Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Paul the Apostle → Paul of Tarsus – Neutralizing. Zwanzig 20 (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Of the three related nominations made by Zwanzig 20, this is the most reasonable, as the proposed alternative name is at least reasonably well-known, though still far from the most common. Xoloz (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. No good reason to make this change. Kudos to Zwanzig for making these nominations on Easter Sunday. Doesn't seem pointy at all. Calidum 16:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. And "Saul of Tarsus" is more common than "Paul of Tarsus" anyway, so wouldn't that be more "neutral?" Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - apostle is neutral language already. As Evan points out "Paul of Tarsus" doesn't even exist in sources. WP:SNOW close by next editor please. No need to clog RM with these 3 requests. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose "Paul of Tarsus" isn't even a name he's referred to as... Ckruschke (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
• Oppose for all of the above, pus the fact that "Apostle" isn't POV, unless there's some "Jesus only had 11 Apostles" theory I'm unaware of.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Paul wasn't one of the twelve by any account, even though he is called an apostle. - Lindert (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

"Views on homosexuality" section

The section contains a reference to 1 Timothy, which if it is going to be included there needs to be clarified that almost no scholars think Paul actually wrote 1 Timothy. Some editors keep taking that referenced information out, please do not remove it unless the reference to 1 Timothy is also removed.Smeat75 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

edit request (minor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_the_Apostle&diff=608158438&oldid=608002981

I think the old version (with just "Paul" in the name field) is more fitting than the current version. "St Paul the Apostle" seems kinda redundant since it's followed directly by "Apostle".

166.205.68.48 (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Mz7 (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research

Wikipedia:No original research This is original research, sorry. Wikipedia does not encourage original research. This skips the fact that Paulus was a person who lived after the Pharisees rules, but then he got converted by this vision.Hafspajen (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• According to Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, the name "Paulus" means "Least" in Latin. This gives an explanation why the jail of the arrogant in Hell is named "Paulus/بولس" according to the Hadith.

Paul's name is also mentioned in several Islamic hadiths of the Shia sect of Islam as the deceiver of the Christians, and along with people like Cain, Nimrod, Fir'aun and Samiri, is punished in a stage of Hell called Saqar. Another hadith mentions demons that mislead people after prophets, and names Paul as the demon that misled people after Jesus.

Moreover, Matthew 16:6-12 & Mark 8:15 tell that Jesus warned his disciples of the Pharisees & the teachings of the Pharisees: *Matthew 16:6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast (Paul was actually the yeast of the Pauline Christianity) of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” *Matthew 16:12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. *Mark 8:15 “Be careful,” Jesus warned them. “Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.”

“ Paul himself said about himself:
"I am a Pharisee, the son of Pharisees." ” — Acts 23:6

“ For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? ” — said Paul, Romans 3:7

13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

— said Jesus, according to Matthew 23

We just stick to the previous version. Hafspajen (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Updates

• Added {{Old moves}} showing previous page names and requested moves.
• Updated archiving. Inactive threads older than 90 days will be archived.
  —Telpardec  TALK  06:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Name.

Saul of Tarsus. [1]. Also, שאול התרסי, Bauer lexicon, "The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: According to the Received Greek Text" (University Press, Cambridge 1876). And he was NOT one of the twelve, but he was counted as one of them anyway. Hafspajen (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Paul under house arrest in Rome for 2 years? Says who?

The article claims that:

He arrived in Rome c. 60 and spent another two years under house arrest (beyond his two years in prison in Caesarea).[18][Acts 28:16]

However, Acts 28:16 (ESV) only refers to a guard being with Paul on his arrival to Rome:

And when we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who guarded him.

Subsequently, Acts 28:17-20 tells this:

After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews, and when they had gathered, he said to them, “Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. When they had examined me, they wished to set me at liberty, because there was no reason for the death penalty in my case. But because the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar - though I had no charge to bring against my nation. For this reason, therefore, I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain.”

After this declaration, Acts 28:30-31 ends with:

He lived there two whole years at his own expense,[g] and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance., where footnote [g] refers to: Or in his own hired dwelling

So why should we suppose that Paul spent the 2 years in Rome under house arrest? It rather seems to me that we're merely told that there was a guard with him when he arrived and that 3 days later Paul talked about wearing a chain (perhaps a figure of speech and certainly not indicative of house arrest), while Acts subsequently insists that Paul was preaching without hindrance and makes no mention of a house arrest. So, do we have other sources to back this notion of house arrest up? Citation 18 is just a blind quote to the Oxford dictionary of the Christian church and doesn't seem particularly helpful here.

Mojowiha (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Other than Bible. Actually I think it might be church tradition. something here, for example, here too - books here and there. Hafspajen (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

My point is that the Bible (or Acts, to be specific) doesn't clearly say that Paul was under house arrest. That Acts 28:16 has a guard with Paul when he entered Rome doesn't mean that Paul was under house arrest for the subsequent 2 years, and Acts 28:31 seems to argue that Paul was free to do what he wanted as being under house arrest would certainly constitute a hindrance. If the 2 years of house arrest is a church tradition then we should have a source on it and remove the Acts 28:16 reference at it seems at best tangentially relevant to the issue.

Mojowiha (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you got a point there. But I think I read about this mentioning house arrest... Wonder where. Eusebius, maybe? This say: While under house arrest in Rome, Paul was able to conduct a limited ministry. ... This one is quite interesting ...Hafspajen (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[2]

If the house arrest narrative is a Christian tradition, then the citation should be to Eusebius or whoever of the church fathers or other early Christians wrote of it. My point is simply that it's untenable to equate the description in Acts with house arrest. It's a parallel to how the matter and time of Paul's death is never described in the bible, but subsequent tradition placed it at the hands of Nero in the aftermath of the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD.

