![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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 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.
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