Talk:First Epistle to Timothy

Authorship

Hi Hatsoff. I'm very conscious that we could accidentally start an 'edit war', which I am sure we are both keen to avoid. Unfortunately I've lost about 3 refs on computer studies and what's there is actually rather odd, so I'll complete that part. When that's done please feel free to comment here as you feel appropriate and I'm sure we'll be able to reach a consensus. Mercury543210 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am of exactly the same feeling. I think your computer studies citation (the one I saw) was quite relevant, and I encourage you to find others. It's a new field of inquiry in Biblical studies, and deserves comment in every NT book article. I particularly thank you for giving me the citations about Polycarp; I'm a little bit embarrassed that I didn't realize the literary relationship was so widely accepted. I really think we should hold off on sub-parting the authorship section for now, though. It's not too long, thankfully, to read through from beginning to end, and parting it out seems to give rise to problems with the flow of the article.--Hatsoff (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your very positive response. I've added the other computer related refs that I've read. I think that the section is now getting quite long and, personally, I feel that partitioning it highlights the pros and cons and makes it easier for skim readers. Let me know what you think. Mercury543210 (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In the summary paragraph about authorship, there was a recent attempt to revert to a version of the article which stated wrongly that 'most scholars' believe in Pauline authorship. I have corrected this (as very few mainstream scholars do), and provided an extra reference with the hope it will deter another revert. Idmillington (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

most scholars DO hold to Pauline authorship. Barth is outside of Christianity and is a self affirmed agnostic atheist. https://ehrmanblog.org/on-being-an-agnostic-or-atheist/

To state that most scholars question the authorship is an egregious lie. 2600:8807:881D:F100:E048:9A1F:D15B:69C4 (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, Pauline authorship, while being a respectable position in scholarship is the minority view. And Ehrman's private religious beliefs have no bearing on this issue. Ashmoo (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Tatian

Hi Hatsoff again. Again I do not know anything that suggests either of these are relevant to Pauline authorship, though if you have relevant references I will gladly learn and stand aside but until then I suggest we remove them. We do need a credible source to a) support their inclusion and b) to explain what their significance is. Hope this proposal is acceptable to you. Mercury543210 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tatian and Basilides have the same sort of relevance that Marcion does, only to a lesser degree. Both rejected 1 Tim as Scriptural. Why? I agree that we need more information on both witnesses, but for now it serves a legitimate purpose in establishing that the ancient testimony was by no means unanimous.--Hatsoff (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say they rejected 1 Tim? I've never read that anywhere, can you add the relevant ref(s)? thanks. Mercury543210 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It comes from Jerome's preface to Titus, which is not online, to my knowledge. You can do a Google search, though, to verify the info. It's mentioned by--if memory serves--Richard Heard (religion-online.org). At some point I'm going to get a Roman Catholic priest I know to dig up the actual primary source and translate it for me.--Hatsoff (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Basilides (but not Tatian) may also be mentioned by Epiphanius.--Hatsoff (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks - I'll do some digging.Mercury543210 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

<Reset indent>I've now found two refs that suggest Tatian actually supports the existence of 1 Timothy. I'll add both, with suitable qualifications. Please let me know if you find anything more recent which contradicts these older refs. Mercury543210 (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC) As the 2 ref's are now removed I thought it might be helpful to include them here for ref:

"The following, then, constitute Tatian's Bible as illustrated from the Discourse: Genesis, Psalms, Matthew, John, Acts (??),
Romans, I & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, I Thessalonians,I Timothy (??),Hebrews (?),and I Peter." Hawthorne, Gerald F.,
(1964), Tatian and His Discourse to the Greeks, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 57, No. 3. (Jul., 1964), pp. 161-188.
"...[our first witnesses might be] Tatian and the author of the Muratorian Fragment ...", Carroll, Kenneth L., (1953),The
Expansion of the Pauline Corpus, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 72, No. 4. (Dec., 1953), pp. 230-237

Mercury543210 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tatian, unlike Marcion, definitely knew of the Pastorals. The thing is, though, he rejected 1-2 Timothy, which makes his witness quite relevant.--Hatsoff (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Basilides

Basilides - only a few fragments from his extensive works survive. He is known to have quoted Romans, 1 Peter and possibly Mark. There are no other known fragments to witness to which books he knew. I'll add the full ref to Layton's paper on Basilides site, and remove the ref to Basilides here. I hope you agree with these edits. Mercury543210 (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

After looking it up, I found that it was Tertullian (not Epiphanius, as I speculated above) who also discusses Basilides. Robert Grant wrote the following: "The Pastorals have certainly been regarded as Paul’s since the latter half of the second century, for they were so used by Theophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons and are to be found in the Muratorian list. Before that time they were open to criticism. From Tertullian we hear that the Gnostics Basilides (c. 130) and Marcion (c. 140) rejected them, though his statement may mean no more than that both did not know them. According to Jerome, Tatian (c. 170) accepted only the letter to Titus." (web link: http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1116&C=1234 ). You can find similar remarks all over Google.--Hatsoff (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I'm working on getting a translation of the original Latin works. I just need a couple of weeks.--Hatsoff (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Grant ref

Given the current view that Polycarp quotes Timothy should we remove/qualify this speculation? Mercury543210 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Polycarp does *not* quote 1 Tim, nor any other NT work. The problem is that a few lines from the Pastorals are also found, garbled, in Polycarp to the Philippians. So, which came first? Did Polycarp draw from the Pastorals, or did the Pastorals draw from Polycarp? Or are the allusions purely coincidental? *That* is the speculation, here.--Hatsoff (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually both Berding(1999) and Holmes(2005) explicitly state that Polycarp used Timothy. In fact Berding goes further '...it can be plausibly argued that Polycarp (rightly or wrongly) understood Paul to be the author of these two epistles [1+2 Timothy].' Hence I think it fair to edit the reference, and associated parts. Mercury543210 (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC) PS Apologies for some unintentionally anon edits, before I realised I wasn't logged in!

First of all, as mentioned before, Grant is a modern source insofar as he is not ancient. That he wrote 45 years ago and not 5 years ago makes no difference; he is still a part of the modern era. Second, a quotation is only a quotation if the author makes it clear that he is quoting another source. Polycarp does not do that. Rather, we only find similar passages in both Polycarp and 1 Tim. Who is quoting who is therefore a matter of speculation. Now, that speculation can be narrowed down quite a bit, as apparently most evangelical scholars claim to have done, but it is still speculation, and therefore more prone to error than conclusions based more directly on hard data. It is not POV to note this.--Hatsoff (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

<reset indent>It's not a matter of opinion it is a scholarly judgement. Both Holmes and Barding, among others, now state that the dependence is Polycarp on Timothy. If you read Berding you will find that Polycarp IS 'quoting' Paul, that's the whole thrust of the paper. Similarly Holmes points out that Polycarp introduces the quote (sic) with the phrase 'knowing that'. As you point out Grant wrote 45 years ago and it seems perfectly reasonable to point out that his views held then, now are generally believed to be wrong. I think Wikipedia is about providing interested non-specialists a view of current knowledge, not what was believed to be true 45 years ago. Holmes covers the options in his 2005 article - see p.216.