Mojowiha (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

To me it seems that Acts is definitely implying a 2-year house arrest. "Without hindrance" simply indicates that Paul was not hindered from teaching and preaching by the Romans who guarded him. Anyway don't take my word for it. There's a clear consensus among contemporary scholars supporting this interpretation from Acts, and I've yet to come across a single scholar that supports yours. For example: David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, p. 330; Robert L. Cate, One Untimely Born, Mercer University Press, p. 129; Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Oxford University Press, p. 233; J. R. Porter, The Illustrated Guide to the Bible, Oxford University Press, p. 240; Brian Rapske, The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody Wm. B. Eerdmans, p. 434. So unless you have reliable sources saying otherwise, this is what Luke is saying in Acts 28:30-31. - Lindert (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Acts 28:16. [3]. Hafspajen (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Early "Life"?

This chapter is lacking the clue that all the "evidences" for Paul's life only stem from the Christians. There are Jewish reports on "Jesus", in particular, about parts of his life the Christians claim as "the lost years"...What about the Jewish accounts on "Saul" or "Paul"? The only evidence given for this figure by the Jews is that they do not miss a Pharisee called "Saul" of "Paul" but deem this name as an alias for another Christian, i.e. Simon Peter (see: The Toledoth Yeshu). In addition, this paragraph contains strange "constructions", e.g. when alleged that "Paul" refers to his mother by Romans 16:13. Let me scrutinize the text: Ro 16:13 "Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well." The text means the following: Romans 16:13 (ESV) "Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who (i.e. the mother of Rufus and not the one of mine that) has been (also a person like) a mother to me as well." However you want to interpret Ro 16:13, not in the least it is any evidence that "Paul" refers to his ("Paul's") mother and insofar, putting it mildly, this quotation contributes no sense to the context. This presentation of Paul lacks scientific standards since it does not take into account the Jewish reports or arguments on the "life" of this figure. In addition, the article does not refute the Jewish views that "Paul" only is a pseudonym for someone else! SCHINKELBURG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schinkelburg (talk • contribs) 08:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Schinkelburg (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

states that the Apostle Paul was God's chosen vessel. This means that he alone was strong enough to stand in God's judgment without the need of a wife as a helper. The rest of the brethren needs to take on a wife as a helper. He wasn't just an apostle, but the highest authority among the apostles. He should be referred to as The Apostle Paul the Chosen Vessel. This means both the Apostle Peter and John were under the authority of Paul. They were indeed submissive to Paul because, unlike Paul, they were with Christ in the flesh and understood how the Holy Spirit had the power of death (the fig tree dropping its fruit after being cursed by Christ.) 50.8.16.47 (talk)Uncle Emanuel Watkins

The remaining part of the verse after the phrase "chosen vessel" reads "to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel." Paul is a special vessel of Christ for a special purpose. It doesn't mean that other apostles were under the authority of Paul. All apostles are equally under the authority of Christ alone. JohnThorne (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox question

Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason why this for this change? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_the_Apostle&diff=621005185&oldid=608781702

| name       = Paul
| title      = [[Apostle]]

| name       = Paul
| honorific-prefix = Saint

It might sound like a stupid question, but I sort of think the old version makes more sense and I really don't feel like scouring through the edit history to find the reason for the change. Thanks in advance.

166.205.68.26 (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, just some people think Saint is NPOV. Hafspajen (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"In Art" Section: The Two Rubens Paintings of Paul

According to the Wikimedia page for it, the name of the second of the two Rubens paintings, that the article says portrays Paul, is "St James the Apostle." A survey of the Web confirmed that name for that painting, so I deleted it. See Rubens' Apostles Series http://www.artbible.info/art/topics/rubens-apostles-series. ô¿ô (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization

The word Gentiles under the section "Last visit to Jerusalem and arrest" should be capitalized. Daddy Mittens (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Paul's escape from Damascus

It is noted in Raanan Shaul Boustan, Alex P. Janssen, Calvin J. Roetzel (2010) Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity BRILL pg 94 regarding 2 Cor. 11:30-33: "Coming after the catalogue of hardships (11:23-29), the passage appears to be a non-sequitur. Some think it is was an afterthought, a marginal "gloss" copied into the text, or even a later insertion" and give one reference for each stated possibility

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000) on page 434 states "However the historical reliability of 2 Vor. 11:32-33 is challenged by its identification at a textual gloss and by the narrative's similarities to Josh 2."--216.223.234.97 (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2015

2601:8:900:6CE:893C:8FC9:9DCF:2ACD (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Paul wasn't referred to as Saul "early on." Paul was referred to as Saul prior to meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus.

Yes, which was early on in his life. Also, the rest of the paragraph explains this. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Mass removal of last year's changes

• Actually I think the version we have here is now as it was 25 October 2013 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_the_Apostle&diff=578721153&oldid=578627478 is identical with what we have now. Article was reverted to a version from 2013 October. Hafspajen (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This edit note (Gratuitous change of spelling system) does not indicate any removal of artwork at all, or why. I really don't understand this edit. I am confused by this edit, to be sincere. I was closely following this article for two years, and references are removed and stuff that we reached consensus on the talk page. I think about this edit... and I don't understand it. Because galleries are not discouraged, and the artworks of Rembrandt, Rubens and Caravaggio and other notable old masters works were removed from article. We routinely use them on all Apostle's and Saint's articles. It is an important part of our cultural heritage and it is a wonderful way for people get to know great artwork. All similar articles are illustrated with the artworks of great masters. Please discuss all removal and motivate why. Hafspajen (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC).

