Talk:Second Epistle to Timothy

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Saraswati 85 in topic Explaining revert good-faith edit

Explaining revert good-faith edit edit

This new text needs citations. Name some of the scholars who say this, etc. TomS TDotO (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Life on Mars-combat to global warming crisis-hope for life in universe Saraswati 85 (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress edit

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)Reply

"According to the the letter, Paul urges Timothy..." edit

@StAnselm: Re this.

Yes, I noticed that problem, and started to work on fixing it, but then realized that that would require careful redaction, and then it occurred to me that the references to the reader as "Timothy" were at least as problematic as the references to the author as Paul. (One of the arguments against Pauline authorship is that a frequent companion of Paul, as Timothy apparently was, would not need a letter from Paul to give him rudimentary instructions on how to be a good pastor, and while I can't imagine scholars fretting over such things it's pretty funny to imagine the historical Timothy receiving instructional letters from someone claiming to be Paul while both Paul and Timothy were still alive.)

But by the time I thought I had worked it out you had already presented your own solution. Obviously your version adequately addresses the question of authorship as it deals with the content summary, but it also kind of makes it look like the reason for writing the letter was to present a narrative about Paul writing to Timothy, rather than providing pastoral instruction to a reader. How about replacing "Paul" (and "he") with "the author" and "Timothy" with "the reader" throughout the section? This solution would be just as NPOV, as it is equally accurate whether one accepts or rejects the Pauline attribution.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I realised that was the weakness of my edit, but saying that the author is telling the reader certain things is too interpretive: just looking at the first sentence, it is clearly "Timothy" who presumably has a propensity to timidity, rather than any old reader. It is certainly "Timothy" - and not any other implied reader - who is to come to him before winter. That is, we ought not to down play the (implied, at least) specific historical situation - the letter does not merely contain timeless truths of pastoral instruction. StAnselm (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second Epistle to Timothy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply