Talk:Authorship of the Pauline epistles

message: ;I dispute the merge. 
This article, like Authorship of John, is about textual criticism, and is fairly seperate to the main article on these epistles. This is also quite a large page, as is the Pauline epistles page, merging them would push the page quite high. Further, this page is linked from many textual criticism pages, it would be quite odd to be directed to a page discussing the content, in the same way as merging Markan priority with Gospel of Mark would be really quite odd. I have no issue with a small summary being placed there though. CheeseDreams 18:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally dispute it because you are pushing a POV. See the next section that I wrote below. Oh, and btw. The Authorship of John article is pretty NPOV, even if it has got stuff I don't agree with in there. You should read NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally disputed requires npov AND factual accuracy disputes. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have altered this. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: How interesting that you are still making sweeping statements. There are many, many Christian Bible scholars who believe that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. So that proves your assertion false. Also, you haven't given me sources for your claims. Do you expect me to wade through all your books? If this was submitted as a college paper you'd fail. Why should we treat you any differently here? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. I didn't assert that they were Christian. Christians are only a subset of the set of all Biblical scholars. If it was submitted as a college paper, my college would wonder what I was doing submitting academic work to them rather than to the university. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. I thought Americans called Univeristy college. I must have been wrong. Still, this would most definitely fail as a university paper. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we could compromise by saying that most non Christian scholars believe that the evidence of textual criticism indicates that Paul did not write some of these epistles? As for reading them for myself, it's easy to imagine that someone might adopt a different style when writing to a bishop or apostle, then when writing to a congregation; this alone would easily explain the pastorals. As for different phrasings, perhaps he dictated his letters and some scribes didn't write down his words precisely word for word, altering the style or grammar slightly. I'm no expert so I won't make these suggestions in the text, but let's at least agree that we are not likely to convince each other, and also agree for the sake of civility that the other person's beliefs about this are not completely without merit. Wesley 13:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, the Pastorals are particularly extreme in their differences. (This is somewhat obscured by translation though). It is as likely as George W. Bush, with his standard and style of english, writing The Remains of the Day, with its. That's the level of difference in the pastorals. Which is basically the reason that virtually all scholars who do not let their religion get in the way of their objectivity are totally convinced that the pastorals are fakes. It is essentially easier to prove that George Bush wrote one of the most eloquent pieces of english ever written (the aforementioned book) than it is to show that Paul wrote the pastorals. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I'm pulling out of this one (as suggested by Dr Zen). Let the article be written the way you want it. Let it remain a blight on Wikipedia, at least it'll be clear that you are pushing a POV. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  Let me say this a little bit differently. We need to agree that we subscribe to different theories about the authorship of the Pauline epistles, and more importantly, agree that scholars also disagree about their authorship. My favorite theory, your favorite theory, and whoever else's favorite theory need to be presented neutrally, and objectively. This is how NPOV works on wikipedia. CheeseDreams, do you agree with this approach? If not, can you be specific about the flaws you see in this approach? Wesley 06:34, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: It's not neutral because you don't even bother to present the opposing view!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why other editors exist. Put the opposing case, Ta bu. If CheeseDreams reverts it without good reason, I will support you. But what you put in must be of an equivalent standard to be fair. Dr Zen 02:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  I agree, listing some opposing views will help the article. It would also be helpful to further qualify "majority of scholars" as to which scholars are really intended. You probably don't want to include every monk and priest among this group of scholars, for instance, even though many of them spend a great deal of time studying the Bible and related early texts. However, they don't all employ the tools of textual criticism. So how could we neutrally describe "most scholars" to indicate the scholars you do mean? Wesley 13:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be some opposing scholars surely. For Collosians, it only just scrapes close to 2/3 so there must be a sizable minority (1/3) who think it genuine. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: "Non-religious" scholars? I'm not sure it's all that controversial that Paul might not have written some of the epistles though, even among religious scholars who are not fundamentalists (literalists, if you prefer -- sorry, evangelicals just doesn't work for me!), just as we accept that the gospels were not necessarily the work of the apostles.Dr Zen 23:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Most religious scholars accept that Paul did not write the (anonymous) epistle to the Hebrews. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEGa3BgHPwo
Watch from 2:50. He clearly says Paul did not write 2 Corinthians.  Further he says it is widely agreed in scholarship.  
Your claim that 2 Cor being written by Paul is rarely disputed is wrong.  
You should remove it or site a scholarly claim supporting it. 73.234.251.117 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: By your standard, there are no authentic Pauline epistles, there's just the collection. Ehrman does not agree with you. tgeorgescu (talk)  18:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

text: This is taking Ehrman out of context. He's not saying here he has a problem with Pauline authorship, but with the unity of 2 Corinthians. StAnselm (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

text: WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk)  06:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ehrman says Paul didn't write 2 Corinthians 

message: The article states as fact that some of the letters are not written by Paul. However, many accept the genuine authorship of all these letters. Therefore, the only correct statement is that they are disputed. 95.229.8.162 (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk)  06:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some agree on all letters