• I was checking further. It also say now that the lead is too long, and it is tagged since 2013 - but the lead was changed since then, and now it is suddenly is tagged since 2013 ... and it is longer. Hafspajen (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have added back artwork, but all changes since 2013 October were removed. I sincerely think that article should be restored. Hafspajen (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it should be restored. Editor2020, Talk 02:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And I have done so. Editor2020, Talk 02:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for the mess. I was only intending to revert this edit of an IP who has been making sweeping spelling changes in a deliberately disruptive way (even changing American proper names to British spelling). There was quite a lot of articles involved and I was not paying as much attention as I should to all of them. I probably clicked "restore version" instead of "undo" by mistake. SpinningSpark 07:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Well, that explains it... Thanks for clarifying. Hafspajen (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

My removal of a statement that the conversion of Paul was propaganda was itself removed

My edit, which was removed by Mmeijeri, removed a "sourced" statement which claimed that the conversion of St. Paul was merely propaganda instead of genuine conversion. I removed this statement, not only because it is offensive to Christians (whom Wikipedia seems to love to offend), but also because any cursory reading of the book of Acts and Paul's own epistles renders the propaganda theory of Paul's conversion utterly ridiculous. Like the other Apostles, St. Paul could not have lived and died for something - in this case the Resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15) -- that he knew to be a lie. On the contrary, from his epistles it is clear that Paul had a genuine conversion and that he believed what he said and wrote was absolutely true. But this Mmeijeri removed my comment because he claimed that it was on the basis of my "personal opinion" that I was dismissing a so-called "sourced statement." First of all, the Conversion of Paul is not my opinion, it is a fact recorded in the Bible and witnessed to by 2,000 years of Christian history. Second, simply because a statement is "sourced" does NOT mean it is correct. Statements that Paul's conversion was propaganda are wrong, stupid, and offensive, and have no place in Wikipedia. If editors don't want to believe in the conversion of Paul, that's their choice; they are entitled to their opinions but not to their own facts. Tpkatsa (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You're talking about this edit from over a year ago? About material that is no longer in the article anyway? Do you realize how ridiculous and petty a grudge that is? And yes, your argument is (at best) what we consider original research which we do not use, and which a professional source can and does trump. The Aslan source was likely removed because someone did presented counter sources, or else provided evidence that the source did not meet our policies and guidelines for applying to this article (such as pointing out that while the book is applicable to the article on Jesus, Aslan is not necessarily qualified to speak on Paul and his views on Paul are WP:UNDUE).

Also, the former inclusion of that content had nothing to do with offending Christianity, but neutrally representing academic views according to their due weight. I am a Christian, and I was not offended by the content. Do I think Aslan is right about Paul? Absolutely not, but I don't need him to hold my beliefs for me because faith does not need affirmation from others. Wikipedia is not censored, so if you're offended by article content, tough shit. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Saul-Paul the Tentmaker?

It says here that Saul was a tentmaker, but he was actually making skenopoios or tabernacles. As a Jew he was doing this for the Feast of Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles, and not for campers....! Tatelyle (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Historical vs. Biblical record

Most of the Wikipedia articles on the apostles and evangelists (authors of the Gospels and some of the other New Testament chapters) have the same huge problem. They don't clearly distinguish between the Biblical accounts and the non-Biblical historical accounts. I can see some attempts at establishing clarity, but most of these articles barren back and forth between Biblical sources, extra-Biblical Christian traditions, and the historical record. Consequently, almost all of these articles are messy and confusing.

Many of the people who work on these articles have sincere Christian faith and consider the Bible a legitimate historical document. Some also like to cite "extra-Biblical Christian tradition." Other editors, me included, have little or no confidence in the Bible, or extra-Biblical Christian traditions, as legitimate historical records. It seems to me there are only two good solutions to this problem. One is two have two separate articles for the important apostles and evangelists. Paul the Apostle (Biblical) and Paul the Apostle (historical). The other is to divide each article into two major sections -- Biblical and Historical. The sections should be clearly marked and consistent from one article to another.

In many cases, the Historical section would be quite short. "Biblical scholars agree the author of this gospel is unknown. Outside of the Bible and extra-Biblical Christian traditions, dating to the X Century, there is no historical record of X's life." That sort of thing. In my opinion, these sections in each article are essential for clarity and authority.2602:306:CDB2:4860:3435:1C9E:D02F:DE6A (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

As you correctly point out, there is no historical record apart from the Bible (>95%) and Christian tradition for this topic (Paul the apostle). However, you seem to suggest that biblical sources have no historical value. The vast majority of scholars today would disagree. It is almost universally accepted among historians that the Bible contains at least seven letters that were written by Paul himself (see Pauline epistles), and these are therefore excellent sources to learn about the life of Paul. The book of Acts, which is the other major biblical source for Paul's life is widely accepted to have been written by a contemporary of Paul, and although considered less reliable than Paul's own letters, it is undisputed that its author was well-informed about Paul's career. Obviously, biblical material is critically evaluated by scholars, just like any other historical documents. If you think that there is too little critical discussion of the biblical accounts, please help improve the article by adding such material or point out specific instances where this is required. However, it makes no sense to separate 'historical' from 'biblical' sources, because the New Testament books are exactly that: ancient documents, mostly from the first century, which contain lots of valuable information that modern historians use to learn about e.g. the life of Paul. - Lindert (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The authorship and reliability of Acts are major problems in historical criticism. If these works are truly such great sources for modern historians, then per WP:SECONDARY we should be able to cite such historians for the conclusions they reach, not Acts itself (or for that matter, the Pauline epistles). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"Other editors, me included, have little or no confidence in the Bible, or extra-Biblical Christian traditions, as legitimate historical records."