On a separate pint I also think using the word 'garbled' as a rather pejorative - Holmes uses 'virtually identical'. One of the differences is using 'alla' in Polycarp, instead of the more difficult and therefore more probably original, 'hoti'. Mercury543210 (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I've got access to most of the journal citations, but the books you've mentioned I cannot read online. Any chance you could scan some of the relevant pages and shoot them to me in an email (or via yousendit.com)? If I could read what you're reading, it might help us come to a compromise.--Hatsoff (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly judgment is opinion. And Bible "scholars" disagree on everything, particularly starting with what the axioms are that govern scholarship (all logical proof must be traced to axioms, self-evident truths). So-called Biblical scholarship is saturated with opinions which might be rated on a scale of 0-10 as to how sure the "scholar" is of a particular opinion (0 = totally in dark; 10 absolutely as sure as that the sky is blue; 5 = best explanation which comes to mind). And what further muddies the scholarly water is how Biblical critics & theologians can be so sure of things for which they have no proof at all. They may make suppositions, then procede to act like such were established fact. But how many assertions are supported by even 2 reliable contemporary sources? The same problem pervades ancient historians. Often those who know the least, know the most. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC))

Polycarp's alleged use of 1 Timothy

To User:Mercury543210- You have strongly objected that we allow for the suggestion that Polycarp may not have known 1 Tim, or that 1 Tim may have drawn from Polycarp instead of vice versa. Yet I think it would be POV to treat this as a settled fact, rather than an open question. Berding wrote in 1999 that "Polycarp...almost certainly quoted from 1 and 2 Timothy" (Vigiliae Christianae; Nov99, Vol. 53 Issue 4, p350). For those who argue 1-2 Timothy instead quoted from Polycarp, he writes that "scholarly opinion is now against them," continuing, "That Polycarp is literally dependent upon 1 and 2 Timothy is now generally accepted" (p351). However, I see two problems with this. First of all, Berding trained at overtly evangelical institutions, and thus may have a skewed view of the state of scholarly opinion outside of his religious niche. Second, his statement is vague as to the confidence of the alleged scholarly consensus. For example, the great majority of Biblical scholars hold to Markan priority, but few would go so far as to call it a foregone conclusion. So, whether or not there is a consensus that Polycarp quoted 1-2 Tim, it's still a matter of speculation with a significant degree of uncertainty. One of your own sources, Michael Holmes, alludes to this in a recent article: "Polycarp...is quite familiar with I Peter and I Clement, and also uses I Corinthians and Ephesians. He probably made use of 1-2 Timothy and I John, and perhaps Romans, Galatians, and Philippians" (Expository Times; Nov2006, Vol. 118 Issue 2, p55). Notice that he is careful to qualify his statement with "probably," and differentiates between the probable use of 1-2 Tim and 1 Jn, and the more certain use of 1 Pet, 1 Cle, 1 Cor and Eph. That is exactly the sort of language I think should be used in this wikipedia article: We can stress the probable use of 1 Tim by Polycarp, but not so far that we mislead readers into thinking the matter is settled absolutely.--Hatsoff (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The "baffling" quote

The quote just before the table of contents is out of place because this article does not discuss orthodoxy or heterodoxy. I tagged the quote with a "Fact" tag, because it would also be desirable (if this quote remains in the article) to know who authored the quote. If the quote remains in the article, it should be moved somewhere more appropriate. I do not, at first glance, see an appropriate place for it. Wideangle (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

           Yes, I agree, this doesn't seem to be very relevant at all. I suggest deletion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.81.97 (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC) 

Agreed. I have removed it from the intro. It certainly could fit into a section regarding critical analysis of the content of the letter. Soonercary (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been added again, removing 24.98.133.72 (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

'"adequtely" or adequately? 70.29.101.7 (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

About Key Themes and Words

I question the tone of this whole section. It seems to be filled with commentary that is not needed. The whole section that I quote following just isn't needed, and should be moved to the "authorship" section or removed entirely.

"It is a notably a hotly debated issue in the church as to what Paul meant in this book in regard to the women’s role in the church. What provoked this reversion from Paul’s revelation, in Galatians, that in Christ Jesus there is no male or female, to this banal legalism? Had the women, having been led to expect an imminent end of the world, begun to abandon their “wifely duties”? Some feel he clearly teaches that women are not to have authority over men in the church structure (1 Timothy 2:12) and that this is why he clearly excludes them from the roles of Elder/Bishop and Deacon in chapter three. People who hold to this stance point out that Paul’s use of the phrase “Husband of one wife” is gender specific and excludes women from that role. They would point out that in the Greek text it literally reads "Man of one woman".[citation needed] "μιασ γυναικοσ ανδρα"(1 Timothy 3:2)[27] However, more liberal scholars debate this, arguing that this is a product of the time in which Paul lived and it is a cultural reference not meant to be eternally binding on the church.[citation needed] Many churches have now embraced the ordination of women based on this modern outlook.[citation needed] The treatment of this issue has also been pointed to as evidence that I Timothy is not Pauline, noting "the freedom granted [women] in the aspostolic age to exercise the gifts of the Spirit, [and] Paul's insistence that in Christ there is neither male nor female, [which] had brought them into quick and widespread public activity." TIB 1955 XI p. 349. TNJBC also points out that the reasoning in I Timothy (the fall was Eve's fault) is non-Pauline: “Paul himself prefers to assign blame to Adam (as a counterpart to Christ – see Rom [Romans] 5:12-21; I Cor [Corinthians] 15: 45-49…)” TNJBC[28] 1990 p. 897"

Shadowmane (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the debate on Pauline theology relevant to women's role in the Church is not fueled primarily by an exegesis of what Paul meant in 1st century AD, but by a wish to be politically correct today -- thus anachronism is likely to invade the discussion. Yes, for Paul in Christ there is neither male nor female; the sexes are intrinsically equal, but equality of essence does not imply equality of function (as in the Trinity the Son obeys the Father, and the Son sends the Holy Spirit). Prophet Paul also says that in Christ there is neither bond nor free, and he believed in emancipation of slaves per Philemon; yet in giving admonitions for how to actually live in his age he directs slaves to obey masters, wives to obey husbands, and women to be silent in the congregation, neither to be teachers of men in a church setting, though he may have approved of Priscilla giving theological advice to Apollos privately. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC))

Forbidding to marry

In light of the current debate regarding the rights of LDBT to marry (aka "Gay Marriage") isn't 1st Timothy 4:3 a very "Key Theme"? Here is a biblical verse specifically admonishing those who forbid others to marry! Other parts of the bible do appear to condemn homosexuality, but without any direction as to what a Christian should do about that other than to avoid being homosexual themselves. Yes, "they shall surely be put to death", but it does NOT say "put them to death". Yet here in Timothy, we see a specific direction that we should never forbid anyone to marry. Shouldn't this be highlighted in the entry especially in light of the current debate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.170.153 (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all I would not conflate the two issues. It is my understanding that the different teachings regarding marriage reflected the gradual realization that The End was not coming as soon as Paul had expected. A Georgian (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Many (most?) Christians believe the bible to be the perfect word of God and that God guided the writing of those authors who penned its books. The idea that Paul was "wrong" is very reasonable to me, but my world view isn't the only one out there, and to suggest that he is wrong about marriage while at the same time holding up the anti-gay quotes from Lev and Rom is inconsistant. They either all count or they all don't. Cherry picking to validate a specific world view is less reasonable than assuming human falibility of biblical authors. Of course, many Christians also cherry pick verses from Lev to justify a stand against marriage equality. Again, the point I'm trying to make is that this verse specifically admonishes Christians never to forbid people from marrying. You don't have to like that, but it is right there in black and white, and it really seems to me that it is a key point, given the current debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.170.153 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In the Bible I find no reference to "homosexuality," but to practices like men lying with men (i.e., putting the penis into the anus of another man); e.g., Leviticus 18 which indicates that this act leads to divine abomination & a people even being expelled from their land (vomited out). I find no condemnation of men preferring the company of men or women perferring the company of women. It is the physically abusive acts men on men & women on women which are condemned. But marriage of course per the Bible (& probably universally in human thought until very recently) referred to a relationship between man and woman. As 1 Cor 7 starts out, let every man have his own woman, and let every woman have her own man (husband/wife). (PeacePeace (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC))

