Talk:Epistle to Titus
|Epistle to Titus has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Bible||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Christianity||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Religious texts||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Ancient Near East||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
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)
- I have checked again that the tweaks since 12 Dec 2004 are all represented at Pastoral Epistles. Would there be any drawback to making this a re-direct? -Wetman 19:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Editorial comment (moved here from article)
Hello. The following was included in the page text (commented out). Seems like the talk page is the appropriate place for it.
- `This article isn't "who wrote the epistle to Titus". It currently says nothing about what the Epistle actually says, or what influence it had!!!'
Seems like a fair comment; dunno who wrote it. For what it's worth, Wile E. Heresiarch 06:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Critics examining the text fail to find its vocabulary and literary style similar to Paul's unquestionably authentic letters"
What does "unquestionably authentic" mean in the context of scholarly discourse concerning the origin of biblical texts? A citation might help.ChrisTN 04:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following text:
- William Paley wrote in Horae Paulinae (1785), "Both letters were addressed to persons left by the writer to preside in their respective churches during his absence. Both letters are principally occupied in describing the qualifications to be sought for in those whom they should appoint to offices in the church; and the ingredients of this description are in both letters nearly the same. Timothy and Titus are likewise cautioned against the same prevailing corruptions, and in particular against the same misdirection of their cares and studies.
- "This affinity obtains not only in the subject of the letters, which from the similarity of situation in the persons to whom they were addressed might be expected to be somewhat alike, but extends in a great variety of instances to the phrases and expressions. The writer accosts his two friends with the same salutation, and passes on to the business of his letter by the same transition (comp. 1 Tim. 1:2, 3 with Titus 1:4, 5; 1
This text has nothing to do with the traditional view on authorship, and such a big blockquote isn't encyclopedic. It would be better to summarize this view. I think what Paley is getting at is that Timothy and Titus are very similar letters and where therefore most likely written by the same author. I believe both sides (traditional view, critical view) agree that they were written by the same person. The issue is whether that person was Paul or not. I'm going to try and take a crack at this, by writing an intro to the authorship section.-Andrew c [talk] 17:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Unlikely Erhman 'quote'
I removed the following:
- But the fact still remains that Paul is the authentic writer of this book and no one can disprove that fact. Ref: Bart D. Ehrman. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 385ff
- Having found and read a review of this book I am more than ever convinced this is a false quote. See Review by John P. Meier in the 'Journal of Biblical Literature', Vol. 116, No. 4. (Winter, 1997), pp. 738-740. Mercury543210 (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Typos in Greek words
Something went wrong with the Greek letters. Some don't match the transcription: final sigma instead of upsilon, etc.
Under Opposed to Pauline Authenticity
The link of Titus under the Pauline epistles states that the "majority of modern scholars" believe in Titus is pseudepigraphic. But here, under Epistle to Titus, it states that only a few scholars hold this view. These two views are inconsistent, one saying most modern scholars agree that it is pseudepigraphic (Pauline epistles) and the other stating the opposite that only a few modern scholars believe this (Epistle to Titus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment's ambiguous meaning
How does the antisemitic opinion "In these [foolish questions] the Jews particularly delighted... as they had litte piety themselves..." from Clarke's Commentary elucidate the subject? Am I meant to understand (or be re-enforced in understanding) that the author of the Epistle was a prick or that Clarke was a prick? Or were both? Rt3368 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I guess that one is expected to pervcive that both the subject and the object shared the saame characteristics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Georgian (talk • contribs) 03:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
However paragraph misplaced
The paragraph in the Pauline authenticity section appears to be a rebuttal which belongs in the following section. It makes little sense in its present position where it disputes a viewpoint which has not yet been raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3E0B:BA00:F542:CCED:9CC8:BAAD (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The exegetical content in this article is confusing, idiosyncratic and oddly presented. I see this was added 8 years ago or so, and has remained largely unimproved over that time. I suggest that the existing content be removed and replaced with a more synthetic, broader and more readble review of the basic themes of the epistle. Any objections? Eusebeus (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)