Despite the fact that over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament exist? Compared to a scant handful for contemporaneous works such as Tacitus, Plutarch, and so forth? If you don't have confidence in the reliability of the Biblical account, especially the New Testament, then I would suggest doing a little research on your own on the topic. The more you dig into Biblical archaeology the more you will find that the New Testament is an exceptionally reliable historical record.

This touches another pet peeve of mine, which is that folks such as this editor have no problem with the authenticity of Tacitus, Cicero, Plutarch, Virgil, and so on, but when it comes to the New Testament, which is incredibly well-documented, a different and probably impossible-to-meet standard is applied. Why two different standards, one for the New Testament and another for all the other works of the same period? Tpkatsa (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Guys, WP:NOTFORUM. WP:CITE WP:Reliable sources (and WP:No original research). And we usually treat Tacitus et al as primary sources, only to be cited to verify quotations rather than for independent claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Tacitus is often treated as a secondary source. A quick scan of the Nero article (one of many examples), several instances where Tacitus and Suetonius are the only source for a given claim (e.g. Nero used Christians as torches). As the original editor points out, Christian sources - biblical or extra-biblical - are to be categorically considered as unreliable because they had a viewpoint and agenda. By this same logic, any uncorroborated claim by Tacitus that an emperor was cruel or incompetent should be rejected because such statements support his viewpoint and agenda. Further, since Tacitus had a viewpoint and agenda and wrote things down to support them, the entire corpus of what are allegedly his writings should be considered unreliable. Note that I say "allegedly" because there are only 20 extant copies, the oldest of which was penned 1,000 years after his death (M.II). It is probable that all copies of Annales and Historiae are copied from this MSS , [begin satire] so there is no way to ascribe any real historical significance to anything allegedly written by Tacitus[/end satire]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.204.204 (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there are problems throughout this article and I was quite surprised for one of this length not to be shaped correctly. There are numerous places where neutral point of view has been abandoned. To name just a couple: "tools which he later would use to effectively spread the Gospel and to establish the church solidly in many parts of the Roman Empire". It's clear to historians that Paul pre-existed the gospels as he never quotes them or directly mentions them. If the word "gospel" is being used differently it should be thusly noted, as well as how the word "church" is used, since Christianity was a Judaic sect at the time and not a separate religion (nor the religion that would be established a century later). It's also not neutral to describe his "conversion" when that would not have been the thusly-defined concept at the time. Whatever happened to him on the road to Damascus, the result was his decision to switch from persecution to support. If that's what's meant by "conversion" it should be noted. In the descriptions of Saul as Pharisaic it's not distinguished that Rabbinical-Pharisaic tradition didn't exist yet, and how the term is being used. From the first paragraph on the Pharisee page: "In 70 CE Pharisaic beliefs became the liturgical and ritualistic basis for Rabbinic Judaism (the term 'Judaism' today almost always refers to Rabbinic Judaism)". This conflicts with the statement that his family "had been very attached to Pharisaic traditions and observances for generations". And, Acts may say he was trained at an Hillel school but historians have long pointed out that the writings most likely to be Pauline come purely from the Hellenistic tradition and not the Rabbinical. There are a dozen other non-encyclopedic-type problems. Entire sections read like they were cut/pasted from a religious website.Tangverse (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Since Paul is primarily a character in Christian theology it makes sense that most of the article would be about that. I think has a Historicity section would be enough, since questions of historicity are mostly quite recent and as you say, there is not much historical evidence, so the section would probably not be that large anyway. I also agree that the parts that are part of the Christian tradition should be clearly delineated from the parts that are commenting on modern historical secular scholarship. Ashmoo (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:POINTY and undiscussed changes

A user disregarding WP:BRD is repeatedly inserting his claim that Paul is considered by non-Christians as the founder of Christianity, a direct and pointy retaliation for Muhammad saying that non-Muslims regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam. These undiscussed edits that the user keeps inserting are "sourced" by referring to a rabbi and an imam, not to any academic or historian, so fails WP:RS. Jeppiz (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Watch out WP:Personal attacks. Don't attack the editor himself in order to prove your point of view. This change is well sourced and if you want more sources, then don't worry! I can bring you more.--Ciphers00 (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not about the number of sources, it's about the quality of them. Ironic you should invoke WP:NPA after calling me a "troll". An imam or a rabbi are not WP:RS for historical figures. Jeppiz (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Then explain your problem with the quality of the sources; which are"

1. The Jewish Encyclopedia. SAUL OF TARSUS (known as Paul, the Apostle of the Heathen) The Jewish Encyclopedia.
2. Judaiology: A Study of the Science of Judaism: The Most Misunderstood Religion in the World. Imam Warith-Deen Umar. Page 134
3. More Than a Prophet: An Insider's Response to Muslim Beliefs about Jesus and Christianity. Emir Fethi Caner, Ergun Mehmet Caner. Page 119 --Ciphers00 (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

(1) Not only is this a very unbalanced article which makes many claims that are rejected by mainstream scholarship, but it is also hopelessly outdated. Why would you want to cite a source that is over a century old? Even if we take it as a reliable source, it literally states: "The actual founder of the Christian Church as opposed to Judaism", so the author actually qualified his claim. He is saying that the aspects of Christianity that are opposed to Judaism are to be attributed to Paul, not that he started the entire Christian movement.

