Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Saint Paul information dispute

Some have edited information on Saint Paul and I would like to discuss it here.

I enjoy writing information on Saint Paul; however it does me no good to write about his first letter, which was intended to explain the coming Apocalypse, when someone will edit it because it does not reflect well with their current religious view.

All sources and objections are welcome. Please keep them objective mind you, attacks on authors, sources, etc will not be allowed, all information disputed should be disputed with other information, not ad hominem fallacies where one attacks an author because it conflicts with the biblical work "acts".

If we are to interpret scripture literally, we must also say Saint Paul believed Jesus arose from the dead and no one saw him. This is indeed how Saint Paul viewed the resurrection. This unfortunately goes against each gospel account of Jesus' resurrection. This is STILL NOT GROUNDS FOR ALTERATION.

Biblical1 18:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Read 1 Corinthians 15, 4-8. Paul give a whole list of witnesses of the Resurrection, all in all 514 persons. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I suppose my ignorance of Paul's view of the ressurection has been exposed. I am only aware of the controversy surrounding his view of the tomb.

In the Mark version of this very important passage, the women are going to go and anoint the body. By the way, remember, there's no tomb in Paul at all. So this is a completely new version of the story, from what we saw in Paul. There's no tomb in Paul. In Paul we have "raise from the dead"; we have appearances; what we don't have is the empty tomb. Mark is the first time we see that. But when we see it, Mark has the women planning to go to the tomb, literally go inside the tomb and work on the body for funerary practices, anointing. These were very standard funerary practices

Matthew, on the other hand, does something different. Look what happens. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb, when they buried. And after the sabbath, on the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. Are they going inside? No. They're not. Why aren't they going inside? Because in Matthew, we have that passage now interceding. That's not there in Mark. And it's the story of how they put a guard at the tomb so that no one could steal the body. That's in Matthew. And not only is it not in Mark; it's not possible in Mark's construction of the narrative. Do you see that? What's happening? We've moved from a very skeletal outline of the passion and resurrection, that Paul believes is absolutely true. But in the process, the story is gaining layers.

The above is a transcript from Michael White's presentation at Harvard in 1998. Some have attacked "PBS" and said it is an unreliable network. Fortunately the information is only hosted on their website, and the information itself comes from acadamia.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/symposium/historical.html Biblical1 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Biblical, the above cannot be taken very seriously, when it includes "there is no tomb in Paul at all". Whoever can utter nonsense like that has lost all credibility.

Paul repeatedly proclaims Jesus as having risen from the dead - where is it that the dead usually are?

With White's reasoning I can create a contradiction between A, saying that his mother is dead, and B, saying that A's mother is buried in the cemetary.

Having said that, look up the 1 Corinthians 15 passage again and you will see that Paul actually says that Jesus was "buried" (verse 4) - now where was he buried.

The differences between the gospel accounts are real, but in this case very slender and stemming from the fact that each writer wrote an account of his own. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that while Paul speaks of a resurrection no doubt, he never speaks of a physical resurrection, only a spiritual. Meaning that I think if you could ask Paul, he'd tell you that Jesus' body was indeed buried in a tomb. In other words, there is no empty tomb in PaulJPotter 20:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Facinating. Never heard of the Gospel of Paul before. BTW the resurection as described in the "Gospel" accounts does not contradict a spiritual resurection (different appearances ect) Agathoclea 21:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would ask everyone before he writes such fascinating stuff as Jason to read the passage I have cited above, 1 Corintian 15 - died, buried, rose from the dead seems pretty physical to me. To distinguish between a physical resurrection in the Gospels and a spiritual resurrection (whatever that is supposed to mean) in Paul is artificial. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone cool down, and keep in mind WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. We can all give our personal interpretations of the text till the cows come home. It isn't going to help. We need sources to back up anything that goes in the article. (And because I always manage to find myself in the middle of debate, I'll refer people to a scholarly article that speculates that Str1977's verse is a later interpolation).--Andrew c 21:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I am (relatively) calm. I merely object against WP being dunked in nonsense, even if it comes from people with a degree. It still remains nonsense. And yes, I am also bugged by everyone thinking to come up with "(his) understanding" or, as you term it, "personal interpretations". Let's stay on the ground. Let's not switch off our brains. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea that Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical one as per the gospels certainly isn't my idea. I am just sharing what my studies and professors have said, certainly there is debate in the Christian and secular community regarding the interpretation of Cor 15. Str1977, please do not refer to anyone's comments as nonsense. Or be bugged by one's interpretion of scripture. At any rate, it won't be hard to show that there is debate regarding the interpretation of Cor 15 and that a large segment of thought indicates that no where does Paul speak of a physical resurrection, much unlike the gospels. JPotter 21:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[1],[2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jason Potter (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 July 2006.

