Talk:Catholic epistles

Christianity Top‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bible Top‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General epistles → Catholic epistles — Relisted. Ucucha 14:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The biblical scholars prefer term Catholic epistles (e. g. Metzger, Rhodes, Ehrman). General epistles is used by popular authors Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't the current title stand per WP:UCN (Use Common Names) and WP:NOT PAPER #5 (Wikipedia is not a work of scholarly research)? — AjaxSmack 03:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The popular authors use both these terms. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To most people nowadays the primary meaning of the term "catholic" is pertaining to the Roman Catholic Church, to use this term with any other meaning, particularly in a religious context, is likely to cause confusion. "General" is a perfectly reasonable term in this context. PatGallacher (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As far as usage goes, there's not much to split it, so I'd opt for the term used in more popular works. It's not just preferred by popular authors, but also by scholars writing popular works - e.g. Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments. StAnselm (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page will move to Catholic epistles per consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 23:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General epistles → Catholic epistles – No serious academic or scholar uses the term general epistle to describe these letters. Everyone be they orthodox or catholic use the term catholic to describe these. Those that do not use the term catholic epistles use universal epistles instead. The term General Epistle is unheard of. The fact is that this entry was Catholic Epistles before someone took offense to it. Even the early church referred to these as catholic. Even the merriam-webster has an entry for catholic epistle and none for general epistle DeusImperator (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One should not use the Wikipedia to social engineer. The term 'catholic epistles' is the most commonly used reference to these followed by 'universal epistles'. Just because one feels that the title catholic will lead to confusion with the catholic church is not even a valid reason for using the term Catholic epistle. Many protestant theologians including all the reforms (Luther, Calvin) use the term catholic as well. Early church writing also point to these as 'catholic' as in universal. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Catholic%20Epistles There is no entry for General Epistles http://www.dictionary.com/browse/catholic-epistles Again no entry for general epistles

Protestant biblical organizations http://biblehub.com/library/barrows/companion_to_the_bible/chapter_xxxi_the_catholic_epistles.htm https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/catholic-epistles Easton Bible Dictionary https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?topic=ET0000739,IT0001903 Again no entry for general epistle

Oxford University Press http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0018.xml http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t94/e361?_hi=0&_pos=8

Even if name Catholic epistles is rejected at least some though should be given to Universal epistle as this is more prevalent than the term General epistle.

Support You can add the New Bible Dictionary (Intervarsity Press), a very significant Protestant source, to the list of works with an entry for Catholic but not general epistles, not even a "see Catholic epistles". --JFH (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Encyclopedia.com http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/catholic-epistles has an entry for catholic epistles none for general epistlesDeusImperator (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

History of / reasons for traditional order?

Unlike the Pauline epistles, the Catholic epistles are not traditionally ordered by length. (Order by length would be, 1 Peter, 1 John, James, 2 Peter, Jude, 3 John, 2 John). Is it known when and/or where the current order was arrived at, and/or what the reasoning behind it is? Especially the reason for putting James before Peter, as Peter seems to be a more important person in the NT than any possible James? -- 194.39.218.10 (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]