many articles to do with Christianity. As it says on her user page "I edit controversial articles. They are usually more controversial after I start editing them." 

''They ought to be more controversial though. They should not present a Christian POV as if it were neutral.''
 * They should not be more controversial. They should be well referenced, and they should fairly state all points of view. This article doesn't even come close. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Look, if an article does not present at all anywhere, even the existence of a critical case against Jesus' existence, and suddenly it does, to say that isn't controversial, even if it is NPOV, is nonsense. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Say that again? I didn't understand any of that. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 2/3rd argument has been removed also. There is no source for this, and it seems dubious at best. I have changed it to "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." You'll notice I've removed "However, such before their time issues can be explained by Paul being the source of these concepts, rather that merely a redistributer of them (although this can also be used to argue that Paul made them up himself, rather than reflecting the faith)." because this appears to be original research. I've also marked this section as dubious as it now employs weasel words (I was forced to because of the dubiousness of CheeseDreams claims).

''I agree that CheeseDreams must source the 2/3rds assertion. Hit the books, CheeseDreams, because you know that that will be contentious enough to need referencing.''
 * Its referenced in the references section, as I mentioned right at the start of this talk page.
 * Maybe so. But which particular reference were you referring to? We need to know who said it, and where you got that information from. Something in the form of (Author last name, [publication] (optional), [year]). - Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've also removed any reference to "disputed" and "undisputed" epistles as this seems to be the POV of CheeseDreams.

No. This is common enough that even I've heard of it.
 * But where? I'd not be disputing this if I had a reference to the dispute, but I don't have any. Until then, can we agree to keep them out? If you or CD can give me references, then go ahead and put them in. After all, by the very nature of a dispute, then there must be parties who disagree over the authenticity. So let's say who they are! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If an epistle is disputed, we should mention it in the section that talks about the epistle, we shouldn't be confirming or denying the status of the epistle as this statement in itself is disputed by many Christians.

''I have to disagree. Saying something is "disputed" simply describes it as being under dispute. It doesn't make a judgement about whether it should be disputed etc. It distinguishes those epistles that are agreed by all to be written by Paul from those that are disputed; no more, no less. I think that if you were able to step back and look at that idea from a more neutral standpoint, you'd see that it's not as bad as you seem to think. I can fully understand your sensitivity though. I imagine the outrage of Moslems if it were suggested that some of the Koran was of disputed authorship. Trying to convince them that saying it's true that it's disputed is different from saying that it *should be* disputed would be a very difficult task.''
 * It has been. Actually, many liberal Muslims are open to the idea. You see, Uhlman (not sure how to spell that), who collected together the Koran from the various different versions of it, and unified it (very very early on in its history), himself writes of passages no longer in the Koran. Uhlman (or whatever his name is) may have (intentionally or otherwise) not chosen all the true verses, or added others. For example, the Satanic Verses. Many liberal Muslims are not sure about the validity of all of this collation process, and wonder whether certain parts are dubious, though it happened earlier in its history, than did Christianity (within about 50 years), so has a greater chance of being accurate (as there is less time to produce myths/counter-myths and forgeries, as well as rival lists of texts). CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It is true. I'm a bit sensitive about this topic. I don't like being misrepresented. Noone does. That's why I've always tried to write from a NPOV on Islam, even though I totally disagree with it. I don't think I'm a POV pusher. But again, as I've said above, can we find sources please? And say who the parties who dispute these facts are? If only because I'd like to look up those references and verify them. Which I will most likely do. After all, that's one of the reasons why this place is meant to be so good: we treat each side fairly and from a neutral POV. Part of that process is that we must give a reference to those points of view!!! And we don't make up our own material. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The references section. Read the references section. Why do you think I put it in? CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh wow! the reference section. You expect me to trawl though all of those books to find certain bits of information? Try doing that with a Univeristy essay. And that's the quality we expect on this site. So if you don't provide it, then expect to have people question your work. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I notice quite a few claims have not been substantiated. For instance: "Those who contest Paul's authorship state 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." Who contested Paul's authorship?