Wikipedia is not the place to call POVs nonsense (maybe on the talk pages, sure, but never in an article). Part of NPOV is to, yes, even present nonsense. However, we have to keep in mind undue weight. We shouldn't focus too much on minority views, and we need to state exactly who holds the views and how prevelent they are. I'd say one or two crack pots with a website do not deserve wikipedia consideration, but a group of scholars who speculate on a mythical Jesus, however much we may disagree with them, do deserve some mention, IF properly cited, AND not given undue weight. --Andrew c 21:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, my instinct is telling me that those who interpret Paul as referring to a spiritual resurrection is more substantial than the Jesus mythicists. JPotter 22:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Over the past five years, I have tracked well over two thousand scholarly publications on the resurrection. Each source appeared between 1975 and the present, in German, French, or English, written by a wide range of critical scholars....As firmly as ever, most contemporary scholars agree that, after Jesus' death, his early followers had experiences that they at least believed were appearances of their risen Lord. Further, this conviction was the chief motivation behind the early proclamation of the Christian gospel. These basics are rarely questioned, even by more radical scholars. They are among the most widely established details from the entire New Testament....This [the belief that the earliest Christians thought they saw Jesus risen from the dead] has been a mainstay of critical thought since nineteenth-century German theology....More recently, James D.G. Dunn agreed: 'It is almost impossible to dispute that at the historical roots of Christianity lie some visionary experiences of the first Christians, who understood them as appearances of Jesus, raised by God from the dead.'...I have argued elsewhere that, while they still hold a decidedly minority position among the total number of commentators, recent decades have revealed a slight increase in scholars who espouse naturalistic hypotheses to account for Jesus' resurrection....As it was at the end of nineteenth-century German liberalism, as well as at the end of the twentieth century, probably the single most popular alternative to Jesus' resurrection was the hallucination, or subjective vision, theory....After a hiatus of many decades, arguably almost a century, the subjective vision theory has made a comeback....One old standby, the swoon or apparent death theory, has even appeared in a few places recently, although it is seldom espoused by scholars....Each of the naturalistic theories was attacked piece by piece by the liberal scholars in the nineteenth century, as each criticized the others' approaches. In the twentieth century, critical scholarship has largely rejected wholesale the naturalistic approaches to the resurrection....Exhibiting an amazing amount of consensus, most researchers across a very wide conceptual spectrum have rejected naturalistic approaches as explanations for the earliest Christians' belief in the resurrection of Jesus....Accordingly, the path of natural alternative theories is definitely a minority approach....Even before the publication of N.T. Wright's monumental volume The Resurrection of the Son of God in 2003, the tide had begun to turn toward the view that Jesus not only was raised miraculously from the dead but also appeared in a spiritual body. So, the resurrection is an event that happened to Jesus, rather than either an internal experience or a natural occurrence. The risen Jesus featured both bodily continuity, including qualities that could be observed and perhaps even touched, as well as transformed discontinuity. Thus, Jesus appeared as far more than a vision of light from heaven. Further, it was usually held that firm historical evidence accompanied these appearances....While sporting a few new wrinkles as well as some improvements, the view that Jesus was raised bodily is currently the predominant position, if judged in terms of scholarly support. Moreover, some scholars who reject this view still hold that it was at least the New Testament position, including Paul's own teaching. This is a marked change from recent decades when Paul's view was often interpreted far differently....less than one-quarter of critical scholars who addressed the historicity question offered naturalistic theories...The almost three-quarters of remaining scholars hold either of the two views that Jesus was raised from the dead in some sense....[more than three-quarters of these people] take the position that Jesus was resurrected in a real, though still transformed, body...The supernatural view that Jesus rose from the dead in one of two senses is a distinct majority position over the natural option (almost three to one). Very surprisingly, while the supernatural internal category (the old 'objective vision theory') was the most popular among scholars through the middle to late twentieth century, it has been relegated to a minority response in recent years, in favor of bodily appearances of the risen Jesus (more than three to one)." (Robert Stewart, ed., The Resurrection of Jesus [Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2006], pp. 78-80, 82-84, 86, 88, 90-92)

---

On Jesus being crucified

"I don't know what he was actually saying about the Kingdom of God, but if we can infer from the bits and pieces we have from the gospel stories, and also what we have in Josephus and other Jewish contemporary records of what other Jews are saying about the Kingdom of God, he might have been saying that it was on its way. That it was coming. That perhaps it was even coming that Passover. And we're seeing this now in American culture with certain kinds of fundamentalist forms of Christianity. If you really think the end of the world is at hand, that has a kind of liberating and frantic energy that goes along with it. It's not good for quiet crowds and social stability. And given the emotional and religious tenor of this holiday, anyway, to have somebody preaching that the Kingdom of God was really on its way, perhaps ... within that very holiday... [is]the equivalent of shouting, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It would be enough to get somebody in trouble. Even if everybody knew perfectly well that he was not a revolutionary leader." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/arrest.html

On historical accuracy of the Gospels

So where do the Christian Gospels fit in all of this? They are without doubt some of the earliest sources we possess regarding the life and death of Jesus. Some are earlier than, or at least contemporaneous with, Josephus: almost all are earlier than Tacitus. But they still come from a considerably later period than Jesus himself. The earliest is the Gospel of Mark, which was written sometime between 69 and 75 CE... Thus all the Gospels come from a period at least forty years - or one full generation - after the death of Jesus. In fact, they come after the first revolt. The latest, the Gospel of John, might be from a full century later... .. Jesus himself wrote nothing and left no direct archaeological evidence on the landscape of Judea. It is as if no one really cared to keep a record at the time, but later, after the movement had started to take off, people began to reflect on Jesus’ life, what happened to him, and why… Thus, these later sources – and here we must include the Gospels- reflect ideas and issues that were not at work in Jesus’ own day or at the time of his death.. .. The Gospels are not "histories" as such, at least not in any modern sense. Rather, they fall into the ancient literary category known as "lives", such as were written of Alexander the Great and other famous people. It is quite common in such literature to embellish the story with fanciful or romantic details, some of which might or might not be true. Many times the sources were oral traditions, legends, and exaggerations that grew up to fit the fame or persona of the character in later times... In like manner, the Gospels were written as "lives" of Jesus as the founder of the Christian movement. They are thus products of later reflection of his light in light of the importance that later believers placed on him. They are, in that sense, expressions of the faith of those early Christians who told and retold the story of Jesus in the later decades of the first century. … Matthew 28 11:-15 clearly reflects a similar effort on the part of Christians. The story concerns the guards stationed at the tomb of Jesus, who were bribed to say that his body was merely stolen. But this account only appears in Matthew and ends with a telling comment: “And this story is still told among the Jews to this day (Matt 28:15). Thus, the author has given us a subconscious clue that reflects an effort to refute later Jewish polemics that had begun to circulate by the time the Gospel came to be written. It too is a secondary reaction, not a primary fact."

On the Gospels with Jesus' Death & Resurrection

The Gospels disagree dramatically regarding the cause of the arrest and execution and the role of various Jewish groups. Mark II suggests that the "cleansing of the Temple" was the cause and that the priests were behind his demise (cf. Mark 15:11). In John's Gospel, however, the "cleansing" occurs two full years before Jesus' death and has no direct role in his arrest (cf. John 2:13-22). Matthew 21 seems to make the "triumphal entry" the cause and the priests along with the Pharisees the chief instigators (cf. Matt 21:45-46). There are numerous other differences between the accounts. .... All the Gospels agree that Jesus rose from the tomb on the third day and appeared to his disciples. Historical considerations: The Gospels differ on numerous details. Only Matthew has the account of guards being placed around the tomb. Mark and Matthew have the post resurrection appearances occur only in Galilee. Luke has the appearances occur only in and around Jerusalem. John has some of both. Luke also adds that Jesus was present for forty more days after the resurrection before he ascended (Acts 1:3-12)"

On Paul's vision of Jesus and his apocalyptic view

But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being... (Gal 1:15-16)

The terms that Paul employs here to refer to the nature of his experience are important. In Galatians he uses "to reveal (Greek apokalypsai), the verb form of the word "apocalypse" or "revelation". ...Paul indicates that he is quite accustomed to having such revelatory visions, in keeping with the apocalyptic and magicial religious environment out of which he came. For example, when Paul went to Jerusalem for the second time to consult with Peter and James on the issue of Gentiles, he says that he "went up by revelation" (Gal 2:1). Elsewhere he refers to having other "visions/appearances and revelations" (2 Cor. 12:1), following which he goes on to describe one such experience where he was "caught up into the third heaven" and saw paradise (2 Cor.12:2-5). This last description is very much in line with Jewish apocalyptic tradition of heavenly ascents and visions.

Interesting Tidbits/Paul's proclamation he can write with his own hand

We know also from several comments that Paul employed such scribes for his letter writing. The most obvious occurs in Romans 16:22, when his scribe Tertius offers his own greetings. So too Paul on several occasions says something like, “See what large letters I make when I am writing in my own hand!” (Gal. 6:11) or “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand” (1. Cor.16:21). In these cases we must imagine him at that point taking the pen from the scribe and writing a personal greeting in his own, distinctive handwriting, similar to what we see very often in the papyri. It is unfortunate that none of the originals of Paul's letters have survived, for we would be able to get a glimpse of him, at least as the "second hand".

Origen claimed Josephus did not believe in Jesus (Origen Commentary on Matthew 10.17; Against Celsus 1.47)

Thomas Jefferson, to John Adams in 1813 on his project to uncover the historical Jesus:

"We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select even from them, the very words only of Jesus paring off the amphiboligisms [sic, ambiguities] into which they [the Evangelists] have been led... I have performed this operation at my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and by arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as distinguish able as diamonds in a dunghill" (Letter to John Adams, 13 October 1813. quoted from the Jefferson Bible, 17)

Origins of the word Christianity/Christians

So when we look again at this distinctive, new term "Christian" (Christianoi) what does it mean and where does it come from? The term is clearly derived from christos, the ordinary, Greek translation for the Hebrew title messiah. .. and scholars now think that this term [Christianismos)]was coined, not by the Christians themselves, but rather by Roman officials in Greek cities like Antioch, who used it in a derogatory way. It was a slur hurled at the followers of Jesus by outsiders. So it remains unclear whether it initially was meant to label them as "the party of Jesus who is called the Christ" or simply as "the party that espouses messianism". Only much later would this slur be revalorized as badge of honor and internalized to become the new name of the movement. .. the term "Christian" was first used in Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria, a thoroughly Greek city. Nor is it clear when this new title arose. It might easily have been forty to fifty years or more after the death of Jesus. The missionary Paul, who lived and worked in Antioch for quite some time (Gal. 1:21-2:14) never uses the term; nor does it appear in any source. Christian or otherwise, prior to the time Acts was written. Finally, the derived name "Christianity" (Christianismos), as a designation for the religious itself, does not appear before about 112-115, interestingly enough also with a connection to Antioch. (The source here is Ignatius, the Christian bishop of Antioch, who wrote letters to the churches in Asia Minor and Rome while en route to a martyr's death in Rome. For his use of the term Christianismos see Ign. Magn. 10-1-3, where it is specifically set alongside of "Judaism" (Ioudaismos)).....

Paul and Peter's showdown in Antioch/Peter and Judaism

Shortly thereafter Peter came to Antioch, probably to check out the situation there and perhaps to do some follow-up work among the exclusively Jewish congregations of the Jesus movement. That too seems to have been one of the agreements struck in the meet at Jerusalem (Gal.2:7-8). Perhaps this was to assuage the stricter among them while allowing Paul's mixed cellgroups to continue operating within their social orbit. But the results were disastrous:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned: for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like the Jews? (Gal 2:11-14)

Initially, it seems, Peter had moved freely between the different factions, even to the point of joining in the dinners of Paul's mixed groups. Then some other Jewish followers of the movement came to Jerusalem - "from James " - and caused Peter to draw back from fellowship involving uncircumcised Gentiles. It seems that James's emissaries had aligned with stricter Jewish cells at Antioch and intimidated other Jews, including Peter. Much to Paul's chagrin, even Barnabas turned on him.

Paul must have realized the implications quickly. His hard-fought efforts to secure a place for Gentiles in the Jesus fellowship were about to face total rejection even by those Jews who had formerly been sympathetic. Paul lashed out. Whether he first implored Barnabas and others to give it another chance is not reported. Whether he once again passionately defended his own understanding of the commission "revealed by God" (Gal. 1:16;2:2,7) is not reported. It came down finally to a confrontation with Peter himself. Paul now erupted. Peter "stood condemned" of hypocrisy, and Paul told him so to his face in front of witnesses (Gal. 2:11,13-14). What follows in Galatians 2:15-21 may well represent what Paul wished he had said to justify his position. But the reality was far different; nor was it a mere difference of opinion. Paul persuaded no one, not even Barnabas, who, according to later legends, became a protégé of Peter.(Cf. Acts 15:36-41, which has Paul part ways with Barnabas over the helper named John Mark, who had been associated earlier with Peter and James in Jerusalem (Acts12:12-17)). The blowup with Peter was a total failure of political bravado, and Paul soon left Antioch as persona non grata, never again to return. It has been suggested that Jerusalem was trying to extend its authority over Antioch, but the attitude of the local Jewish followers of the movement must also be taken into account. The picture in Acts shows that the church in Antioch later viewed the relationship in these terms, while consciously playing down the rift between Peter and Paul. What happened to Paul's mixed Jewish and gentile enclaves remains unclear, but one must suspect that the "circumcision party" prevailed. (cryptic comment in Gal 5:11). For Paul the immediate result was clear. He had to leave Antioch. He chose to embark on a new mission where there was not such a strong and traditional Jewish community. He would go west, toward Greece and Rome, where he could work independently as "missionary" or "apostle" to the Gentiles.

