Talk:Epistle to the Colossians

John's comment

If 60% of scholars don't believe Paul wrote it, why does our analysis simply assume it was written by Paul? I'll put an NPOV notice up. john k 20:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Where are you getting your figures?

tooMuchData

18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

copyright

The extensive quotations have been questioned regarding copyright infringement. None were "copied and pasted"; all were attributed. In the case of the Clarke quotations, since they are from a 1831 publication, I don't think there is any potential for infringement. The quotations from The Interpreter's Bible are from a 1955 publication; that is the most quoted source. There are a few quotations from The New Jerome Biblical Commentary published in 1990, but I don't think they are exensive enough to create a problem. A Georgian (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not so much that the quotes have not been cited, but that the entire article appears to be quotations, and the quotations are badly cited. Is there any original writing (ie. original summaries of referenced material) in the article apart from the first two paragraphs in each section (which have been there for a long time)? I've changed the template accordingly from Copy and Paste to quotefarm.

Maybe the first step in cleaning up the article is to properly footnote each quoted paragraph, instead of using of ellipses to join paragraphs in a single quotation. Sam Rae (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The quoted material is referenced, so I do not perceive confusion re: sources. It is accurate that whole paragraphs are quoted, and that there are many quotes. I do not know what the rules are for lengths of quotes and number of quotes. If there are no copyright issues I don't see the point of paraphasing them. A Georgian (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is aiming to be an encyclopedia, not a place to republish existing material. See the Wikipedia guide on quotations. I'm happy to help get the article into shape for Wikipedia, but it does need some work. Sam Rae (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. I'm going ahead with my summary of the three commentaries I'm using. When I finish, I'll go back through and try to become expert in form. Providing this information, albeit published (good luck getting Clarke's 1831), none of it is availble on the Internet, and were it, the reader would have to plow through ALL the material, rather than my admittedly lengthy summary of it. A set of The Interpreter's Bible will set you back about $750.00. Another source of my confusion is that I encounter much longer articles elsewhere in wikipedia, and whenever I've tried to insert original material, it has generally been deleted precisely because it is original. Anyway, thanks again; see you down the road. A Georgian (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the link you provided on quotations, and agree that mine certainly raise guideline issues. A Georgian (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

link and authorship

That's 60% of CRITICAL scholars not all scholars. This figure is rather misleading as it excludes those non-critical scholars who nearly all support Pauline authorship. Critical scholars usually question Pauline authorship. If you have two parties one orange and one yellow and I said, "Sixty percent of the yellow party voted yellow that would mean that %40 voted orange and to make this example accurate the orange would all vote orange meaning that 99% of the orange party and 40% of the yellow party voted orange.

I'm going to remove the link to "Nick Whyte's Commentary on Colossians". It's not a commentary, just a couple sentences about personal issues and it states that Colossians is "pretty good". It's of no use. --Victoria h 06:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Whyte link again. The link sucks and is musings about the subject, nothing exciting or relevant is added to the discussion. - Chad Hart

I think the Authorship section should be towards the beginning. This being because the rest of the article refers to Paul as the author and his authorship should be established first. Also this format would fit with the rest of the article dealing with books of the bible. I'm going to go ahead and do this. Let me know if there are any objections. Seraphim84 18:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but it has been universally noted that Colossians has indisputably Pauline stylistic characteristics, found nowhere else in the New Testament.. Is this self contradicting line a joke? If is is simply poorly written let me point out that I haven't noted this, hence obviously not "universally noted". Still, I was more concerned with the fact that its style is found no where else in the bible making it obviously from Paul. 75.191.151.75 (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

you have completely misunderstood the point: nearly all scholars note this, and they do, as the examples shown. This doesn't include your personal opinion, my friend. And the article doesn't say that just because the style is found nowhere else in the NT it's Paul's; it says that it's found only in Paul and nowhere else. Please re-read. Cornelius (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

so, a new and unique definition of "universally" ?

overhaul

The page was terrible. I overhauled it, and now it's just bad. Anyone care to pitch in? Leadwind (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

re: deleting TIB, 50-year old source - How does being 50 years old disqualify a source? A Georgian (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to use a 50YO source when more recent sources are readily available. Leadwind (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

They're still reliable sources though, aren't they? It's not like this is one of the natural sciences, where the 4th edition of a text is 100% useless by the time the 6th edition is out. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If 50YO sources contradict current scholarship, then they're outdated. If they agree with current scholarship, they're redundant and we can better cite current scholars. We could make an exception for older works that are seminal and that are still held in high repute. If you want to make this article better, crack open a current source on Colossians and cite it. I did. Leadwind (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

50YO sources are not necessarily outdated because current scholarship uses the same data, and is simply someone's more recent opinion about the same thing. Biblical studies takes decades to develop new perspectives and even more time for new methods, so just because an older source is presented, doesn't mean the newer stuff is "more true". The rhetorical arguments remain the same for the past 50+ years, as no new evidence that could relate to Colossians has come since basically the Nag Hammadi codices (1945). Cornelius (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The references are out of order and need to be cleaned up a lot. Perhaps if I have some time, I'd like to help. WorldTravelerPhil (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar

Why are there sources cited from the Jesus Seminar? They are definitely not mainstream in scholarly communities; they like to figure themselves as cutting-edge, but they're usually off the deep end of fringe, and they accept no criticism: even by their own members, in fact, as their system of votes and entire methodology seems able to turn-out results against the majority of votes at some times, and the opposite at others. This article needs a rewrite.

tooMuchData

18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar deals with gospels, not epistles. Its stance that Jesus was not apocalyptic is controversial, but mostly it just popularizes contemporary historical criticism. Anyway, I didn't find any JS material in this article. Also, please register and sign talk pages with four tildes. Leadwind (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Poor Bibliography

After all I am sorry to state that not only the page is poor - the bibliography is even worse. Maybe someone can help me out.. I don't get the clue about the second "source" there: "(Karissa), "The World we cannot see"". If there is no verified bibliographical information on that one, I am afraid we have to delete it. --Inawe (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the job Leadwind! --Inawe (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What does this odd wording mean?