''This guy wrote a book about the "undisputed epistles". This implies he at least thinks the rest are "disputed".''
 * Well, this is a start. See, if we could add this material, then I'll not dispute it! Only... who is he disputing against? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * He is disputing against the orthodoxy (due to tradition) of the idea that Paul did write them CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the "(possibly forged)" because this is not substantiated and appears to be the view of the author. Again this is a POV statement. However, now the paragraph reads:

"The extensiveness of the development of the theology in the epistle compared to that of other epistles has led many scholars to the opinion that if it is genuine, then it must be very late. However, due to the apparant consideration of the letter as genuine by the author of the Ephesians, then most scholars think that if Colossians is forged, it is very early."

Again, no scholars are quoted and it is made out like this is an accepted fact, which it is not, especially amongst Christians.

''There were quite a few "facts" in there. Which one in particular don't Christians accept? I've run out of time. I think some of your points are valid, Ta bu, and I agree that this article can be much improved. But *work with* CheeseDreams, hey? This antagonistic approach doesn't help at all.''
 * I don't accept unattributed facts. Why don't I just write: most Biblical scholars accept the veracity of the Bible? You think I'd get away with this? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Then attribute your talk page, and Quills and Motor Car and Harry Potter and Mobile Phone and Path Integral Formulation and Pythagorus and Leonardo Da Vinci and Mormonism and Kibo and Australia and LIBOR and Inflation and Privy Council and Court and Paper and Qin dynasty and Cheese.....
 * CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * CheeseDreams, I do not have to attribute my user page!!!! Good grief women, the user page is an introduction on who you are and resides in the User space. Not in the main article space! And as for those other article: yes, they should all be attributed. Read No original research. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The "facts" in that paragraph seem to be:

Ben Standeven 21:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) The theology in that epistle is extensively developed, compared to the other ones.
 * 2) Many scholars believe that, if it is genuine, it must be very late. They do so because of the supposed development.
 * 3) The author of Ephesians thinks it is genuine.
 * 4) Most scholars believe that, it it is forged, it must be very early. They do so because of the latter reference.

Now we get to Ephesians. It says that "Ephesians bears a strong similarity to Colossians, to the extent that over 40 areas of the text can be identified in Colossians which Ephesians reproduces, expands upon them and adding." No attempt at telling us any of the 40 areas of text are identified! So marking this as dubious. However, the rest of the paragraph reads: "It is for this reason that almost all scholars think that Ephesians is an edited reworked reproduction of Colossians, though whether this is due to Paul seeking to emphasise particular meanings, or whether it is down to a forger trying to alter perception of Paul's teachings, is a matter of more dispute, about 2/3 of scholars choosing the latter." almost all scholars think that? great, what a POV sweeping statement. So I've also rephrased this to "many scholars", however this now means I've had to add a weasel word. I also dispute the "about 2/3 of scholars choosing the latter." bit, so I've removed it. So now it reads:
 * You should add it back, because they do. Removing it suggests a POV motive for suppressing the fact that most scholars (2:1 margin) consider it true, and instead implying that a number of them, which is sizable, do. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If you add it back in again, then you need to cite who says this. In a format like "such and such says that two thirds of all scholars believe..." - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"It is for this reason that many scholars think that Ephesians is an edited and reworked reproduction of Colossians, though whether this is due to Paul seeking to emphasise particular meanings, or whether it is down to a forger trying to alter perception of Paul's teachings, is a matter of more dispute."

Yet this is still not very good, because a) no scholars are mentioned (you expect me to take this on faith?!) b)no sources are given c) I have no way of verifying this information and how to rebutt it or provide an alternative POV. So this is totally POV still. So again, I've marked is as dubious.

"Many terms found in parts of the new testament which are considered to have been written after Paul's death are found within Ephesians, though not in other epistles, and for terms that are, the author makes a different choice of usage, for example linking pistis with kurios rather than just christos." I don't even know where to start with this paragraph. Firstly, you'll notice that I've removed the "disputed" bit. Its almost impossible for me to understand what is being said in this sentence because it's so convuluted! I've attempted a copyedit, but I don't know how well I've suceeded. Hint for CheeseDreams: Greek has a capital letter. So does New Testament. Part of my copy edit to the paragraph was to change it to "Such variations occur to the extent that many scholars think that, though Paul's authorship is not impossible, if Paul did write such a letter, someone else rewrote it." Funny however that no scholars are given and we're just expected to accept what is written here.