References

Move discussion in progress

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)

"Most scholars say" is generally an unfounded claim

Statements like "most scholars say" are generally unfounded claims & should be changed to "some" at least for NPOV.  Likewise, references to "modern scholars" are generally unreliable when they don't define what "modern" means.  Do you start with the Renaissance for modern?  And I have made a couple NPOV changes in the article.  Generally sources that make claims like "most scholars say" are unreliable at that point, having provided no proof for that claim, nor defining what a scholar is.  Thus such source may be dismissed as unreliable at that point.  And who has carefully taken a poll?  Who has polled Roman Catholic scholars world wide or Eastern Orthodox scholars or Chinese Christian scholars.  Whenever you read "most scholars say," think "very likely baloney."  (PeacePeace (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC))

Wikipedia does not exist to promote your own personal views and whims. It exists to promote what reliable mainstream sources (as defined in Wiki policies) say. Reliable sources may and do inform readers of the state of scholarship. Doing so is an important function of academic writing. "Modern" here just means current, mainstream, and academic. Antinoos69 (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Antinoos69. Please be open to dialog on this subject. You are becoming increasingly biased in your edits and are misunderstanding of the use of citations for substantiating a claim made in the article. The use of the terms "most" or "widely" to reflect a general view of scholars must be backed with objective data such as a study or poll. You are simply including in the article a particular unsubstantiated view point and are generalizing based on opinions and conjecture. If the article is to be neutral and factual, you must state the context of what you are contributing or change wording so that it can withstand the community scrutiny. I am not the only one who has noticed your very unengaging approach to edits. Please do not be offended. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.220.110 (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You are incorrect. All that is required is a reliable source making the particular claim. Among the sources provided is a textbook published by a respected mainstream publisher. Furthermore, and this is obviously an aside, I hold a degree in biblical studies and know perfectly well that the sources' claim is correct. Expert opinion is precisely the sort of thing Wikipedia reports. You are obviously confused, uninformed, and biased. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Btw, you don't understand how scholarship works. Scholars of the humanities are not generally in the habit of conducting polls or studies in order to ascertain what scholarly consensus within their disciplines is. Instead they assess scholarly consensus on any subject within their disciplines and concentrations based on their own research experience over the years and on their various personal experiences with other scholars at conferences, symposia, in their personal interactions, and elsewhere. That's just the way these things typically work, whether you personally like it or not. Here, we depend on statements made by scholars in reliable sources on any particular consensus. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a single point here. I have restored the original era setting in line with WP:ERA as some editors have introduced a mixture of era conventions so it should be harmonised anyway in terms of WP:ERA.--CouncilConnect (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Antinoos69. Since you are citing commentary, I could also cite commentary with an opposite view point (i.e., most scholars believe Paul is the original author or Paul is widely held as the author of 1 Timothy). Then, what should the article say? I won't do this, because I have not found such claims, just as the sources you cite, to have objective data to support their claims. I would suggest that we try to discuss both sides of the issue of authorship in the article without biasing the article with an unestablished claim. Otherwise, we would be posting rhetoric and attempting to bias the readership to a particular position on authorship instead of letting the readers come to their own conclusions. You are violating a Wiki rule by the manner in which you bring in a viewpoint of a cited source. You have brought bias into the article because you have not qualified the generalizations brought in concerning scholarly consensus. In addition, you cannot establish the validity of the claims by your own writings or knowledge, unless of course you conducted a peer reviewed survey or study. Again, you are not following the Wiki guidelines by attempting to validate consensus by virtue of your degree in biblical studies (i.e., "I said it is so, therefore it must be so"). I will try to edit the article once more without removing any words you have already incorporated. Instead, I will add to what you have written. Hopefully, this edit we can agree to. Thank you for engaging in discussion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.220.110 (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Reread the latter part of my last post, let it sink in, and get back to me, if you must. You are making unreasonable and uninformed demands. What you want generally doesn't exist and fails to reflect how the humanities actually work. Multiple mainstream and respected scholarly sources have been cited. Move on. If you only like what your pastor and religious presses tell you, then stick to them and leave Wikipedia alone. Perhaps Conservapedia would be more your speed. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Antinoos69. You have abandoned all reasoning and debate. My last edits put context to your contribution, without changing your contribution. How can you possibly object to this? I am trying to offer up possible solutions in keeping all viewpoints open so that the readers can come to their own conclusion instead of taking an "I'm-smarter-than-you-so-if-you-don't-like-it-leave" approach. Ironically, you accuse me of what you want others to do for you (i.e., come to you as their pastor and religious press). So sad that you are unable to work within the community.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.220.110 (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please! You are trying to provide "alternative facts" by presenting the scholarly consensus as something other than what it is, as a mere "viewpoint" among many. You are incorrect. The first two paragraphs of the article contain four reliable sources stating what the scholarly consensus is. They are all in agreement. You haven't provided a single reliable source, or any source at all, claiming the consensus is anything different. So we don't even have viewpoints, plural, from which to choose. There is just the one. Wikipedia provides what reliable sources say, not what Wiki editors think or would like to be the case. You are just making things up—incorrect things, in this case. So either abide by Wiki policies or move on. You are being disruptive. Stop it. Now. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Antinoos69. You quote sources that are presenting an unsubstantiated opinion. The statements brought into the article by your contribution are the community's to challenge. This is not "Antinoos69's Private Platform". Your sources have been challenged on several occasions and not by me alone. These are your sources. So, back them up with objective data. If not, modify your contribution so that it provides proper context to your contribution. I will help you do this...again. Please, conform to the community standards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.220.110 (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I tried to explain that your expectations are unreasonable and that you don't understand how scholarship in the humanities works, but you proved impervious to reason, good sense, and instruction. I therefor have no choice but to indulge in distasteful Wikilegalism. I call your attention to WP:RS/AC, Wiki policy on academic consensus. Can we now be done with this nonsense? (Btw, I provided exactly one of the sources, each of which constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia on academic consensus, whether you like it or not.) Antinoos69 (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Antinoos69. Thank you for bringing up that particular policy. It states what I have been saying all along. The sources you are citing do not meet the criteria. Sources that identify a consensus viewpoint must be of the type that allow for peer review. The sources you identify did not come from a peer reviewed article or a journal review or a survey article. The last sentence of the policy you reference states, "Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus." Quoted from the "review articles" link, "A review article is an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic. A review article surveys and summarizes previously published studies, rather than reporting new facts or analysis. Review articles are sometimes also called survey articles or, in news publishing, overview articles. Academic publications that specialize in review articles are known as review journals." Again, the sources you cite do not meet this standard. My edits merely bring your contribution in line with this policy. I agree, let's be done with this nonsense!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.220.110 (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Or are you trying to make me think you're a complete idiot? If so, you're succeeding brilliantly. The policy does not require that cited sources on academic consensus be review articles but merely suggests that review articles "can help clarify academic consensus" (emphasis added). What the policy does require, however, is that, "[s]tated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors," and that "[a] statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Books, textbooks, and whatnot that also qualify as reliable sources may also be used, quite naturally. Clear now? Here, given the enormity of the scholarship, review articles won't be of any help, btw. Now, indeed, let's be done with your absurdities. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Antinoos69. I can always tell when people run out of reasonable thought. They resort to name calling. This behavior is something you would expect out of a playground bully, but not with civil discussion. I will not stoop to such conduct. The point is not to introduce bias into the article. Politics, religion, philosophy or other belief systems tend to bring in such bias. For example, some of the LGBT community have tried to discredit authorship of 1 Timothy to Paul and would rather see it removed from the Bible due to the use of the term "arsenokoitai". If the authority of 1 Timothy can be torn down, then the behavior it condemns might be more openly accepted by Christians. I am just saying that when sourcing a contribution to an article, it should be done in context (in-text attribution) when bias may be present. My next edit will be more specific as to who the source is as opposed to just a general use of the term "commentators".66.215.220.110 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That was even more bizarre than your wild misinterpretation of Wiki policy on academic consensus. It also fails to address my argument regarding that policy—which I can only imagine you are now conceding, in your fashion. Unfortunately, you are continuing to attempt to water down the clear academic consensus on this mater. You can only qualify the sourcing for this consensus, in accord with Wiki policy, by challenging it. You can do that only by providing no less reliable sources explicitly stating the scholarly consensus is something different. You will have to keep in mind WP:RS/AC, WP:SCHOLARSHIP,  WP:SOURCES, and WP:AGE MATTERS (and fell free to roam about on those pages). Good luck with that. If you can manage that much, an enormous "if," then we can take a different approach. Just be sure to present any results of your research here before attempting to edit the article, as I very strongly suspect there would be major problems with anything you would think you've found. Make sure to provide the relevant passages from your sources in full quotation, along with full source citations, so that the sources and claims can be easily evaluated here. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Antinoos69. The issue was never about your sources. The issue was about maintaining a neutral point of view as is required by WIKI policy. It was about you introducing bias. How can you possibly object to in-text attribution to keep biases from being introduced on such a controversial religious topic? Unless, of course, you are biased and want to bias the article so that it heavily represents your viewpoint. It seems to me that your actions speak for itself. And, I'm going to out on a limb here and speculate that your Username is an outward declaration of your bias. "Antinoos" being the boy prostitute of the Roman Emperor Hadrian and "69" being the number representing the position of mutual oral sex. Is that about right? Now, let's just put bias aside and compromise on using in-text attribution. No hard feelings, OK. Let's be open and move on.66.215.220.110 (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to make this as clear and forward as possible. I don't need to go in much detail since Antinoos69 has already explained how Wikipedia works. @66.215.220.110 I'm not going to argue how reliable the sources are since you clearly don't understand the idea of consensus. Wikipedia doesn't care how you feel. Wikipedia only cares about is facts and reliable sources to prove those facts. Yes, there will always be NPOV issues but we as editors have consensus building. That's how certain disputes get resolved, sometimes not in the best of ones personal interest but the interest according to the Wikicommunity. So if you have some sort of WP:AGENDA, you won't last long as an editor on Wikipedia. At this point, if you want to change the current wording of the article, you will have to receive consensus and I don't see that happening anytime soon. You've already violated the WP:3RR rule so if you revert again, it's a block for you. Understand this, you're not the first nor will be the last to start these kind of disputes. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

66.215.220.110, providing the academic consensus on this matter, with proper sourcing, cannot constitute "bias." As I stated in my last message, if you think that consensus is incorrectly stated by biased sources, the burden is on you to provide reliable sources explicitly contradicting what those sources say. I gave you detailed instructions on how to do that. Were you to manage to accomplish that much, then we could qualify the discussion in many ways, or just remove it altogether. Until then, the ball is in your court. Either put up or shut up, as they say. Your qualifications of those statements are merely your attempts to water them down as the mere opinions of some scholars, when they are actually accurate descriptions of the state of scholarship. That won't do. And Wikipedia doesn't care about editors' personal whims and fancies—or about your anti-LGBT fixations, for that matter. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Antinoos69. I have updated the article to show in-text attribution to keep the article on a NPOV. As stated in the Wikipedia policy, "“Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view...If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say.” I have also included opposing viewpoints.66.215.220.110 (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You didn't follow directions. Quote the relevant passages from your sources in full here before editing the article. And you will have to provide better and more complete citations here as well. See, for example, the guidelines in The Chicago Manual of Style. We must be able to identify and differentiate between authors, editors, and publishers, and I have no idea what your "Loc" numbers are referring to. At this point, though, I must point out that study bibles are not proper scholarly sources. Scholars don't go about citing study bibles in their work. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You just might be able to save yourself some effort and aggravation if you engage here. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Note everyone: 66.215.220.110, your recent edits demonstrate that you cannot be trusted to edit the article directly on this matter, but must first be required to quote and cite your sources in full here. Only two of your citations provide enough information quickly to identify the passages that must have passed before your eyes—two oversights on your part, to be sure. First, let's look at your McKee source. The identified page speaks of "almost all Messianic teachers that I know of and have interacted with," not of most scholars or the scholarly consensus or any such thing. Needless to say, the group of Messianic teachers would form a minuscule part of the community of scholars, if it forms any part at all. Interesting for your apparent ignorance of it, the source does mention that the pastoral epistles "are commonly categorized in the Deutero-Pauline list." Second, let's look at your Wright source. The cited page doesn't actually address what the scholarly consensus is at all. Instead, it merely says that "some" (i.e., "writers") say any one of a number of things, not specifying matters further. You misinterpret that as "only some" scholars, but only in the case of pseudo-Pauline authorship. And both sources are addressed to some narrow group of believers—not even remotely scholarly. Clearly, then, you cannot be trusted to edit the article on this matter without prior presentation and approval of your material here, on the talk page. I had little doubt you would proceed in this manner, which is why I insisted on the pre-approval process. That insistence has now been vindicated. So let's be clear. I will revert all your edits on this matter that do not win prior approval here—provided no one beats me to the punch, of course. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello JudeccaXIII. Thank you for educating me on the block rule.66.215.220.110 (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Hello Antinoos69. I didn't realize you were the administrator of this article. I don't think you are. Your bias is fairly evident and your bullying about certainly doesn't hide your bias. It's important that all articles maintain a neutral point of view. Yet, you continue to ignore this important, foundational value of the community. I have tried to maintain such neutrality by providing in-text attribution and reliable sources, which have not mischaracterized the issue at hand (i.e., a difference of opinion among scholars). Yet, you feel compelled to be uncompromising and dictatorial in your communications here. I'm not sure why this is other than perhaps you have an agenda. I suppose my sources do not hold to your viewpoint and that is why you continue to display such behavior.66.215.220.110 (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you fail to realize that your sources don't hold to your viewpoint on the academic consensus per WP:RS/AC—at least not the two that can be easily verified. My previous post explained that with crystal clarity. Reread it until you understand it. Of course, you very well may understand all that and are merely being duplicitous in doing anything you can to promote your preferred "alternative facts." If so, which I deem very likely, you won't succeed. So, again, either put up or shut up, right here. You have yet to provide any sources that actually do offer a contrasting view on the academic consensus on this matter. You may wish to reflect on why you have been unable to do so. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Antinoos69. Thanks for the footnoting tips. I think I am getting better at this.66.215.220.110 (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You're still not following directions. Given your proven penchant for abusing and misrepresenting sources, I will not be hunting down your sources. You will have to reproduce and win approval for your sources and claims here before editing the article on this matter. I will have nothing further to say to you on that count until you start reproducing your sources and material here. In the meantime, I'll just be reverting you without further comment. As for the different matter of your recasting of your McKee source in terms of the Messianic Faith, that faith is too small a minority to mention in the article. We're certainly not going to get into the positions of every faith (or its clergy or "teachers") here, which is well beyond the scope of this article. You'd be better off finding a source generally addressing what clergy or faith doctrines state on the matter, in very general terms. And note that that would be an entirely different assertion from the one currently in the article about scholars and scholarly consensus. If you pursue such a route, you would have to do so while leaving everything about scholarly consensus alone, and while clearly separating the two assertions from each other. Again, it would likely be best for you to try that here, on the talk page, first. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Antinoos69. That's a shame that you will not continue discussion. I think your suggestions have helped to communicate differences better as we work towards that NPOV and common ground. Some of you comments have helped my input. As to the use of the word "some" by the sources I have incorporated. The sources chose to use the word "some". They didn't use the word "most". They could have used the word "most", but chose to use the word "some". The choosing of words by commentators is done with purpose, just as legislators choose to use certain words in legislation and judges recognize the choice of words. "Some" is what the commentators used. I'll have more in the future if you want to continue discussion.66.215.220.110 (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