(2) This book is from Xlibris, so it is self-published. Generally speaking, self published sources are not considered reliable according to Wikipedia standards.

(3) At least this book is not self-published, although it is not a scholarly work. That said, the book does not support the claim that Muslims consider Paul the founder of Christianity. It states: "Islam sees Paul as the founder of apostate Christianity", that is, they say Paul corrupted the original Christianity of Jesus. One can only apostatize from something that already exists. - Lindert (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This means then that you have no problem with the following statement: "Paul is generally regarded by Muslims and many non-Christians to be the founder of apostate Christianity." per the first and the third cited sources. I would like also to add another source:

4. Twenty-six Reasons why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus. Asher Norman. Feldheim Publishers. 2007. Page 134.

--Ciphers00 (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That is WP:SYNT as none of the sources say that. To say that something is generally regarded as something, we need a source to say that. Finding a source saying X is not justification for saying "people generally believe X". Jeppiz (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The third source says: "Islam sees Paul as the founder of apostate Christianity". This is the wording of the source itself. It is not my wording and so it is not WP:SYNT as you claimed.--Ciphers00 (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

One more source to support my position (this is the 5th source till now): 5. Defending the Faith: Nineteenth-Century American Jewish Writing on Christianity and Jesus. George L. Berlin. Page 64. --Ciphers00 (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

One more source to support my position (this is the 6th source till now): 6. The Making of Theatre History. Paul Kuritz‏. Page 60. --Ciphers00 (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

One more source to support my position (this the 7th source till now): 7. Israel's God and Rebecca's Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity : Essays in Honor of Larry W. Hurtado and Alan F. Segal. David B. Capes. Baylor University Press, 2007. Page 322.--Ciphers00 (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You have one source that claims that: "Islam sees Paul as the founder of apostate Christianity". That is also a qualifier on the claim that Paul founded Christianity, and it is only Islam, and only one source. I have to agree with Jeppiz on it being WP:SYNT. tahc ^chat 17:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You are confused. The view of Muslims is already given in the Islamic view section of the article. This section perfectly supports my change of the lead. My change, which is "Paul is generally regarded by Muslims and many non-Christians to have been the founder of Christianity", is perfectly supported by these sources in that section and by the additional seven sources here.--Ciphers00 (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

What is "the method Philo the Alexandrian Jew" ? What is this method? Is this a reliable source? What is the Philo's "Essene" method?

Today, an user called 2602:306:cf39:c8b0:a185:e3bc:2108:278a published the following:

"The latest research into the life of Paul disputes his claim of conversion. In 2015, independent researchers P.J. Gott and Logan Licht reported evidence they discovered that suggests the books of the New Testament were written in "enigmatical modes of expression," the method Philo the Alexandrian Jew attributes to the Essene sect of Judaism. Josephus the Jewish historian writes, “The Essenes also, as we call a sect of ours…live the same kind of life as do those whom the Greeks call Pythagoreans…” " The Greek historian Plutarch ties "Pythagoreans" and "enigmatical modes of expression" together: "Pythagoras greatly admired the Egyptian priests, and, copying their symbolism and secret teachings, incorporated his doctrines in enigmas." After testing Philo's "Essene" method as reconstructed by heresy-hunters in the 17th century, they conclude that Acts' "Paulus also known as Saulus" was the same "Saulus" Josephus blames for the events that led to the destruction of the Temple in 70.<refJosephus, 1999, Antiquities 20.9.4 (214), 657></ref> Paulus' biological father was Lucius Aemilius Paulus, a prominent Roman, but he was adopted and raised by the Nasi Gamaliel: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3)."

Is this true? The text has some mistakes. There must be a period where it is written: "was the same "Saulus" (period) Josephus.... And a reference lacks of this < ref >; in other part of the text there are two quotation together, etc...Rafaelosornio (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Apparent lack of brain power

This entire article is mashed up like milk with potatos. If anybody can de-reverse the chronology of Paul coming to and from "Damascus" while simultaneously being in Jerusalem when Jesus was there and Paul would have seen him in the flesh, instead of after he went to heaven and then appeared in a vision later on to him, I am all EARS. If you have ears to hear with, so be it.

Seriously, people, can't you see how fabricated that is? The logical sequence of order doesn't apply to Paul.

All written history dates back to the 6th century BCE, which was Buddha. the 3rd century is the greeks, who borrowed ideas from the Hindus. The greeks also translated the so called books of the jews, called the Bible or OT. There are no manuscripts dating from before 300 BCE of a Jewish text that actually exists today.

Let me repeat this so that you can make no mistake about it: there are no ancient manuscript papers or evidence of any jewish writing pre dating about 300 BC or BCE.