"One of the more noticable differences between Ephesians and other epistles is the distinct lack of any reference to an impending occurrance of the day of Christ. Also, the image of marriage as an heavenly union between the church and Christ contrasts noticably with 1 Corinthians' suggestion that marriage is to be avoided if possible."

No source. Original research.

"The general nature of the epistle itself, unlike those of the undisputed, is more a general homily, than anything directed at a particular community (such as the Ephesians themselves). To textual critics, such as Richard Heard, such variations are suspicious, in particular phrases such as holy apostles seeming completely out of place, except to a writer from a more developed church (such as that of the second century)."

And now we get to the absolutely beautiful bit. This bit kills me.

"2 Thessalonians is considered by scholars, such as Udo Schnelle, to be significantly different in style to the undisputed epistles, being whole and narrow rather than a lively and abrupt discussion on a range of issues. Neither does 2 Thessalonians have significant open or deep questions unlike much of the remainder of Paul's writing, and, according to scholars, such as Alfred Loisy,  seems to reflect knowledge of the synoptic gospels, which had not been written when Paul wrote his epistles. Further reason for scepticism, such as that of Bart Ehrman{{nowiki> ,  derives from the insistence of genuineness within it, and the strong condemnation of forgery at its start (a ploy commonly used in forged documents)."

We have two comments in the text (I notice not on talk!) "do we really have to put in "supported by X" it just looks sloppy and unreadable, it's in the bibliography" and "again, I object to "according to X" on grounds of poor style" Allow me to be the first to point out to you that all statements on Wikipedia must be qualified. Allow me to be the first to point out to you that we loathe weasel terms. So, yes! you need to include these in the text! And please don't discuss "style". So far I've noticed the poor style that this article has been written in. No wonder this article is so disputed! Sheesh.

Now, does Bart Ehrman argue that it is (a ploy commonly used in forged documents)? This isn't clear. Want to substantiate this further? Sounds dodgy, but if he says this then we should make it clear.

"Another issue often raised is that of context, for example, in the time of Paul, prayer usually treated God (the Father) as ultimate judge, rather than Jesus (as Christians nearer the end of the first century started to), which to scholars, such as Norman Perrin, suggests that 2 Thessalonians stating may the Lord direct your hearts to ... the steadfastness of Christ unlike 1 Thessalonians' may establish your hearts unblamable ... before God and Father, implies it having been written during times after Paul's death."

No, CheeseDreams, it doesn't look ridiculous. It's part of NPOV and a part of removing weasel words. It stops disputes.


 * It does look ridiculous, since "Some people, including X, believe" is redundant. I've rewritten these paragraphs to fix this; "X believes". We still need to say where these people claim these things, though ("in a book" isn't good enough). That's a pretty basic rule of attribution. Ben Standeven 21:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, this is one of the worst written articles I've read on Wikipedia, and I've read a few. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''That's not nice. -- Dr Zen in italics''Dr Zen 03:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe so, but its also the truth. The POV hits you like you would not believe. I'll try to play nicer though. It's just that I've been sorely tried by CheeseDreams, who does not appear to be writing from a NPOV. I'll go to Moore Theological College and do some digging. Regrettably they are closed for the Christmas holidays. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Now you said to me that you had copied in my responses to the above from my talk page, so where are they? CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry? Where did I say this?! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I've never liked hiding commentary or questions in HTML comments. I think it's poor style. If the comment is complaining about something being poor style, then change it, or discuss it here on the Talk page where others can agree or disagree. If there's a question to ask, ask it here where a reply can be posted. Replying in the HTML comments would be especially poor style, for instance. Wesley


 * The interpretation of 1 Corinthians being completely against marriage is but one way to read it, considering the same book also vigorously defends the right of apostles to be married. I agree with Ta bu shi da yu that this, and other parts, appear to be original research, which is inappropriate. Wesley 23:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The standard interpretation of Paul amongst non-Christians is of a self-hating (possibly gay, Timothy being one of his boyfriends) prude, or, as someone expressed to me, a self-loathing old queen. This is precisely because Paul is seen by them as SO against marriage and SO pro celibacy. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * P.s. it should be noted that the standard intepretation by non-Christians is not that that the gnostics held - they explained the apparant loathing of the flesh as the gnostic ideal that the flesh is intrinsicly evil (being created by the devil), thus hatred of sexuality, and anything else like that.
 * Rather, created by the demiurge. Who they believed to be a lesser God who got it wrong and thus created the physical world: a pale shadow of the spiritual realm. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If Paul were completely against marriage, then surely he would have criticized Peter for being married, rather than defend his marriage? He certainly wasn't shy about criticizing Peter on other grounds, when he felt it was warranted. But really, if that's the standard interpretation among gay non-Christians, that's fine. As always, all I ask is that such interpretations be attributed appropriately rather than stated as fact. So, what would be the most appropriate attribution? Wesley 23:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

would you like a real Biblical scholar's opinion?
I am a seminary student and actually have studied with one of the foremost Pauline scholars in the Biblical scholarship world. Are you interested in my comments? I think that a lot of the arguments presented here show a demonstrated lack of understanding of the field of Biblical scholarship. There is so much here though, that I'm not sure where to start. Where could my skills and knowledge best be put to use? --Shanneranner 01:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent. This is just what I've been waiting for! Please, go ahead and edit this. Just remember to adhere to NPOV :-) Also, don't take away opposing viewpoints, just back up your own and note when opposing viewpoints are disputed. Ta bu shi da yu 02:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be welcome, although I express reservations about the fact that you are a seminary student, and therefore not neutral (and not meant to be, otherwise it would be hard to see how you could pass through the seminary).
 * Start wherever you think is best. CheeseDreams 19:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I also wish to express my reservations that you are a secular atheist and therefore are not neutral. I mean BIG DEAL! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just want to chip in briefly here. The scholarly website Early Christian Writings contains clear links to pages on the various Pauline letters, and discussion of their contents and possible authorship presented clearly and concisely, with numerous references to the scholars advocating the positions, and links to further offsite resources. It should hopefully be useful to those here complaining about the lack of citable sources for various agruments.

For example, the entry for Colossians not only mentions that it was Raymond Brown who supplied the 60% statistic discussed at the top of the page, but also mentions that it features on page 610 of his "An Introduction to the New Testament"--MockTurtle 03:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pseudograph versus pseudepigraph
This sentence is from the second paragraph of the opening section:

"The latter three, the 'Pastoral Epistles', are widely regarded as pseudographs,"

The word "pseudographs" is made a hyperlink to the Pseudepigraph article. The Pseudepigraph article doesn't mention pseudograph.

There are three issues here I think:


 * 1) The pseudepigraph article doesn't mention the word pseudograph and perhaps it should.  A comparison of the meaning of the two terms would be helpful.
 * 2) The link to the pseudipigraph article should probably be removed if the pseudipigraph article doesn't mention pseudograph.
 * 3) Was psedipigraph or pseudograph the intended word?  Pseudograph means that the three epistles so described were intentional fakes intentionally misrepresented by their originator as being written by Paul.  That might be the intent of the sentence but the hyper link to pseudipigraph suggested that the author of this sentence meant to only say that the works have been incorrectly attributed to Paul by people other than the author of the epistles in question.

Ehrman says Paul didn't write 2 Corinthians
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEGa3BgHPwo

Watch from 2:50. He clearly says Paul did not write 2 Corinthians. Further he says it is widely agreed in scholarship.

Your claim that 2 Cor being written by Paul is rarely disputed is wrong.

You should remove it or site a scholarly claim supporting it. 73.234.251.117 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * By your standard, there are no authentic Pauline epistles, there's just the collection. Ehrman does not agree with you. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is taking Ehrman out of context. He's not saying here he has a problem with Pauline authorship, but with the unity of 2 Corinthians. StAnselm (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The article does not acknowledge that many have a contrary opinion to that stated, i.e., many do accept the genuine authorship of all the Pauline letters. Several letters are stated as non-Pauline as fact, whereas in reality they are merely disputed. 95.229.8.162 (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Some agree on all letters
The article states as fact that some of the letters are not written by Paul. However, many accept the genuine authorship of all these letters. Therefore, the only correct statement is that they are disputed. 95.229.8.162 (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌ See WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)