And here you are being duplicitous again. As you know full well, as in your Wright source, one cannot infer from an author's thoroughly indefinite and generic use of some in reference to three different positions what that author's views on the relative prevalence of those positions are. The author has simply chosen not to convey that information. In other words, some can refer to very different degrees of prevalence. In Wright, some just means "there exist writers who … ," indicating the interpretive options rather than whatever consensus there may be. Per both common sense and WP:RS/AC, the source must be far more precise and explicit than that. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Antinoos69. I've given careful consideration about what you have said concerning the McKee source and I agree that it doesn't fit the narrative. I've removed it.66.215.220.110 (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Hello Antinoos69. I've also given careful consideration about what you have said concerning the commentary in the study bible sources I cited. I disagree with you that such sources are not "proper" to cite. The contribution board and editors demonstrate an extensive list of "scholarly" credentials. Their publication numbers are extremely high and readership diverse. Therefore, I believe that the sources are both credible and "proper" (as you describe it).66.215.220.110 (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jonathan A Jones. I'm not sure why you think my sources on the authorship of the First Epistle to Timothy are not reliable and how they do not align with Wiki policy on reliability of sources. My sources are all from well published books. The authors or editorial board and contributors are all well versed to write on the topic. If you wish, you can find all of them on Amazon.com.66.215.220.110 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been explained to you in great detil above. In particular study bibles are not reliable sources for academic views. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jonathan A Jones. Forgive me for being a little slow on why "particular" study bibles are not reliable sources for this article. The study bibles noted as sources include commentary put together by a well-credentialed team of biblical academics. The Thomas Nelson King James Study Bible boasts 2.4 million copies sold. For many people, it is a very economical and convenient alternative to having to purchase and carry around a set of contemporary commentaries. It would seem rather aloof not to give consideration to such a widely read source of bible commentary. I have read through the Wikipedia policies on "sources" and "reliable sources". I have not seen a specific policy prohibiting the use of the commentary contained in study bibles. So, unless you can be more specific, I would insist that these sources be accepted.66.215.220.110 (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected this article due to edit warring.  Wikipedia has forms of dispute resolution when editors can't come to a consensus.  Edit warring is not the answer.  If there are NPOV problems, raise the issue at WP:NPOVN.  If there's a dispute over whether sources are reliable, find consensus at WP:RSN.  If there's a dispute over wording, start a request for comments.  Further edit warring will only result in blocks.  This goes for the other article where you're edit warring, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. While I generally find Wiki block policies and procedures distasteful, they unfortunately do occasionally  seem to become necessary. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Issue was raised at WP:NPOVN, where there was some pretty good discussion. So, it seems that from the discussion that we should strive to 1) stay away from statements or positions in the article of "current academic consensus", and 2) to name authors when their view on authenticity/time of origin of the letter is rendered in Wikipedia. Antinoos69, I hope you are good with moving forward with edits in this direction.66.215.220.110 (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

What drugs are you on? Why must you lie and deceive? The trend at the noticeboard is against your NPOV issues. There is no consensus for your agenda here, which went mostly unaddressed at the noticeboard. I will expect you to revert your recent edits here and at 1 Timothy 1. You must gain consensus for your edits on the talk pages first. You haven't done that. I will be alerting the noticeboard and administrator of your actions. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Given the lack of participation at the NPOVN thread, I suspect that this dispute centers on issues that are too obscure to be resolved in that venue.  You do need 3rd party opinions to resolve the dispute, but those opinions need to come from editors who know at least a little bit about the topic and the relevant sources.  Suggest filing a WP:RFC (request for comment) and notifying Wikiproject:Religion.  Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that further input could be useful.  While I largely agree with Antinoos69 on the central issue here, a wider view is generally helpful and can sometimes lead to more imaginative solutions.  In the meantime it would be helpful for the IP to stop repeatedly inserting this content unless and until some sort of consensus to do so is reached. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the editing of the article as a whole would proceed better if editors making bold or substantive edits possessed something resembling a bit of expertise on the subject, especially if they wish to insist on their edits. I believe that would be wise self-editing on Wikipedia generally. I also agree it would be helpful for the IP to gain consensus here before attempting to edit the article further, as I've been saying in various places. However, I see no need for any formal RfCs at this time. If the IP would simply reproduce the relevant passages from his/her sources here regarding this whole academic consensus business, as I've been insisting for some time, I am confident any confusion would quickly evaporate, except possibly for the IP. My university library holds none of the sources the IP last cited on the matter, and neither do even some major research libraries I consulted online (though Harvard does), a red flag already. I can consult only one of the sources fully online. Another I can consult only in part. (The results bode ill for the IP.) So it would be eminently practical for the IP to reproduce his/her passages here for proper evaluation and clarification. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't find his exact sources in the Oxford University libraries catalogue. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Having glanced at your user page previously, I made a point of checking the Oxford libraries, with the same result. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me for coming across so blunt. However, for being a couple of "academics" who say they are so concerned about the sources I have used, you seem to be totally inept or unmotivated to find them. All of these sources are available for purchase on Amazon.com, or you can browse them if you prefer. You might get one of your students to help you. Happy Easter!66.215.220.110 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

To be equally blunt, I'm not going to waste money by buying crap on Amazon, and students have serious matters to tend to. You know what you need to do. I eagerly await your presentation of your sources. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

What? No "Happy Easter" in return? Did anyone ever tell you that you have a very disagreeable personality? You have my sources and you know where you can check them out. No need to buy anything. Just use the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon. Ask your students how to do this, since you seem to be ignorant of how this is done. Now, you know what you need to do. 66.215.220.110 (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I should rephrase matters for you. I will have absolutely nothing further to do with you on this matter until you quote in full the relevant passages from your sources here, nor will I even consider the possibility of assenting to your edits until you do so. I don't believe I can make matters any clearer than that. I find your refusal to do something so simple most revealing. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Antinoos69. You are mistaken again and have again tried to control what is not yours to control. I have satisfied my obligation as editor to your challenges by providing my source as shown in the article's history. See WP:CHALLENGE covering the subject. Let me quote, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied (emphasis mine) by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Therefore, I have fulfilled my obligation as an editor by providing the citations. If you wish to challenge it, look up the source references I have already provided and make your points! 66.215.220.110 (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Then I continue to oppose your edits, and you continue to lack consensus for them. Happy? Antinoos69 (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring the Fact of Scholarly Consensus and WP:UNDUE

Inflamed rhetoric aside, the point is that the sources are clear on what the academic consensus is. That consensus must be clearly and unambiguously presented and must act as an objective guide in applying WP:UNDUE. If editors can present the minority view, while giving substantially more weight to the majority view, as required by Wiki policy, then have at it. However, remember that websites are generally improper sources for scholarship, as are their frequently outdated or faith-based sources. Keep an eye out for those. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeing you reverting edits of other users 18 times from 17 March to 4 May, it seems you are the editor with a minority view. --Skyfall (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Antinoos69 This is getting truly ridiculous.  For the past two months, every editor that has attempted to add any viewpoint that you oppose has been deleted with no effort on your part to fix the alleged errors.  You have even removed scholarly citations from sources with far more knowledge and expertise in the field than yourself.   I am genuinely flummoxed on how you can be so opposed to even MENTIONING an opposing view.  The bulk of the article reflects the viewpoint that Paul did not write 1 Timothy, and in no iteration from any of the FIVE editors you have warred with has that changed.  Good faith edits should be treated as good faith edits.

As for me, my primary interest in this article is due to my background as a student of Rhetoric and Logic, not some theological bias you keep insinuating I have.  As a student of Logos and Sophia, I learned that take seriously and engaged with arguments with which I disagree.  At no point should an argument be dismissed simply because person ZZZ said it and they are one of those ugly YYYYs. Arguments need to be engaged on their merits.

A cursory search of the literature on this very issue makes it manifestly apparent that there exists a vigorous debate within the scholarly community as to the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.  But wait, most of the people making that argument are "fundamentalists" and "evangelicals."  We should ignore everything they have to say.

That is precisely the style of thinking I have studied to avoid.  The arguments for Pauline authorship should be stated and evaluated on their merits.  The material is getting restored. Eric the fever (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting the situation. As is clear from my post starting this section, I invited editors to add what they please, provided it adheres to both WP:UNDUE (i.e., minority positions are represented more briefly and in less detail than majority ones) and WP:SCHOLARSHIP (i.e., generally, only academic books and articles [and a few odds and ends], but not websites, are reliable sources for scholarship). The majority position must also clearly be designated as such. Nobody cares what you think about the scholarship or how to approach it. Here, we only care about what reliable sources say about the scholarship and Wiki policies. And the sources are clear on the academic consensus, per WP:RS/AC, providing an objective standard in applying WP:UNDUE. If you dislike Wiki policies, you are free to argue against them on their talk pages. More generally, you don't know this subject. Where the scholarship is as vast as here, no "cursory search" will give you an adequate view of it. Having a degree in biblical studies, I know perfectly well that the pseudepigraphical status of the pastoral epistles is one of the more (note term used) widely agreed upon points in the field. It's quite basic, actually. And Wikipedia focuses on the views of mainstream scholarship. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I find your first statement very curious.  You open your most recent post with an accusation of "misrepresenting the situation," and follow it up with an exhortation that you "invited editors to add what they please"  Talk is cheap Antinoos69.  I would hold that statement to be truthful if you hadn't responded to every contrary edit with a gigantic deletion.  At no point during the last six weeks have you EVER had a civil discussion on this issue.  Where are your attempts to modify the added material you supposedly welcome?  Can you link to a singular edit on this?  A search of your edit history on this page in particular, and your overall edit history makes it apparent you have little tolerance for any view you do not share.  This bias on your part makes it difficult to examine assumptions and presuppositions you hold that influence your opinions on these matters.  Back to the subject at hand, have you considered that Paul used scribes to write his letters, and that use of a different scribe could account for the discrepancies in grammar, phraseology, and vocabulary?  Or consider that Paul is writing these letters in prison at the end of his life, old age and impending execution have a way of changing writing style.  The current "consensus" completely fails to address either point.

What I am saying here is not new, these two objections have been raised about non-Pauline authorship for over 100 years and have been met with no answer AT ALL.  As a student of Rhetoric and Logic, that silence is damning.  That is my person view on the subject.  Now for my view on the "consensus."  Because I do not exclude viewpoints simply because the author is a member of some undesirable group, I find that there is no consensus at all on this matter.  The literature in question is split roughly 50/50 of those supporting Pauline authorship, and those opposing it.  Occasionally there is a scholar who shoots off the hip about some "consensus" but I have never seen any survey done on the subject matter. Until more reliable citations can be found demonstrating this supposed consensus, the article should be written in such a way that states there is rigorous debate within the scholarly community on the authorship of 1 Timothy and that no consensus has been achieved. Eric the fever (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what your personal whims are about the state of scholarship, which would be original research anyway and, therefore, strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. You are ignorant of the matter and have no proper basis for personal estimations of the prevalence of any scholarly position. Nor does WP:RS/AC require anything more than an otherwise reliable source asserting what the consensus is. The article already references four reliable sources making such assertions. They are in general agreement. If you think they are wrong in some regard or other, it is incumbent upon you to provide no less reliable sources expressly asserting the scholarly consensus is something different. Good luck with that. (Would you like me to inform you how that search will end?) If you disagree with Wiki policies, take it up on their talk pages. If you avoid websites, adhere to WP:UNDUE, and properly identify the majority view, you will find your edits magically untouched by me—except, possibly, for minor tweaks. I will also remind you that editing here is voluntary: editors may exercise wide personal discretion in the extent and nature of their editing, provided they adhere to policy. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

If you had actually read the citations, and actually read the material you have been snap deleting, then you would have seen scholarly, reliable citations stating that there is no academic consensus regarding the authorship of 1 Timothy. You yourself are violating the WP:UNDUE by squelching any viewpoint that is not yours. An example of proper application of the Undue policy are the pages on Evolution and the Age of the Earth. On those pages, young earth creationism and the Genesis accounts are rightly given no weight, simply because the universal consensus the age of the earth is just that, universal. Young Earth Creationism is a fringe view and represented only on its own page. The contrast between that debate and this one could not be more stark. There exists widespread disagreement in the scholarly community as evidenced by this very debate and the citations you have deleted. You, Antinoos69, are so blinded by your prejudice and arrogance that I am beginning to see that you are incapable of rational thought on this issue. You have repeatedly couched abusive edits in the cloak of wiki policy, deleted all contrary viewpoints, and ignored all other scholarly citations. If that is your methodology, it is quite easy to manufacture "consensus."

