User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2019/July

Loaded language

Stop using language such as "has tried to explain away" etc. That implies that Wikipedia takes a position. Your recent edits to Adventist articles has made me question your ability to edit them neutrally, which is unfortunate because you are very knowledgable about the topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

See Okrent's law. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Concerning edit war on Authorship Of The Bible

Hello, I seem to be engaged in an edit war with you regarding the adding of sources supporting both early and late composition of the General Epistles of James and Peter, on the article Authorship of the Bible.

The version you reverted my edit back to is a version which promotes a minority view of a highly late composition of the epistle of James, with the earliest offered date being after James' death. There is NOT a scholarly consensus on the pseudonymity of James. The pseudonymity of James is a minority view. As the article on the epistle clearly states, there is a widespread diversity of views on the dating of that epistle, with a solid majority of scholars placing it prior to James' death and being genuine, due to the strong interplay between it and the Pauline epistles concerning the matter of justification by faith. The majority position is that James is responding to, and refuting, Paul. Disunity between apostolic writings is a sign of a highly early composition date. In my edit, I made only a conservative change to this entry: I stated that the conclusion of James as being the work of a later author is not a consensus position, and added TWO sources supporting this statement. You reverted my edit.

The original version of the article which I modified also claimed 3 reasons for the late composition of the second epistle of Peter:

• 1. Apparent quoting from Jude.

• 2. Assumed familiarity with the Pauline epistles.

• 3. Reference to the story of the Transfiguration of Jesus from the Gospel of Mark.

These are all poor reasons to assume late composition: Jude could have been quoting from 2 Peter rather than vice-versa; the Pauline epistles have very early composition dates circa CE 50; and the Transfiguration story originated from Peter's own account, so the epistle would not need to have been written after the gospel of Mark in order to include such a reference.

The previous edit also did NOT mention several GOOD reasons to support a late composition of 2 Peter:

• 1. Significant stylistic differences (possibly explainable by use of a different amanuensis/translator, since Peter was known to be illiterate in Greek).

• 2. Reference to "false teachers", something which did not become a major concern in the early Church until later in the first century.

• 3. Encouragement in face of a delayed parousia, also not a major concern until later that century.

I added all of this information, as well as two sources – one supporting early composition, and one supporting late composition. You reverted my edit.

I also added two or three additional sources for the dating of 1 Peter, and extended the beginning of the proposed date range from CE 75 back to CE 60, since CE 75 requires it to be pseudonymous, whereas, once again as with James, the pseudonymity of 1 Peter is not a consensus/majority position. You reverted my edit.

Please do not revert my edit a second time. It was not biased, and it was not promoting any minority views.

Lionboy-Renae (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

You have misrepresented WP:RS/AC. Please reply at Talk:Authorship of the Bible, not at my talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I will move this discussion there. Lionboy-Renae (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)