Talk:Epistle to the Philippians

message: Matt, why did you just add four quotes from Philippians without any comment on them, or why they should be considered "important"?  I think that they should be referenced and commented upon, but not necessarily quoted at length, in an encyclopedia article, if they're included. --Peter Kirby 06:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that list of verses should be deleted, or at the very least cited. Who decides which verses are more important than others? Looks like WP:Original Research to me. Rocksong 04:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible Verses

message: Changed "liberal" to "some" in the section on authorship. There is no reason why a view on the non-Pauline hymnic character of 2:5-11 would make a scholar liberal as opposed to conservative.
Comment: While your change is probably for the good of the article, your statement isn't accurate.  In the context of Biblical scholarship, the words "conservative" and "liberal" have a very specific meaning.  "Conservative" biblical scholars tend to stick much more closely to traditional interpretations, to earlier dating of NT works, and frequently are more open to the possibility of the miraculous, and as a result take the miracle stories in scripture as literally true.  "Liberal" biblical scholars tend to be more suspicious of the traditional interpretations, more trusting of textual criticism, prefer later dating of NT works, and often - though not always - do not accept the miracle stories in the Bible as literally true.
In this case, scholars who think that 2:5-11 is a non-Pauline insert are making that suggestion based on textual criticism, rather than the traditional interpretation.  That alone makes them more "liberal" in the spectrum of Bible scholars.  Doesn't impugn them in any way.  Just points out that they are more willing to disagree with the stated authorship in the text, which claims that this was written by Paul.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.113.220 (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hymnic change

message: There is substantial debate about whether Philippians was written during Paul's imprisonment in Rome or during an earlier time in prison. This isn't a "liberal/conservative" issue--the text doesn't say anything at all about the location, and if it wasn't written in Rome, then it's older than we traditionally assume.  If I don't hear any comments in the next week or two, I can add a section summarizing the arguments on each side. Atterlep (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Place of Authorship Uncertain

message: An statement reads "No scholar really questions Pauline authorship of Philippians. External evidence is unanimously in favor of Paul." These statements are uncited. They appear to fall under WP:WEASEL, and WP:OR. Even if cited, they are illogical. No scholar out of millions? That is impossible. Unanimous? Never. These statements were rm but replaced by another (or the same?) unregistered editor. They are unnecessary to the article. Student7 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Unanimous? "no scholar"? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Epistle to the Philippians. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217152148/http://98.131.162.170:80/ to http://98.131.162.170/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If "it does not have a rhythmic or metrical structure in the original Greek", how can it be a poem? 98.143.79.127 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Poems don't always have to have metrical structure, and when I added the section I simply used the word "poem" because that is the terminology used by scholars who study the passage (see Bart Ehrman here). I'm going to go ahead and remove the contradiction header. Montgolfière (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poem 

message: In paragraph 2 of the main article, it says "While there is a general consensus that Philippians consists of authentically Pauline material, a few scholars believe that the epistle is a composite of multiple letter fragments from Paul to the church in Philippi...However, this hypothesis is not accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars." Then the entire next section "Composition" describes that there is "a general consensus has emerged among biblical scholars that Philippians was not written as one unified letter, but is rather a compilation of fragments from three separate letters from Paul to the church in Philippi." --Spicer5 (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The discrepancy seems to stem from how the first sentence you mentioned does not distinguish well between "authentic" and "not fragmented". The latter is likely the intended meaning, but I don't know enough about the subject to rewrite the article. Also, I moved your contribution to the talk section to under a new section, rather than above the table of contents. 72.66.80.61 (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy