Talk:2nd Timothy
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Notes[edit]
the critical view is that they were written about the middle of the 2nd century CE
Who dates 2 Timothy this late? My sources, in the context of non-Pauline authorship, mention as early as 85 and only as late as about 100. Josh Cherry 22:31, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- A click on the link would have led you to Edgard Goodspeed's despassionate analysis. I have now added a quote that may encourage readers to click the link. Add your unidentified sources to the "traditional" early dates, why not? Wetman 23:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'll try to dig up some primary sources for this; I'm basing it on things on my shelf like the Oxford Companion to the Bible, and the fact that I don't recall ever seeing such a late date. But these are not "traditional" early dates, they are dates given by people who don't believe that Paul wrote the epistle. My impression is that mid 2nd century is a very late date even for a non-traditionalist. Are you sure that your link means to imply a post-140 date of composition? Sure, Marcion didn't include the Pastorals in has canon, but he also excluded the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John (while including a version of Luke). Does that mean that Mark, Matthew, and John were writen after 140? Josh Cherry 00:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Would you add "The Oxford Companion to the Bible gives the pastoral epistles a date in the range of XXX" etc, to the entry? (You might add similar notes to all the NT entries, actually, if you have the interest and the book's in your hands.) Then read Goodspeed's introductory material at the link. I've added a Goodspeed quote to the entry. There must be more quotes that can be usefully entered, if they are given a minimal bit of context. Wetman 00:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The Goodspeed thing was published in 1937, so perhaps this is an outdated view. I think some more research is in order. Josh Cherry 01:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Or perhaps not. (You can't tell until you've read the Goodspeed text.) Now, 1837 might be outdated. Fads don't really move all that fast in biblical scholarship. Somehow, no one ever finds that their personal agenda is "outdated" do they? I look forward to your Oxford quote in the entry (oh, and what's the imprint date on that?) Wetman 01:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I've done some research, and it appears that the very late dates are not in favor now, if they ever were. I've changed the article accordingly. The information applies to the other Pastorals as well. I'm thinking it would be better to combine them into a single Pastoral Epistles article rather than copy and paste twice. What do you think? Josh Cherry 23:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- A single Pastoral Epistles makes sense in this case, with 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus in subsections, and redirects. We do notice however that Josh Cherry says "not in favor now" but neglects to mention why, or whom he means. The section is oddlyb truncated without the following text, which has been suppressed by Josh Cherry:
- Critics examining the text fail to find its vocabulary and literary style similar to Paul's unquestionably authentic letters, fail to fit the situation of Paul in the epistle into Paul's reconstructed biography, and identify principles of the emerged Christian church rather than those of the apostolic generation. In his evocation of the mid 2nd-century context of the group of "pastoral epistles" Edgar Goodspeed finds that "there were four elements, therefore, in the Christian situation that underlay the writing of the Pastoral Epistles: (1) the lack of efficient church organization; (2) the menace of the sects; (3) the undermining of the old Scripture; and (4) the misuse of Paul. It was to meet these needs and perils that the letters to Timothy and Titus were written." (see link). Notice the specific points of the suppressed text. These points need to be addressed by any honest editor. Wetman 01:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you say "suppressed". I rewrote the section to report what seems to be scholarly consensus. If you think something is missing, by all means add it. I don't, however, see any reason why Goodspeed's views should dominate the section. Perhaps his is the first take on this that you've read, but I see no indication in the modern sources I've examined that his views are particularly prominent, and the reasoning behind the very late date that he espouses is specifically dismissed (and he is not even mentioned as a prominent proponent of these ideas). Josh Cherry 01:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Critics examining the text fail to find its vocabulary and literary style similar to Paul's unquestionably authentic letters, fail to fit the situation of Paul in the epistle into Paul's reconstructed biography, and identify principles of the emerged Christian church rather than those of the apostolic generation. In his evocation of the mid 2nd-century context of the group of "pastoral epistles" Edgar Goodspeed finds that "there were four elements, therefore, in the Christian situation that underlay the writing of the Pastoral Epistles: (1) the lack of efficient church organization; (2) the menace of the sects; (3) the undermining of the old Scripture; and (4) the misuse of Paul. It was to meet these needs and perils that the letters to Timothy and Titus were written." (see link). Notice the specific points of the suppressed text. These points need to be addressed by any honest editor. Wetman 01:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have assembled all material from First Epistle to Timothy, Second Epistle to Timothy and Epistle to Titus at Pastoral Epistles, 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)