From Jesus to Christianity, L Michael White, HarperCollinsPublishers, 2004 (How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers created the New Testament and Christian Faith)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/etc/bios.html#white

Introduction

We need to talk about your revert to the introduction. I have made the following changes, which you seem to dislike. First, I cleaned up a lot of information that didn’t belong there. I don’t object to this information, but it is not needed in the introduction. All the business about Paul’s eschatology is misplaced in the introduction – make an eschatology section if you want. That Paul “did not originate the idea (of gentile Judaism)” is unnecessary. If all Paul did, according to you, was continue an earlier idea, then all one needs to mention are his changes to that idea (thus put in the stuff about the Jewish law). Again, if you want to mention the gentile dimension of Judaism, and Paul’s relation to it, make a section and put it there, but not in the intro. Also, I didn’t like the “then came his Road to Damascus experience”, I rather preferred my “until his experience on the Road to Damascus” because it sounds less “story-ish” and more encyclopaedic, if you know what I mean. Lastly, I don’t think you need to say what Messiah means since it is linked to the proper article. Lostcaesar 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Rework of the Article

I just performed a major, and very time consuming, reorganization of this article. Over the past few weeks I have watched all sorts of information, most of it dubious, make its way into various inappropriate sections of the article. In the intro there was a discussion of Paul's eschatology. In the writings section there was talk about Gnosticism and Irenaeus. There was also discussion of Revelation (why?). I have reorganized all this, and made the proper sections. Let me advice everyone that I have a reluctance to delete information, and for this reason much that was said remained, although I think it poor. So, before anyone overreacts and reintroduces information, please 'read the article and see if it is already more or less covered. If anyone just tosses more crap in here that is already covered (like another description of the Road to Damascus, even though there is a lengthy section in the article on it, a separate article dedicated to it, and a mention in the introduction) then I will find where you live and bring scholarly wrath upon you. Let me say that I actually changed very little, although the writings section had pov issues, and I encourage everyone to examine my changes (remember, much of this information, which was theological, was simply moved around). Also, let me give two warnings. There were many references from this "pbs" site that were just absurd – I left what I could honestly leave in the article, but please don't reintroduce this crap as though it were stone fact. Also, a fellow named MacDonald gets tremendous play in this article, indeed the entire "legends" section is entirely about his thesis. I don't recall taking any of his stuff out, but it seems odd, and I really don't like the section dedicated as a shrine to his musings.Lostcaesar 18:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The problem with classifying the PBS website as "just absurd" without recourse gives us ground to use the 'absurdity' tag on anything that doesn't fit our theological beliefs. The PBS website is simply a host to a documentary done on Christianity using the best scholars in the field. Please see this link if you think Yale, Brown, Harvard, Duke, and Depaul's best scholars are preaching 'absurdity' :

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/etc/bios.html ..

Please do not alter any information until you have sufficiently read from each source. I fear that you automatically dismissing the PBS source has given us incite into your bias. Please also discuss each fact you disagree with here rather than attacking a broadcasting network. It is rather 'absurd' mind you that people divert from scholarly information about Saint Paul simply because it does not fit with their theological beliefs.

I am catholic yet I present information about Saint Paul that is renowned, other christians edit the article because they would prefer to suppress his controversial views. This is unacceptable.

Biblical1 19:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What I called "absurd" was presenting the pbs information as though it were stone fact, that is to say they express an opinion, a point of view, and the article ought to reflect that. I don't mind it being in there, I mind an opinion substituted for a fact. And btw, I don't see how it matters what you call yourself. Lostcaesar 20:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw, half the stuff you put back is already in teh article, somtimes word for word, in a different section (like the stuff about circumcision), please read the article and make sure you arn't doing silly redundancies. Lostcaesar 20:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

---

My goal is not 'redundancies', it is placing Paul's view and life in the appropriate context. If you are indeed a prominent professor whose thesis was on Paul, perhaps you know more than I. I disagre with this guess however, as you keep limiting scholarly information and erasing it for Christian beliefs found in the bible.

The quotesd on circimcusion are intended for the uneducated. Many do not know Moses would've been killed by God, I doubt you knew that his wife was skilled in the matter and chopped off the foreskin of his son, and touched it to Moses'. This is the essence of biblical scholarship. Please do not alter it for 'silly redundancies'.

Biblical1 20:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

also i am a confused as to "POV". It is my understanding the policy is NPOV or neutral point of view. The information I present is anything but personal, as it often conflicts with famously held christian personal beliefs. These views are by definition neutral, you only need look at the sources.

I would also like to comment that it does me no good to refute sources rather than information. We would not argue the source of a mathematician from PBS who said 2+2 = 4, but perhaps we would if our preachers taught 2+2 = 5. I hope you understand, my goal is not to disprove and persuade anybody, rather to present knowledgable and objective information. This by definition, is not POV.

Biblical1 20:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

New dissertation on Paul and scholarly consensus

I am retracing sources for more accurate information, I will in turn upload it the scholarly consensus section because i do not wish to 'clutter' the article. (Although I would prefer the intention of Paul's first letter be mentioned in the Intro. )

If you uncover new interesting facts, please cite source and share information in scholarly consensus section. (I think it is actually best if most of the objective facts go there as it seems the intro includes some varying religious outlooks). If you disagree with some of the quoted material, please provide sources and state precise information in discussion rather than immediately alter it. This way a consensus can be formed rather than the blatant altering of information, saving us from allegations of particular bias(s) or 'absurdity' along w/not NPOV.

Biblical1 20:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

detailed discussion, by Lostcaesar 22:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What information did I “erase” that you want in the article? I didn’t consider my edits to be erasing so much as reorganizing. Most of the removals were due to the reorganization, which made their existence redundant (in that they were mentioned twice in the article). Lets go through the specifics of my pov changes in the “scholarly consensus” section.

1: Notice how I say "scholars who hold this say X, while others say Y", whereas you say "X is the truth", or "All scholars say X [quote one]".

2: Whether or not Paul’s writings are “the” foundation of Christian literature depends on whether the traditional Gospels are ascribed to their proper authors. The name of the section is “scholarly consensus”. All scholars agree that Paul’s writings are “a foundation”, but not the foundation. Why? Because there is differing opinion as to whether the next statement you like so much “no writing survives from Jesus’ disciples” is true or not. Many scholars think that Mark was one of the seventy disciples, and that he wrote Mark. Some scholars (though a minority) think that Matthew is the author of his Gospel. Likewise, some scholars identify John as a principle source of the Gospel with his name. Hence, it isn’t fair for the article to say what it does. It expresses a point of view to which there is no “scholarly consensus”. I like my reading much better. It expresses a far more nuanced (and accurate) view of scholarship, and also articulates the traditional Christian position (which I think is worth noting, even if just to bounce modern scholarship off of). It is also the format that most other articles on the New Testament take. Compare:

Scholars generally classify Paul's epistles (or letters) as the foundation of Christian literature, as no writing survives from Jesus or his disciples.

'My edit: 'Scholars classify Paul's epistles (or letters) as a foundation of Christian literature. Scholars who hold that Jesus' disciples did not author the works traditionally attributed to them consider Paul's epistles to be the foundation of Christian literature.

Which is a better representation of the entire field of scholarship, and the "scholarly concensus"?

3: The issue of Marcan priority is not a settled matter amongst scholars. My edits improved the clarity of the article. Paul’s wirtings are considered the earliest New Testament texts by those who ascribe to Marcan priority – what's wrong with that addition? It better expresses the field of scholarship. Scholars who think Matthew wrote first (see Augustinian Hypothesis and Griesbach hypothesis) obviously think that Paul's writings are not the earliest in the New Testament. All I did was change the article to include this view. Compare:

Yet scholars generally concede that we can learn almost nothing about Jesus' life or teachings from Paul. Although Paul lacked knowledge of the historical Jesus, Paul and his followers are attributed with 16 of the New Testaments 27 books and he is also it's earliest writer, earlier even than the Gospel of Mark. The earliest surviving of all Christian literature is Paul's First Thessalonians.

My edit: Those who follow this position [that Jesus' disciples wrote nothing] generally concede that nothing can be learned about Jesus' life or teachings from Paul. Paul himself claimed knowledge of Jesus from visions, or "divine dreams", and from the apostles (particularly James the Just and Simon Peter), as he never met Jesus in the flesh. Christian tradition has seen Paul in a much more authoritative light. Paul is traditionally attributed with 16 of the New Testaments 27 books. Scholars who follow Markan priority see Paul's writings as the earliest of the New Testament, and hold that the earliest surviving of all Christian literature is Paul's First Thessalonians.

Do you see how one expressed a point of view as fact, while the other gives both points of view as points of view?

4: Did Paul dissent from Peter and James? Did Peter and James think of Christianity as nothing more than a Jewish sect? The answers to these are opinions, to which there are arguments in support or against, scholars on both sides, and the like. You present this as fact and give one scholar's opinion to back it up. I present them as differing views.

5: You added the "circumcision was seen as a divine mark" paragraph (and the quote of which you are convinced that I am ignorant) to the "scholarly consensus" section. It now exists twice, word for word, in the article (it is also in the more appropriate "Salvation and the Mosaic Law") section. Why did you put the same words in twice? That is just redundancy to the extreme. It makes the article look very sloppy.

6:You say "Jews compromised their faith" and cite one scholar – I say "some scholars argue that Jews compromised their faith" and cite the same one author – see the difference? Did Jews really compromise their faith? Why not go with my wording?

7:You added that Paul believed there would be an imminent apocalypse. There is a section called "eschatology", which beings "There is evidence that Paul… believed there would be an immediate apocalypse…" – see what I mean about repeating the same material. Furthermore, you added material about the Book of Revelation. What does a book written after Paul died have to do with Paul, and his eschatology? Also, your section claims to know, absolutely, the mind of Paul, both his views on marriage and his understanding of the apocalypse. That's going to far (even if Mr. MacDonald is convinced that he knows Paul's mind). What you gave is one interpretation of Paul's views on marriage. If you are going to quote anything claiming to know the mind of Paul, then quote something from his letters.

8:How do you know that Paul thought the Old Testament God was "never jealous"? Paul never said that, indeed his beloved Scriptures said the opposite (Exodus 209:5). In fact – Paul quoted this in 2 Corinthians 11:2 !

9:The quote from Ezekiel and Jeremiah are now in the article twice (see Jewish Scriptures in Christianity). The stuff about Sheol is now in the article twice (see "nature of the afterlife"). Both word for word !

10:I did remove the following:

These contradicting views and dissimilarities between God in the Old and New Testament were pointed out by dissenters from Orthodox (meaning ‘straight’) Christianity such as Marcion who put them in a now lost and extant Antithesis. Paul's epistles were later joined by the four main Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in 170 by Bishop Irenaeus who believed, "There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic.” < Irenaeus' movement subsequently caste all of the other widely circulated gospels as Gnostic, most of which were lost. "Fortunately, the arid sands of Egypt have protected fragments of many works, including the spectacular caches of thirteen forth-century Coptic Codices (or bound books) discovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945. Over a thousand pages of text contain some forty documents otherwise unknown, many of which had been composed by Christians centuries earlier." The discovery at Nag Hammadi gives scholars incite into original Christianity and Paul because it "contained no fewer than 41 early Christian scriptures we've never heard of. Their titles had previously appeared in no list, no correspondence, no surviving document of any kind. If the church could successfully erase all memory of these 41 scriptures, it could do anything; 15,000 years is a long time to get a story straight"

What does this have to do with "scholarly consensus"? What does it mean that Irenaeus "joined" the four gospels together? There are earlier references to gospels books before Irenaeus (like Justine Martyr) – besides again this is an opinion about the development of the Gospels. What does his quote about the four corners of the earth have to do with anything? The sudden mention of Marcion is strange, with no explination – what is he doing here? Orthodox doesn’t mean straight – the ortho part means that, the dox part means something else (and important addition, mind you). What does the business about arid sands of Egypt and Gnostic texts have to do with anything? This is perhaps all a strange and disjoined reference to "Paul's significant to the formation of Christian orthodoxy" – hey, if you want it in make that section (and make it make sense).

I reverting this till we get all the mess straightened out. I'm not unreasonable or uncompromising, either, but I just don't understand the changes. Lostcaesar 22:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I find the above arguments compelling and approve of the edits made by Lostcaesar. My only problems with the passages is the use of the word traditional when it seems you meen literalist. Cheers. JPotter 22:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I particularly agree with Caesar's points 2 and 10. I know this hasn't been set up as a vote, but I wanted to add my 2¢ Carl.bunderson 23:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I will do my best to respond to some of your points.. I will blockquote your responses...

2:

Whether or not Paul’s writings are “the” foundation of Christian literature depends on whether the traditional Gospels are ascribed to their proper authors. The name of the section is “scholarly consensus”. All scholars agree that Paul’s writings are “a foundation”, but not the foundation. Why? Because there is differing opinion as to whether the next statement you like so much “no writing survives from Jesus’ disciples” is true or not. Many scholars think that Mark was one of the seventy disciples, and that he wrote Mark.

You make a good point relevant to the word "foundation", however you must provide sources for your scholarly research. You claim 'some' hold that Mark was one of Jesus' seventy disciples, however his gospel was written 40 years after the time of Jesus in a type of 'lives' format paramount to Plutarch's on Alexander. I mention this because Paul's epistles have already existed for 20 years at this point. Paul appealed to the roman 'have-nots' civilians because he preached love, more importantly he admitted gentiles and confessed they would be saved when Jesus and God descended from heaven and instilled a political kingdom of God. Unfortunately as you would agree, Paul was quite off. You are perhaps unaware that this kingdom of god was political, as it must be stressed. Current suppression of such a fact is obvious and it wasn’t until the temple falling in 70 that this opinion of Jesus’ revelation changed, it is quite a paradox.

'Scholars classify Paul's epistles (or letters) as a foundation of Christian literature. Scholars who hold that Jesus' disciples did not author the works traditionally attributed to them consider Paul's epistles to be the foundation of Christian literature.

Knowing my incite from above, We would not say the foundation of Christianity was the gospel of Mark, this is absurd, most scholars believe it was not written by Mark, nor does any writing exist specifically talking of Jesus' life for 40 years, all the while Paul is preaching to the gentiles. In this sense, Paul is quite the "founder" of Christian literature so your edit seems to promote some bias, we will explore which as we keep discussing your edits. You have also gone out of your way to promote the Marcan priority. I am a bit confused as this passes off an idea relevant to a source "q". Yet you allude to this priority in an appeal to ignorance in which you generalize it is quite possible writing existed around and before Paul. Unfortunately you provide no sources nor an educational link based on this assumption.

Paul himself claimed knowledge of Jesus from visions, or "divine dreams", and from the apostles (particularly James the Just and Simon Peter), as he never met Jesus in the flesh.