88.105.85.115 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Dr Nature

Puzzled by this edit

@Telpardec, I'm puzzled by this edit. Care to explain? SageGreenRider ^talk 21:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Physical appearance (1Cor 15:8)

I believe when he was talking about born abnormally, he was using a metaphor to explain his status as the follower of Christ. Firebird2099 (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Date styling

Wikipedia needs to be uniform in the use of the secular style BCE and CE rather than BC and AD. David Cary Hart (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

An interesting point. Though I haven't found a Wikipedia policy about it. Uniformity might be a good thing - but if so, I'd vote to stick with BC/AD simply on the personal subjective grounds that I like it, that BCE/CE feels (to me) like mere fashionable PC-ism, and that an English Language Wikipedia has a Christian language heritage even if Wikipedia is itself, quite rightly, a secular entity. All such views however are subjective, thus I wouldn't go to the gallows for mine! Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a policy or guideline about this, see MOS:ERA. Either BC/AD or BCE/CE are acceptable but obviously each article should follow one or the other throughout. The guideline states that the style should not be changed in an article without discussion on the talk page and a reason given why the change is appropriate for the particular article ( not "I like BC or BCE better".)Smeat75 (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

BC/AD is appropriate for an article about a biblical figure, considering the calendar is based on the birth of Jesus. Eodcarl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Saul was NOT a Jew!!!

In the beginning of the wiki description, Saul is said to be a Jew. This is patently incorrect. Saul was a Gentile, and a Pharisee. A Seleucid. Usurpers of the true Priests of the Temple. Blood kin to the Herod clan, and eventual defiler of the Jewish Tradition. He defines himself in Acts as a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. Thus, a Herodonian. Please try to correct this misnomer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.57.203 (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Source? Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that the pharisees were not Jews? Anyway, Paul was an Israelite from the tribe of Benjamin, as you can read both in the book of Acts (13:21) and in Paul's own epistles (Romans 11:11, Philippians 3:5). - Lindert (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Temporal Lobe Epilepsy?

The following sources speculate that St.Paul's behavior could be explained by temporal lobe epilepsy

Schachter S: Religion and the Brain: Evidence from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, in Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Re- ligion, Vol 2. Edited by McNamara P. Westport, CT, Praeger, 2006, pp 171–18

Landsborough D: St Paul and temporal lobe epilepsy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1987; 50:659–664

Murray, Cunningham, Price:The Role of Psychotic Disorders in Religious History Considered J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 24:4, Fall 2012

Should a section be added?

Wikipedia is not a place for new speculation. tahc ^chat 19:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

2006, 1987 and 2012 is "new speculation"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergstrom (talk • contribs) 22:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

How many Bible Encyclopedias and/or undergraduate textbooks discuss it? Since this article is already over-long by much, I think any new topic should be found in at least 50% of Bible Encyclopedias articles on Paul and/or 75% of undergraduate level textbooks on Paul. tahc ^chat 23:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. "Bible Encyclopedias" often recycle dated ideas and are not particularly reliable sources. Dimadick (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not (in this case) a matter of having the most reliable sources possible-- it is a matter of limiting the topics covered in the article. This article is much to long, not too short. WP:OR says under "Tertiary sources... Policy" that "...tertiary sources... may be helpful in evaluating due weight".

If this were even a needed topic for the article on Paul, then we would want to cite reliable sources as indicated in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). tahc ^chat 19:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Pauls conversion 1 Thes 1:9-10?

In the section 5.1 "Basic Message" the author writes: "The resurrection of Jesus was of primary importance to Paul, as may be seen in his first letter to the Thessalonians[1 Thes. 1:9–10] which is the earliest surviving account of Paul's conversion (my emphasis added).

Paul does not refer to himself in these two verses and reading it in context of the whole chapter it is apparent that he is writing about the conversion of the people he is addressing this letter to: the members there. It seems therefore to me to be better to delete that part of the sentence after the reference to 1 Thes. 1:9-10. Leave the bulletpoints of the list of Basics basic: this addendum after the reference is a irrelevant side-track, apart from being an incorrect statement.

213.114.39.148 (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Per Nordin

It's a misreading of the source used here, this article at the Encyclopedia Britannica. The source says "the earliest surviving account of conversion to the Christian movement.". I've corrected the sentence now, but feel free to remove that part; remember to be bold. - Lindert (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Islamic views

There's two issues with this section. Part of the sources are simply Christian polemics against Islam. Christian polemics can be used to represent the views of Christians, but shouldn't be used to represent the views of Islamic scholars on Christianity.

Second is that "Islamic views" represent merely criticism of Paul by Muslim thinkers in both medieval and contemporary times. They don't actually present an Islamic position. Even though Paul preceded Islam by several centuries, there's nothing in the Qur'an or hadith about him. If there was, it would certainly belong in such a section. But the criticism by Muslim thinkers is really no different than criticism by Western thinkers, like Thomas Jefferson, and in some case the Muslim thinkers simply borrowed the ideas of Western thinkers. So perhaps this should be put in a section on "Criticism".Bless sins (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Date Inconsistency of Council of Jerusalem

Section 3.7 (Council of Jerusalem) dates the council "some time in the years 50–51". However in section 3.9 (Second missionary journey) it is stated that Paul left Jerusalem "in late Autumn 49, after the meeting of the Council of Jerusalem" which is chronologically inconsistent. Although both statements are backed up with a literature reference, consistency should be maintained throughout the article. 217.92.126.31 (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paul the Apostle. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132009314600/http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-did-god-change-sauls-name-to-paul to http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-did-god-change-sauls-name-to-paul
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1728
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/spong7%268.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul the Apostle. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030000303/http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-did-god-change-sauls-name-to-paul to http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-did-god-change-sauls-name-to-paul

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Author of Romans

What is this assertion made in the article in reference to the Epistle of Romans?

"professor Gary Burge concludes that thus the epistle's author is unknown"

I read your citation at this link. Burge only states that the book was penned by Tertius, and discusses what this meant. Nowhere does he make the claim that the author is not Paul or that the author is unknown.

