Talk:Pauline epistles

message: Any basic study of supposedly parallel texts from disputed and undisputed letters yield theological differences - hence why the authorship is disputed. I think the article is innaccurate in that respect. Can we have some discussion on this? --Shanneranner 04:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theological harmony? 

message: I am concerned about the use of the word "forgery" in this article. I think it is an inaccurate word to use. The letters whose authorship is unclear are referred to in scholarly circles as the disputed letters. In the ancient world it was common practice to write under another name in order to have credibility for the writing. Calling them "forgeries" is projecting back our current cultural values and understandings onto a time when the same values weren't held. Discussion? --Shanneranner 04:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The word means what it means. We aren't going to use euphemisms or sugar coat our terminology because  we happen to be describing a thing that is generally viewed negatively in order to make it sound more wholesome. And, it could not have been that acceptable in those days if what you say is correct - that it was done to "give it credibility". that means if the readers knew that it wasn't actually written by that person it would not be given the same degree of credibility. Even if that WAS commonly done, rest assured it wasnt something that had wide approval. Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Forged" Letters? 

message: I've read a lot on Paul and I've never seen the epistles classified in the way that section does. It looks like pure WP:OR and I propose deleting the entire section. Rocksong 07:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've deleted it. (p.s. I'm the same person as User:Rocksong). Peter Ballard 00:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic classification of the Epistles 

message: This article seems to have insufficient detail for those who are not already familiar with the letters.  A brief summary of what is actually contained in the letters without having to go to the page for each individual letter would be helpful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ff11 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information 

message: There is a group of epistles known as the prison epistles. It would be interesting if we could have sourced material on that. ADM (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Prison epistles

message: On the current Wikipedia page, Romans is given a later date of composition than Philippians. On the two Wikipedia pages dedicated individually to Romans and Philippians, however, Romans is given an earlier date of composition than Philippians. I recommend that this inconsistency be resolved, perhaps by increasing the accuracy of dating across Wikipedia pages or by including wider dating intervals across pages in order to highlight the level of uncertainty in dating.
76.123.177.103 (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in dating of epistles 

message: I.e., Pauline Epistles, not Pauline epistles. 75.15.201.235 (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Pauline Epistles" is a proper noun, both words should be capitalized

message: Why this WP:POV markup? Any specific reason that we can observe to improve the article? The article is as far as I can estimate as neutral and objective as a dusty desert, since it is essentially a list of academic opinions and references to those academic opinions. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above. I think most of the Christian related Wikipedia articles have some POV issues, but I didn't see any in this article particularly in the section where the tag was placed (Authenticity of the epistles). Without specific information about what the person that posted the POV tag  was concerned with, I think the template should be removed.--Davefoc (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality issue?

message: There's no discussion at all of the original manuscripts in which the texts of the Epistles have been preserved and used by the first Codices of the NT. When and where were the Epistles first discovered by historians?
Serious overlook for a scholarly article.
--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Presentation of the Original Manuscripts Transmitting the Text of the Epistles 

message: There is still no consensus among contemporary NT scholars. One notable scholar who makes a strong case for Pauline authorship is Robert L. Reymond in his Systematic Theology. DFH (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship of Hebrews 

message: "This ordering is remarkably consistent in the manuscript tradition, with very few deviations."  If there are deviations, what is remarkable about the consistency?  If the remarkableness of just how few deviations there are is of academic/encyclopedic interest then some part of the sentence deserves further explanation and/or citation of a standard by which "remarkably" is reached (such as a treatment/comparison of the contemporary manuscript tradition[s]).  Otherwise, "remarkably" smacks of editorializing. TheNuszAbides (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  possibly editorial, otherwise incomplete: 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pauline epistles. 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/20130601181717/http://www.ixoyc.net/data/Fathers/134.pdf to http://ixoyc.net/data/Fathers/134.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623175757/http://icwseminary.org/lostbooks.htm to http://www.icwseminary.org/lostbooks.htm
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) 16:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In listing the WikiProject groups that this article is of interest to, this list should include Wikipedia: WikiProject Bible. Vorbee (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Bible

message: Has anyone any idea why the "Min." ("minimal"?) abbreviations are in the table? I am a biblical scholar and I've never seen them before. In any case, it seems totally unnecessary and doesn't add anything to the article. The only reason I'm not removing them right away is that they have been there since 2008. StAnselm (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations