Pasted here is the section I removed.  The research is commendable, but would be more applicable in a section on modern criticms of slavery. Even then it appears to be original research because the sources cited are not arguing against slavery on the basis of textual criticism, they are arguing against authenticity of these books of the Bible. Essentially, this sentence is an original argument that the New Testament doesn't support slavery, because certain Pauline epistles are not genuine apostolic writings.  It would be better to cite this argument from a source who has actually argued, "Christianity doesn't support slavery, because the slavery-tolerant passages in the NT are not authentic."69.19.14.35  

However, most scholars believe that these particular Pauline epistles were not actually authored by Paul., page 385Udo Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology (2003), [english translation published 2005]Hermann Detering, The Falsified Paul (1995)Stephen G. Wilson, Luke and the Pastoral Epistles (1979)Norman Perrin, The New Testament: An Introduction (1974)W. Bujard, Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserfrief als Beitrag zur Methodik von Sprachvergleichen (1973)E J Goodspeed, Key to Ephesians (1956),  page 6Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians (1951), pages 245-255Alfred Loisy, The Origins of the New Testament (1936)Percy Neale Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (1921)Ferdinand Christian Baur, Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works (1845)also partially advocated by Desiderius Erasmus