Talk:Pastoral epistles

[Untitled]

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)

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)

Links are always useful. I have so recently labored (perhaps in vain) to bring these three epistles together precisely because they cannot be completely understood individually. Individually one cannot even arrive at a sensible date for their composition. It seems too easy at Wikipedia to split up information thoughtlessly, without concern for context. The idea of a "long' article at Wikipedia seems to be about 1500 words! --Wetman 03:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revision

I added the Attention tag to the article. I noticed that large sections were blank, and that a version of the article several edits old ([1]) was significantly longer. It doesn't look like the article was simply vandalized, but it's clear that SOMETHING happened to it, and neither the talk page nor the article history mentions what that was. Would someone more familiar with Wikipedia please take a look at it? 134.10.44.199 05:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Never did get around to the next few steps, did I? Thanks for reminding me.

The new structure is better. Of course, structure is useless without content. A.J.A. 17:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping a sharp eye out. I went to Page history, compared a December version with the current one, and by choosing "edit" and then "save" replaced the vandalized version with the previous good one. Thanks! --Wetman 18:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:VAND, removing my comment here [2] was vandalism. Don't commit vandalism anymore, and especially don't vandalize the talk page to make your false accusation of vandalism against me more credible. A.J.A. 21:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As you said, structure is useless without content. Since your re-structuring removed a significant amount of content, including citations, and it's been over a month without anything further being added, I reverted it to the previous version. Wesley 20:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed title change

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)

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)

Ok, I'll work through them. --Blainster 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. It seems to me that theological writers sometimes have a habit of capitalizing various nouns as an indicator of importance or emphasis. (Initial capitals and all capitals should not be used for emphasis. see WP:MOS). In English, nouns should generally only be capitalized only if they are proper names, or part of a title. Now in French only the first word of a book title would be capitalized, or if it were German all the nouns would be capitalized, so the language does make a difference. But ancient languages (Hebrew and Greek) had no miniscule letters, so I suspect that is not the root of the problem. --Blainster 07:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Manuscript evidence

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)

Separate male and female roles

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 [3], 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)

Authorship section is not NPOV

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)

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)

Deleted Syriac Orthodox Reference needing Citation since 2008

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)

The whole article is only from the Liberal Bible rejecting view

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)

"Worship" in the Pastorals?

Somebody has been repeatedly editing this article to indicate that the Pastorals cover the topic of "worship". But they do not say a word about "worship". (1 Tim 2:8 was cited as an example of "worship", but that verse says nothing at all about worship, nor makes any allusion to worship - the verse is entirely about prayer.) Never in any of his epistles does Paul specifically address the issue of worship. If you believe that there is some reference to "worship" in the Pastorals then please explain why here instead of vandalizing the article by introducing topics the Bible does not talk about. I could list hundreds of topics the Pastorals address, but "worship" is not one of them. Grand Dizzy (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a talk page discussion. First of all, please read WP:NOT VANDALISM. Secondly, prayer is usually regarded as part of Christian worship. Thirdly, according to this reliable source, Paul's purpose in 1 Tim 2:8 - 3:1a is that "the congregation's worship practices... should personify the redemptive purpose of God our Savior set out by the preceding theological formulation." StAnselm (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

StAnselm,

Hello and thank you for your response. Firstly, I'm sorry I called you a vandal. I thought you were engaging in hoaxing, by editing articles to say things that are patently untrue. However, having now looked at your other contributions on Wikipedia and read what you've said, I am sure you were not deliberately trying to add false information to Wikipedia.

However, it does remain a mystery to me why anyone, would think that the Pastorals bear some reference to "worship". Yes, it is true that almost all forms of worship are a form of prayer—but not all prayer is worship! Many prayers are supplications, petitions and intercessions, and indeed, that is the clear theme of the first 9 verses of 1 Timothy 2 - intercessory prayer for the nations, that all kinds of men will be saved and Christians may live a quiet life. And ultimately that there may be men of God all over the world praying as brothers, divided by culture but united in harmony by the Spirit.

That is the only reference to prayer in the epistle and it is a brief passing reference. To say that "worship" is a major theme of the letter, frankly, seems quite absurd to me.

Thank you for the reference you gave. I had a quick look at it, but I'm afraid that, as far as I can see, the authors are quite delusional. They seem to be reading "worship" into many portions of the New Testament which make absolutely no reference to worship whatsoever.

These men believe the Pastorals bear some reference to a "congregation" (ie a church meeting). But where? There is absolutely nothing in the Pastorals about church meetings or gatherings. The letters are about doctrine, leadership, the functioning of the church, order, the relationships in the church, and of course conduct and moral goodness, especially as demonstrated towards the outside world. The letters make no specific reference to group meetings or any kind of practical arrangements. The principles laid out in Paul's letters are relevant to men of God all day long - whether we are alone, in the world, with one or two brothers, or in a full church meeting. They do not become more or less relevant at different occasions.

Well anyway, I am not going to pursue this any further, nor attempt to correct the article again. Further argument would also seem fruitless. If you want to keep "worship" in this article then go ahead, but I would say that you are only contributing to the kind of delusion shared by the authors of the book you referenced.

I do not particularly care about Wikipedia anyway. I signed up over 10 years ago, but have since come to repent and be born again into the Kingdom. As such, the things of the world are no longer of any importance to me, including the collection of unspiritual "knowledge" known as Wikipedia. I would not even try to argue over spiritual matters in a place such as this. However, I saw what seemed to be a rather obvious factual error in the article and sought to quickly correct it. Yet this brief incident has taught me not to waste my time with Wikipedia, since Satan has control here and the Holy Spirit will always be silenced from the articles.

Though please note, my negative view of Wikipedia is not intended to reflect upon you or your own contributions. But I urge you not to put your faith in the kind of worldly wisdom found in websites such as this, or in the book you mentioned; but instead to follow after Jesus Christ and obey Him unreservedly and unfailingly to the end, doing all that He commands and repenting of ALL the sin in your life - that by doing so you may be born again and inherit eternal life. That is something most Christians sadly will not receive. (If one has any doubt about this then please read the whole chapter of Matthew 7, particularly after verse 13.)

Amen, I speak in the Spirit of God.

Grand Dizzy (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Here, on Wikipedia, we prefer that people speak in the name of reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tgeorgescu. Thank you for this, and for what you posted on my talk page, but for the record I do not intend to make any further contributions to Wikipedia. Best wishes Grand Dizzy (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)