The authorship of Romans is not a matter of dispute. C.E.B. Cranfield states that,

"Today no responsible criticism disputes its Pauline origin." Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans 1–8 (Vol. 1), International Critical Commentary Series. King's Lynn: T&T Clark Ltd, 2004, pp. 1–2

I am a dedicated Wikipedia reader, and without being unjustly emotional about this, I am in serious doubt of how useful this habit of mine is if bologna like this can be found in an article about such a high-profile individual as the Apostle Paul. This is not merely a careless error, but deliberate and foolish misinterpretation. Burge doesn't even mention some "unknown" person, author or penman. He knows both the author and the penman, and doesn't state that any other person is unknown.

If, somehow, I am misinterpreting this article's claim, I would retract this statement. But the words, "the epistle's author is unknown," can not be correctly interpreted any other way.

--2602:306:30C9:6E20:7195:7E5D:30C2:DF6A (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sir, are your posts regarding Biblical characters made in good faith to their veracity and the wisdom of their writings? --Schipman3 (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to ask about good faith. You should assume it. See WP:AGF. Alephb (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have "faith" in the veracity of the writings of Paul. In general, historians do not have to have any preconceived faith in the texts they are studying, but they critically examine them, see historical method, higher criticism and lower criticism for details. But I do my best to present the mainstream academic views about these writings according to WP:DUE. This is not an website for discussing our personal faith, it is meant for rendering academic learning, which includes objective knowledge about religious faiths. Tgeorgescu (talk)

Mom?

Moved here for clarification: "Paul refers to his mother in Romans 16:13 as among those at Rome."

• NRSV says: "Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; and greet his mother—a mother to me also."
• NAB: "Greet Rufus,* chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine."
• KJV: "Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.

Several others convey it as not referring to his biological mother, but a woman who has been like a mother to him.[4] Mannanan51 (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2017

Please add this section:

Paul’s Divine Visions Paul received several divine visions, including those recorded at Acts 9:3 – 12 where Paul was on the road to Damascus to round up Christians to imprison them (of a “…light from heaven…” (v. 3) and the voice of “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting…” (v. 5 ) which vision led to Paul’s conversion, Acts 16:9 – 10 (of a man begging Paul to “Come over to Macedonia and help us. “ (v. 9), Acts 18: 9 – 10 (of the Lord speaking to Paul encouraging him to be brave and steadfast while preaching in Corinth, “For I am with you, and no one is going to attack or harm you…” (v. 9), Acts 22:17 – 21 (of the Lord speaking to Paul to “Leave Jerusalem immediately…” (v. 18), for “I will send you far away to the Gentiles.” (v. 21) , Acts 23:11 (of the Lord speaking to Paul telling him “…you must also testify in Rome.” (v. 11), and Acts 27:23 – 24 (of an angel appearing to Paul telling him that although the ship he was sailing on would run aground, Paul would make it to Rome, allowing him to “… stand trial before Caesar” (v. 23). Paul had one more especially dramatic and mysterious vision, as recorded in 2 Corinthians: 12:1 – 9. In this vision, Paul wrote that he had been “…caught up to the third heaven.” (v. 2) Distinguished Bible commentators, such as Charles Ellicott (1819 – 1905) and Joseph Benson (1749 – 1821) have opined in their commentaries for these verses, as presented on the biblehub.com Bible study website, that the “…third heaven…” Paul speaks of, refers to that where God resides or is made manifest. Also referring to the third heaven as “…paradise…” (v. 4), Paul also related that he heard “…inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.” (v. 4) So that Paul would not become “…conceited…” (v. 7), for having been blessed with this experience, Paul was “…given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.” (v. 7) Paul “…pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me.” (v. 8) But the Lord said to Paul, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness.” (v. 9). (All quotes per NIV.) Commentators have speculated through the ages what all this vision may convey to believers. Wanttohelpjim (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)P

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Nihlus 03:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Historicity and evidence on Paul

There is not section in this article relating to the historicity of Paul or any modern scientific research done on him. This is a big lacuna as both are a significant topic of research and without consensus in the case of the former.

There is no mention of the hypothesis that he had epilepsy, for example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1032067/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boddika (talk • contribs) 11:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

See WP:DUE: we don't mention any random hypothesis which got no traction from Bible scholars/historians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Paul the Apostle. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/paul.stm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429090440/http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Paul_Arabia_Elijah.pdf to http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Paul_Arabia_Elijah.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424185441/http://fuller.edu/academics/faculty/daniel-kirk.aspx to http://www.fuller.edu/academics/faculty/daniel-kirk.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012170617/http://zenit.org/rssenglish-20538 to http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-20538
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217101909/http://www.parsagard.com/shipwreck.htm to http://www.parsagard.com/shipwreck.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Bigoted material in the "Muslim views" section

The "Muslim views" section contains bigoted anti-Jew, anti-Shiite, and anti-Christian material. Mksword (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2018

Pauls Physical appearance was identical to that of an Egyptian of that day according to Acts 21:38 Art thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar...." There are no Canonized apocryphal writings describing Paul in the manner described on the current Wikipedia page. The 14 Cannonized Apocraphyal books were written well before Paul ever existed. Lordvanwells (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the No Original Research policy. Personal interpretations of Bible verses are still considered original research and the article doesn't actually contradict this description of Paul. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

THORN IN THE FLESH

In 2 Corinthians 12:7 Paul says And Lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet (torment) me, lest I should be exalted above measure. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. However, the Lord did not. Earlier in verse 12:5 of the KJV Paul discusses it as his personal infirmity (sickness). Any person today who would claim to have a messenger from Satan tormenting them Audibly and/or Visibly would be easily diagnosed as having a common mental infirmity. Common Scitzofrenia Symptoms include hearing internal voices, having false beliefs, disorganized thoughts and behavior, being emotionally flat, and having hallucinations. These symptoms may explain some of Pauls drastic doctrinal differences from the other 11 disiples who actually walked with Christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordvanwells (talk • contribs) 17:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Remains

In 4.1, I got the impression that Paul's remains/tomb were discovered in 2002. The articles cited could be substituted for better ones... but the ones linked seem to say that this was the location that was traditionally considered his resting place. And not that this was some new and exciting discovery. Just some Vatican excavation which semi-confirmed tradition. Remains section, as is, a bit misleading. Temerarius (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

LGBT and feminist version of Paul

The LGBT and feminist interpretations in the texts need to be removed. I am not a Christian but it is clear that these are just impositions driven by ideology and not reality.49.206.13.166 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Any specific bits you object to? Alephb (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

On the Imminent Return of Jesus Christ

@Shoy:. The article used to read that "Paul believed that Jesus would return during his lifetime". Now it reads that, "According to Bart Ehrman, Paul believed that Jesus would return during his lifetime" [5]. Now, a quick search shows that Bart Ehrman is far from alone in thinking this. I think, but don't know, that this is in fact the majority opinion on Pau's expectation. I know it's not just Bart Ehrman. I was wondering whether Shoy or anyone else who knows Pauline scholarship better than I do could suggest a fair way to word this that doesn't risk giving the impression that it's just Bart Ehrman's personal idea that Paul believed in the imminent return of Jesus. Alephb (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"According to some scholars (I don't know if you need to specify which or whom)...Paul believed that Jesus would return during his lifetime"

I'm thinking that's what I'd do -- maybe add two citations and just go with "some scholars" unless I can find a clear statement somewhere along the lines of "most scholars think this" or "most scholars think that". Alephb (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Alephb: I haven't done an exhaustive search. I would be fine with the way the article was worded originally if more sources can be found. I am just a little leery of making a statement like that sourced to a single author, especially one who in my mind has a particular POV. shoy (reactions) 13:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Shoy:, I'm not sure why I can't seem to find any kind of clear statement one way or the other, like "most scholars do/don't think Paul expected Jesus to return in his lifetime", which is odd. Turn me loose on the Hebrew Bible and I'll find a statement on consensus for all sorts of questions. And when I do find something along those lines, the wording seems to always have some vagueness. Here's an example:

Stephen L. Cook (1 September 2011). The Apocalyptic Literature: Interpreting Biblical Texts Series. Abingdon Press. p. 30. ISBN 978-1-4267-5088-5. "The raging debate about Jesus shows no sign of resolution, but more agreement is in place about apocalypticism elsewhere in Christianity's development. A general scholarly consensus accepts that dramatic apocalyptic expectations propelled Jesus' immediate predecessor, John the Baptizer. An apocalyptic imagination was also a driving force behind the work of Paul of Tarsus, Jesus' most influential successor."

"An apocalyptic imagination was also a driving force." Okay, fine. But could they tell us in English what that means. Alephb (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Stendahl, Sanders, Hays

No Stendahl and his argument that a doctrine of faith was hammered out by Paul for the very specific and limited pupose of defending the rights of Gentile converts to be full and genuine heirs to the promise of God to Israel; only E. P. Sanders' publications[122] have since been taken up by Professor James Dunn who coined the phrase "The New Perspective on Paul".[123] on Sanders (except from the info he wrote for the Britannica) - which publications?; and nothing on Hays and the Pistis Christou debate. Ai... I don't think this article is B-class, but C-class:

The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, see Neil Elliott, Taking the Measure of an Earthquake: Comments on the 40th-Anniversary Edition of Paul and Palestinian Judaism:

Perhaps no one has stated the impact of this book better than Daniel Marguerat, who wrote in 2003 that the landscape of Pauline studies today resembles a city “devastated by an earthquake,” in the aftermath of which “people scurry about in every direction, some assessing the damage, others verifying what still stands. Everyone takes the measure of the changes to come, but no one dares to build again, out of fear of a new shock.”

And Michael J. Gorman:

His 1977 book Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion sparked a revolution in Pauline studies

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Pauline Christianity

It seems to me that Pauline Christianity is strongly redundant with this article. Pauline Christianity#Influence and Pauline Christianity#Criticism of the "Pauline Christianity"-thesis could be moved to this article, keeping "Pauline Christianity" as a redirect. @Epinoia, Wallingfordtoday, Editor2020, and Mathglot: any thoughts? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Moderately oppose - it seems to me that a biography of Paul the Apostle is a different topic than Pauline Christianity - the articles could be edited for overlap - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current article will be too long with the addition of more materials in the 'Pauline Christianity'. Also, it is a separate hot topic for some Messianic Jews. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Is it not true that the article on Paul the Apostle is a broader page, and more specific topics under this umbrella can receive specialized articles like Pauline Christianity? Wallingfordtoday (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sure. It's just that there is very little substantial info at this page, right now. So, I figured, why keep a separate page? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is jock full of incomplete pages that can be absorbed into broader pages, but that's not a problem as it isn't the size of the page but the topic that determines whether or not a page should exist.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)