In the Doctrinal Sections section it says that all things were created through and for Christ and that the universe is sustained by Christ. And then it reads "God had chosen for his complete being to dwell in Christ." Shouldn't the article somehow discuss these highly enigmatic statements? I.e. what does it mean that something is created "through and for" someone? And how can we understand that the universe is sustained by Christ? Sustained in what sense? energetically? morphologically? Have any thinkers, scholars or scientists published discussions or theories about how it this this could be understood? And I am particularly confounded by the last sentence about God dwelling in Christ. I do realize and appreciate that such opaque scriptural passages might become clearer to the one who meditates on them and requests divine spiritual guidance in absorbing this information, and that perhaps the writers of these passages intended them to be hidden gems to be unveiled to such people who truly exert themselves to integrate the meaning and significance of them. But since this is an encyclopedia, we would be amiss in not presenting relevant discussion on the questions that the passages will naturally spawn and that has been appropriately published. __meco (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Authorship citation in reference section

There is a problem about the presence of a reference which discusses the thinking of scholars on the authorship of this book. Two editors are reverting one another. I suggest the discussion be brought here and a consensus reached. I have no comment to make either way. Please be mindful of the three revert rule. JodyB _talk 15:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• The diff is here JodyB _talk 15:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think one brief, good, scholarly, reliable reference should be enough. If it's available for free online, all the better. Presenting a wall of text in the form of quotations that, whether or not they are taken out of context, they certainly give that impression. I don't actually have a problem with the content being included in the article-body one way or the other (which is why I amn't changing it), but the massive footnote looks suspicious. Also, the Georgian is blankly reverting me with no explanation, even though my edit also removed the POV assumption in the previous sentence that Paul must have been the author. Justification by faith alone (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• I explained my reversions. What is suspicious is deletion of reliable sourced material that is pertanent to the topic and elucidates it. You change your reason for deletion with each revert. I have no problem with your other edit, just don't smuggle an unexplained deletion in with it. A Georgian (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Since you guys agree to the change in the article itself, can we find a solution to the footnote? Could it pared down a bit but still left in? JodyB _talk 17:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • reduced length of footnote without diluting its content A Georgian (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I still don't get it though: why can't we put the details in the article and use the references section for references. The wall of text currently in footnote 11 is filled with in-house technical lingo and is completely useless to the typical Wikipedia reader. Specific details of how the text seems to contradict Paul's eschatology, christology and so on should be written in plain English in the article body. Honestly the reason I first decided to edit the article (and register an account) was because when I saw the note my eyes glazed over and I couldn't even figure out the name of the author and the work being cited. I've now taken the time to read the entire note and I see nothing that contradicts Professor Martin's lecture, and nothing whatsoever that can't be incorporated into the article proper. Justification by faith alone (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      • The genesis of this discussion was the wholesale blanking of the material without inserting anything into the text. So I know I wasn't thinking about revising the article. Having said that, I see no problem with what you suggest. What I am concerned about is edit warring over an article that has been rather stable for some time. I would suggest you make the change you have mentioned by moving the text into the article and leaving the references in the footnote. I do not speak for Georgian but it sounds acceptable to me. JodyB _talk 12:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
        • I just read the relevant Wikipedia policy. WP:CITEHOW says "footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source". This clearly doesn't include the stuffing of several quotations on a range of data; I apologize for deleting the information initially, but honestly a summary (the current wording of the sentence, without the note) with a relevant citation giving more detail (Martin 2009) still seems (to me) preferable to a wall of text with in-house lingo.

Now as for which source is better for our purposes (assuming we only need one). They both give basically the same information.

I've already mentioned that Martin is a recognized expert in the field, teaching it at Yale, and he is also instantly and freely accessible online. He also is (seems to be?) more readily comprehensible to the lay reader than a bible commentary meant for professional theologians.

As for "The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Edited by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Union Theological Seminary, New York; NY, Maurya P. Horgan (Colossians); Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm. (emeritus) The Divinity School, Duke University, Durham, NC, with a foreword by His Eminence Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini, S.J.; Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1990 1990 p. 876" -- can someone please tell me which of these people actually wrote the article being cited? I'm assuming The New Jerome Biblical Commentary is a book edited by Brown, and the relevant passages are from a specialist article on Colossians specifically, which is located on page 876. Who wrote this article? Horgan, or Murphy? Why do we need to know that the commentary contains a forward by Cardinal Martini? The Amazon page indicates that the citation is very poorly formatted, since the information on the cover is somewhat different, and the book was actually published in 1989, not "1990 1990". This isn't that big a problem, but I'm reluctant to fix it unless I actually have access to the book itself, and that would cost me at least $60. Why would we not just use a newer, more readily available source? Justification by faith alone (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Maurya P. Horgan wrote the article A Georgian (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)