Talk:Pastoral epistles

message: I have assembled all material from First Epistle to Timothy, Second Epistle to Timothy and Epistle to Titus here, with minimal tweaking, meaning not to edit until everyone is satisfied that the three Pastoral Epistles can be treated as a group, with subsections for material that concerns them individually. After a while, the former entries (content now duplicative) can be converted to redirects. The individual books remain in the Category:New Testament books, with an additional category, Pastoral epistles. --Wetman 03:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. I wouldn't have linked to the individual articles in the lead paragraph had I read this first. Sounds like a fine plan, at least unless/until there's enough content to make it worth splitting. Seems unlikely for the near term at least. Wesley 23:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: The title "Pastoral Epistles" should be changed to "Pastoral epistles", because it is a description of the three books, not the proper name of a book. If there is no objection shortly, I will make the move.  --Blainster 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems right: a category rather than a title. Rather a lot of double redirects to fix, though. --Wetman 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed title change

message: There is no discussion of the fact that the letters to Timothy are conspiciously absent from the known fragments of early papyrus manuscripts of the bible (Titus is present but rare). How does this weigh in on the authorship question? Please add this info. -- 92.229.117.222 (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manuscript evidence 

message: Separate male and female roles, however, were not foreign to the authentic Pauline epistles; the First Letter to the Corinthians (14:34–35) commands silence from women during church services, stating that "it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
: This is a bit sketchy because many experts believe that that part of 1 Corinthians isn't authentic either for good reasons , namely that Corinthians 11 specifically gives instructions for women to talk in church, and an early manuscript, specifically noted and put this section at the end as not present in most of the other manuscripts. Which makes the separate male and female roles found only in later interpolations and the Pastorals. Tat (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate male and female roles 

message: Although the authorship section includes paragraphs both for and against Pauline authorship, the arguments in the "for" section are left to stand on their own, while the arguments "against" are all contested. This leaves the impression that there are no solid arguments against Pauline authorship. The reality is that modern scholarship is much more divided on this question. Aardvark92 (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, one of these counter-arguments relies on comparing a viewpoint of the Pastorals on gender roles with 1 Cor 14:34-35. I'm no expert on the subject myself, but I've read elsewhere that this passage is considered an interpolation. So that is most likely (inept) original research. (See here for a discussion http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/06/pauline-interpolations.html) Note that Carrier discusses an apologetic argument which holds that the passage is authentic, but that Paul was merely quoting an opponent's view with disapproval. Even were we to buy that, the passage could not be used the way it is being used in this article, obviously. Jagan (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship section is not NPOV 

message: I've taken the initiative to remove an item awaiting a citation since 2008, that stated that the Syriac Orthodox Church did not originally consider these epistles canonical.  5 years is long enough to await such a citation.  I myself am a member of that church and have personally inquired on this subject (and had a source been provided, I could have offered a citation to back up that claim), in fact, the story I have heard thus far directly contradicts it - these books were never rejected as uncanonical per se, rather, the Peshitta (or Peshitto as it is known in the West Syriac dialect) predates the general acceptance of these books into the canon, along with Revelations, Jude and a few other epistles; these were later added and can be found in, for example, the Murdock Translation of the mid 19th century.  On the other hand, some translations, such as the Etheridge translation, lack them.  There was never, from what I've been told, any sense that this was due to an intentional or overt rejection of these books.  From my conversations with clergy from the Assyrian Church of the East, their view on this subject is the same.  TIt should be noted that the Peshitta in use in the Assyrian Church of the East in fact lacks these works, but again, not because they are disputed, rather, their acceptance into canon simply postdates the Peshitta; it should also be considered that the Peshitta was one of several early Syriac Bibles, and grew to prominence as a replacement for the earlier Diatesseron, the gospel harmony previously favored in the churches of Mesopotamia.  Thus, these books are not used liturgically, but they are accepted as valid scripture, and are, for example, used as the subject of bible studies.   hus, given that no citation was provided to any authoritative source in the five years since this claim was made, and given that I've verbally heard conflicting stories from clergy of both churches that use the Aramaic Peshitta, I am removing this reference.  If someone wishes to reinsert it, I would propose that should be acceptable as long as they can cite a source.  
Wgw2024 (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Syriac Orthodox Reference needing Citation since 2008 

message: I would attempt to make it more balance by adding the Conservative Bible Believing side by writers such as Walvoord, Feinbrg and the like but anything I add will just be deleted because wikipedia only shows the Anti-Christian - Anti-Biblical views. Odd they they never do that with the Koran, Just the Bible. It a writer actually believes the Bible you say his writing are Just his viewpoint and not scholarly but any old quack that attacks the Bible you claim is FACT! It is sad really because wikipedia is always begging for money and Christians love to give money to good causes but we never give money to Anti-Christs.  Oh Well, Jesus said you and the rest of the world would hate us so thanks for proving him right once again. Now go ahead a delete this like you do anything that disagrees with you.--69.14.97.53 (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The whole article is only from the Liberal Bible rejecting view 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pastoral 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/20050830115138/http://40.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TI/TIMOTHY_FIRST_EPISTLE_TO.htm to http://40.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TI/TIMOTHY_FIRST_EPISTLE_TO.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209143117/http://40.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TI/TIMOTHY_SECOND_EPISTLE_TO.htm to http://40.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TI/TIMOTHY_SECOND_EPISTLE_TO.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) 04:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified