User talk:SMJohnson25

Your edit
Hello SMJohnson,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I was about to play the "bad guy" and revert your edit, but I see this is your first contribution to Wikipedia, and a number of possibly great contributors get annoyed by some old hand being a jerk to them and driving them away initially. Don't want to do that. So... it's a good start, especially using a reference! And you're absolutely correct, some people do think that Laodiceans is really another NT epistle. (Although, speaking personally... unlikely.  We know Paul wrote tons of letters; we certainly don't have all of them, so what are the odds any one missing one was one that we still have?)

However, that's covered in the Epistle to the Laodiceans article, which is already wikilinked there. That section was a "Criticism" section and you've cited David Black, who is a proponent of the theory, not a critic. I get that this can go back-and-forth and have a whole debate, but in general, better to keep it focused. It is true that Laodiceans is "generally considered lost", so better to leave it at that. That said, there's a lot of work to be done on the Two gospel hypothesis article - even if you strictly wanted to source Black's position better, there's a bunch of weak references that currently just say "Black" and "Beck" that cite the entire book. So I hope that, if you're interested, you keep contributing! I just think that your first edit though might not fit, though. Happy to collaborate if desired. SnowFire (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)