My challenge to you Antinoos69:

Produce an edit that states the opposing viewpoint and accurately represents the source material. I don't think you are capable of it. Eric the fever (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Now you're just delusional, if not plain lying. I have never read any reasonably current scholarly literature, regardless of whether the author(s) support(s) or oppose(s) the consensus view, claiming that consensus view is anything other than that the epistle is pseudepigraphical. Your comments have become bizarre. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Antinoos69. You won't read any reasonably current scholarly literature because, by your own admission, you don't want to go to the effort of looking up the sources presented to you. You never will. And since you never will, you will just oppose. You are not of the consensus mindset. Who can come to consensus with a person who just opposes? You are just taking an antagonistic position as you have done so very consistently in the past. You should go into "wiki" timeout, so that you can consider the uncooperative behavior you bring to this article and what you need to do to correct it. 66.215.220.110 (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Your prattle continues not to interest me. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Continued edit warring

• First Epistle to Timothy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eric the fever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Antinoos69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It looks like User:Eric the fever and User:Antinoos69 have been reverting the same 2700-byte passage back and forth since April 28. We are now up to about six reverts. The first edit in this series was here on 28 April, by Eric the fever. This warring is enough to justify admin action unless the parties make a serious effort to do WP:Dispute resolution. If either of you feels you are defending consensus, please link to where you think such a consensus was found. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Go back into the history a little further, User:Antinoos69 has engaged in four other edit wars in the last six weeks with four other editors. I submitted this to dispute resolution, hopefully this can be settled in a civil manner. Eric the fever (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

You have just posted this to WP:AN3, but that is not a dispute resolution forum. It is a place to ask for people to be blocked who are *not* following dispute resolution.  If you yourself have participated in content discussions about this, can you link to them?  EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps some RfCs would be helpful, provided prior agreement is reached regarding what they should be, with the Bible, NT, and Religion projects being notified. I don't know how to do that and, frankly, lack the inclination to learn. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

With regard to any RfCs, I consider the two controlling questions to be the following:

1. Do the article's four sources on academic consensus, or any subset of them, constitute reliable sources on that consensus per WP:RS/AC? 
2. Do websites constitute reliable sources for scholarship per WP:SCHOLARSHIP? 

Naturally, that first question could be fleshed out by providing a list of the sources. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for two months. Please use the talk page to get consensus about sources. It could be worthwhile to ask at WP:RSN. See WP:Edit request for how to request an admin to make a change during the period of protection if you think the change has consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Attempt for some consensus here

So the talk page has really quieted down in the last few days.  Maybe passions have cooled enough where we can begin some constructive dialogue here.  I think it would be prudent to have a section on this page devoted to outlining a the position of non-pauline authorship then outlining a position for pauline authorship.  If a source would claim scholarly consensus on any issue should be written in such a way as the author of that claim is specifically named in the article and cited avoiding statements such as "all scholars say", "unbiased expert opinion", "the consensus of scholars".  Un named claims of scholarly consensus should be sourced by a formal literature review. Eric the fever (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I merely hadn't signed in for a while, being otherwise engaged during this hectic time of year. Needless to say, I continue to oppose your recommendations. I must insist on WP:UNDUE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and a correct reading of WP:RS/AC, which does not require review articles. The most logical path forward would be to start some RfCs, as I detailed above. Prior agreement must be reached on what the questions should be. I made my recommendations above. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

See also Authorship of the Pauline epistles. To my eye, that page is better written than this one, which is more like a random collection of data that might bear on the issue. The article on Authorship of the Pauline epistles has subheadings that guide the reader through the various arguments. User:Antinoos69 and User:Eric the fever, I wonder if either of you have looked at the Blackwell Companion to the New Testament, ed. David Aune which seems to offer an overall summary of a lot of Pauline scholarship. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I have read that article.  It does display a consistency in tone and style that is absent on most articles due to the sheer fact that it is an extremely low traffic page that was the product of a single editor 2004.  It has a grand total of ~600 edits since then making it one of the least revised "major" articles on the site.  I think a better point of comparison for gaining consensus is the article Pastoral epistles.  I had a similar format in mind for this page when I attempted to edit the article (and unbeknownst to me walked right into an ongoing edit war). Second Epistle to Timothy also has brief summaries stating opposing views.  In both cases, the articles are written in such a way as to state that a majority of scholars consider the works pseudonymous, but they state opposing viewpoints because there is a significant debate on the issue.  I think both of those articles are good examples of how this page should be written.

 Eric the fever (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

On a positive note, you appear to have changed your tune with regard both to expressly acknowledging the scholarly consensus in the article and to what that consensus is. Am I correct in so surmising? If so, that would indicate some progress. However, as that consensus view is represented by some 80% to 90% of scholars (Aune 551), you would need to rethink what applying WP:UNDUE would mean here. The discussion of the minority view would have to be very brief, relatively speaking. It should not be given its own heading. 

Less positively, it's dangerous to look too closely at other Wikipedia articles for guidance. For one thing, the articles on NT epistles are absolutely deplorable, this one included. Looking more broadly at the articles on NT books, they are at their best merely somewhat decent. Those would be the ones on the canonical gospels, Acts, and perhaps Revelation. (You may wish to note how scholarly consensus is generally handled there.) Authorship of the Pauline epistles makes for a poor comparison. It's actually about authorship, whereas this article is about the epistle as a whole, requiring a primary focus on the letter's contents. Authorship and date should be handled with relative brevity and in accord with WP:UNDUE. The relevant discussion in Second Epistle to Timothy is abominable. It starts off by presenting the minority view as fact, basing itself on a ridiculous website, not among the reliable sources outlined in WP:SCHOLARSHIP, a website basing itself on a source published in the 1830s, if memory serves. Talk about running afoul of WP:AGE MATTERS! 

I increasingly think we're going to have to resort to some RfCs, which would (a) bring in more people actually knowledgeable on the subject and (b) help ensure Wiki policies are followed. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No there has not been any evolution on my position, it has been consistent from day 1.  I have been super busy the last week, so I haven't had much time to continue the research I started here, things will get better on my end by the beginning of June. Eric the fever (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't see how the last two sentences of your previous post could possibly be read as anything other than a departure from your previous or original position: "In both cases, the articles are written in such a way as to state that a majority of scholars consider the works pseudonymous, but they state opposing viewpoints because there is a significant debate on the issue.  I think both of those articles are good examples of how this page should be written." So do you or do you not now realize or admit "that a majority of scholars consider [1 Timothy] pseudonymous," to use your less than ideal term? If not, I have absolutely no idea what you could possibly be attempting to communicate. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I like EdJohnston's suggestion about looking at the Authorship of the Pauline epistles article. Could we agree to defer the readers to issues of authorship to the Authorship of the Pauline epistles article? It might keep all of the discussion in that article as oppose to carrying on the same discussion in this article, 1 Timothy 1, 1 Timothy 2, and Epistle to Titus. I believe you would have more contributors weighing in also. You could put a section on "Authorship" and note something like, "The epistle self-attributes its author as the Apostle Paul. For discussion on various viewpoints on authorship, see Authorship of the Pauline epistles." Could we first agree to do this? 66.215.220.110 (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

No, we can't so agree. That's not how things are properly done on Wikipedia. We don't explicitly reference other Wikipedia articles within the flowing prose of article text. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC) If resistance to scholarly consensus and Wiki policies is going to persist, then I believe some RfCs will provide the best way forward. Should resistance persist beyond the lifting of edit restriction, I may start some myself, provided no one else does so beforehand. Just be sure to get my OK on the questions, as I suspect there will be disagreement over what precisely is at issue. I made my own suggestions previously. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Back from my long hiatus. I will reiterate that there has been no evolution or development on my position. Reference one of the first statements I made

I think it would be prudent to have a section on this page devoted to outlining a the position of non-pauline authorship then outlining a position for pauline authorship. If a source would claim scholarly consensus on any issue should be written in such a way as the author of that claim is specifically named in the article and cited avoiding statements such as "all scholars say", "unbiased expert opinion", "the consensus of scholars". Un named claims of scholarly consensus should be sourced by a formal literature review.

Now reference what I said in my previous posting

In both cases, the articles are written in such a way as to state that a majority of scholars consider the works pseudonymous, but they state opposing viewpoints because there is a significant debate on the issue. I think both of those articles are good examples of how this page should be written.

That is how you do a properly balanced article, speaking from the sources, taking a diverse sample of the literature and writing a concise summary of their points. The same point then, the same point today. Eric the fever (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

And "the same" adamant disagreement and opposition from me. We have reliable sources on what the consensus is. We have no sources disagreeing about that consensus. We have a reliable source stating the precise extent of the consensus and WP:DUE WEIGHT. Period. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC) BTW, there is no Wiki policy requiring "a formal literature review," whatever you imagine that to be. That is a silly figment of your overactive imagination. WP:RS/AC merely requires a reliable source asserting what the consensus is, no more. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This is truly going nowhere. The only reason why we have no sources disagreeing with the "consensus" is that you keep deleting them. It could not be more clear that you are defining "mainstream" scholarship in such a way as to exclude all scholarship that does not support your viewpoint, then using this exclusion as an excuse to abuse the undue policy as a cudgel to beat any viewpoint that is not yours. Question for you Antinoos69, what is the rock solid evidence of this consensus, I see several sources stating a consensus, but there are other sources (deleted) that state there is no consensus.

As you just wrote, "BTW, there is no Wiki policy requiring "a formal literature review," whatever you imagine that to be." That statement you just made is FACTUALLY incorrect, I invite you to actually read the policies you keep linking to, I shall post the relevant section here:

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.

SOURCE: WP:RS/AC

The situation that we have here is one of claimed consensus, vs citations that state that there is no consensus, given the statement from wiki policy, there is not much ground for you to stand on Antinoos69 Eric the fever (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You have clearly lost your mind. No sources have ever been presented asserting there is no consensus. Every source ever presented that has actually addressed what the consensus is has been in general agreement. And your quoted policy only demonstrates my point, so thank you. Is there any other way you would care to embarrass yourself? I suggest you get started drafting a few RfCs—just be sure to get my approval on them first, as I imagine there would be problems with your perception of matters. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Your first statement in that diatribe is demonstrably false. There have been several citations stating that no censensus has been achieved; you just keep deleting them. Take this, or this, or this.

Bon apetite. Eric the fever (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You're joking, right? First, I don't recall any of your sources having come up here before, so I was correct to say that no source ever presented claimed there was no consensus. Second, your first source is a webpage and therefore is not a reliable source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Your second source actually agrees the scholarly consensus is against Pauline authorship (see p. 21). And the cited page of your third source has nothing to say regarding 1 Timothy. Perhaps you should check that citation, as I won't hunt down your passage for you, if it even exists. (The comments on p. 61 would seem to bode ill for you.) Too much time has already been wasted on here chasing passages that don't say what they are claimed to say. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Hello everyone! I'm back! I see Antinoos69 continues to act as the supreme lord of the First Epistle to Timothy. I'm sure that he will soon be claiming that he wrote the letter! It seems that there are many voices that have been involved in this discussion, with Antinoos69 being the major dissenter in trying to work out an appropriate narrative for the subject of authorship. I'm wondering if there are other folks who would care to weigh in. Hopefully, we can all be honest in providing constructive arguments for how the narrative should read and not just contradict each other. I am very eager to work to change this very biased POV on authorship. 66.215.220.110 (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you review the history of this matter, as your recollection of it is faulty. Here, of course, we care only about what reliable sources have to say. No reliable source has been presented saying anything different than what the first two paragraphs of the article already say about the academic consensus on authorship. The inability to present any speaks volumes, as does the deception involved in attempts to present some. For the upteenth time, there are two meaningful ways to move forward on the matter (and these now apply to all involved up to this point): (a) reproduce the passages from reliable sources contradicting what the article currently says, complete with full bibliographic citations, so the claims about the passages can be evaluated here, a measure made necessary by the proven unreliability of editors; and/or (b) a series of RfCs on the matter, which will draw in more people actually knowledgeable on the subject and Wiki policies. Just be sure to get approval on the questions beforehand, as I anticipate extraordinary misconceptions. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's a source that does not acknowledge a modern scholar majority concerning the issue of authorship noted by the sources in the first two paragraphs. “Some now regard the question as settled: Paul, they say, couldn’t possibly have written them. Others see it as still open. Some still insist that they must have been written by Paul.” Wright, N. T. “Paul for Everyone: The Pastoral Letters: 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus (The New Testament for Everyone)” 2nd ed. (Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), pg. 5. 66.215.220.110 (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

We went over your misinterpretation of that source some time ago (see the "'Most scholars say' is generally an unfounded claim" section). One cannot infer solely from an author's indefinite use of "some" and "others" with regard to various scholarly positions what that author's views of the relative prevalence of those positions are. The author simply has not chosen to reveal such information. You are reading into the passage what is not there. You would need something like, "There is no scholarly consensus on the letter's authorship," or, "There is no majority position among scholars regarding authorship," or some other such thing, to make your point. That is the sort of directness and explicitness required by WP:RS/AC, not to mention common sense. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not a misinterpretation. The author obviously does not hold the opinion that most modern scholars do not believe that Paul was not the author. He obviously feels that he cannot possibly know without surveying each and every modern scholar. So if he cannot conclude this, he must use wording other than "most" or "the majority". He has used the word "some" and parsed the opinions into three categories, which I feel is a very honest approach given the lack of data affirming a majority opinion. His discourse as to varying opinions was not written to specifically counter authors who would speculate. This portion of his book was written to address the positions taken as to authorship, not to sway the reader by "majority rules and therefore must be right" rhetoric. Wright's metered tone, in my humble opinion, is the tone this article should take. If there are differences of opinion, this article should state that without the incorporation of factless assertions. I have tried to compromise with you by suggesting in-text attribution. However, you seem to that uncompromising type. What is your issue with in-text attribution for this article as a compromise? 66.215.220.110 (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. You aptly though unwittingly demonstrate what it means to read a whole load of nonsense into a text when none of it is there. None of your inventive if idiosyncratic babble is to be found in the citation; therefore, the citation provides no support for that babble. It cannot be included. You will have to find a source that directly and explicitly makes your case, both as previously explained and as required by WP:RS/AC. The mere fact that we are debating this point proves that your source is improper. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC) There can be no "compromise" regarding WP:UNDUE. My objection to your "in-text attribution" is that it is merely your attempt to water down the clear academic consensus on authorship. Every single reliable source thus far mentioned on the matter (that actually addresses the matter) has been in agreement about that consensus. That is a situation that does not call for any such attribution. As for discussing the arguments for or against Pauline authorship, rather than the consensus on the matter, that must be done in accord with WP:UNDUE. As the consensus against is overwhelming (80% to 90%, per Aune), whatever discussion of the pro side, if any, would have to be far exceeded by the discussion of the opposing side. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously I am several years late on this, but I am curious what that "80%-90%" figure is based on, since it would seemingly have to be nothing more than wild speculation. But it seems pretty clear from the conversation here that a particular editor is completely unwilling to even entertain the idea that his personal beliefs (which are an odd and inappropriate thing to argue from in this venue) could be wrong.

Date section sources

The "Date" section seems pretty reasonable but contains no sources. Could a knowledgeable editor, or ideally the original writer of the text add the sources for this section to avoid deleting the otherwise good text? Ashmoo (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)