If we are to add his knowledge came from James and Peter, we must also add the information relevant to Antioch. Paul certainly did not 'know' Jesus if Peter and Jesus' brother James disagreed with his open acceptance of Gentiles. Unfortunately resorting to scripture will give one an idealized view of Paul's speech @ Antioch. Please scroll up and see the discussion prior, specifically, showdown at Antioch. Quite contrasting from your take that Paul knew the teachings of Jesus due to his dreams and support from others (although there are none, Barnabas even rejects him. )

4:

Did Paul dissent from Peter and James? Did Peter and James think of Christianity as nothing more than a Jewish sect? The answers to these are opinions, to which there are arguments in support or against, scholars on both sides, and the like. You present this as fact and give one scholar's opinion to back it up. I present them as differing views

Very good argument. However, we must be specific as to which scholars support these views and cite sources. As you would agree, one shouldn't post on this discussion board if we simply desire to prove a point, thus the assertion "not all scholars believe Peter and James thought of Christianity more than a Jewish sect" is tomfoolery as it is a hasty generalization. Your logic for refutation resides in differing views. The hidden premise being I asserted all scholars believed James and Peter believed Christianity to be a Jewish sect. Now surely I am not this foolish, there are actual Christian enthusiasts who believe the showdown at Antioch never happened, some also believed Peter dissented from the idea of baptism and the acceptation of gentiles. (See Showdown in Antioch relevant to discussion prior again)

5:

You added the "circumcision was seen as a divine mark" paragraph (and the quote of which you are convinced that I am ignorant) to the "scholarly consensus" section. It now exists twice, word for word, in the article (it is also in the more appropriate "Salvation and the Mosaic Law") section. Why did you put the same words in twice? That is just redundancy to the extreme. It makes the article look very sloppy.

Unfortunately the introspective 'sloppiness' remark does not warrant editing. Your bias has already been revealed relevant to your hasty generalization from point four, this being there are different views for everything. Now whether you acknowledge your vain desire to prove a point is yet to be seen, however you must conclude that simply because some information seems sloppy it is not grounds for alteration. So this argument falls through with a second glance.

7:

You added that Paul believed there would be an imminent apocalypse. There is a section called "eschatology", which beings "There is evidence that Paul… believed there would be an immediate apocalypse…" – see what I mean about repeating the same material. Furthermore, you added material about the Book of Revelation. What does a book written after Paul died have to do with Paul, and his eschatology? Also, your section claims to know, absolutely, the mind of Paul, both his views on marriage and his understanding of the apocalypse. That's going to far (even if Mr. MacDonald is convinced that he knows Paul's mind). What you gave is one interpretation of Paul's views on marriage. If you are going to quote anything claiming to know the mind of Paul, then quote something from his letters.

It seems if I am going to quote anything from the mind of Paul, I must quote from his letters. Now why would we recommend a fellow due something like this? Perhaps you believe his letters are credible, yes? Never mind 1900 years of redaction and where Paul says the following:

As in all congregations of God’s people, women should keep silent at the meeting. They have no permission to talk, but should keep their place as the law directs. If there is something they want to know, they can ask their husbands at home. It is a shocking thing for a woman to talk at the meeting. ( 1 Corinthians 34)

Now as you can see, Paul is either against women in some form or the other or this passage has been redacted. You wrote a long passage earlier relevant to credibility, the assertion being if you are going to quote anything to know the mind of Paul, then quote something from his letters. Rather interesting assertion that falls through when we look at scripture, wouldn't you agree if we are to write about Jesus, we must read from those who know him? This in essence is what you deem credible; we must read from one's written words. Ahh but this too falls short past a first glance, as writings about Jesus' life didn't surface for 40 years. Unfortunately they cannot be found in the writings of Paul, nor can we continue to make up the assertion that the Gospel of Mark came prior. You also vehemently declare it is quite possible one of Jesus’ disciples wrote one of the gospels, thus either they are idiots and did not realize we could see their redactions comparable to Mark, or their gospels were intended to be read symbolically and interpreted symbolically. Their elaboration on Jesus’ resurrection does not support a conformed view, please see Paul’s elaboration that Jesus rose and was buried, never mind where and if there was a tomb, one must imply burial means 'burial with a tomb with a large rock'. This can also be observed relevant to animals as we bury them quite often without tombs. Paul also has no angels, Jesus rose and was buried. Compare this with Matthew who adds guards from the scene in Mark. Also see the nuances of those who saw Jesus afterwards. Also refer to Professor White’s elaboration, “The details of the last words of Jesus, for example, we're totally in the realm of gospel, and not of history. Mark tells us that Jesus died being mocked and in agony and I think Mark is writing for the experience of people in the 70's who are dying like that and who need the consolation that Jesus had died that way before, feeling abandoned by God. When you come to John, you have a totally different scenario. Jesus dies when he's good and ready. His last words are to fulfill the scriptures. When that is done he gives up his spirit. There is no mockery, of course. There really is no agony. There almost is no pain. These are different gospel visions of the brute historical fact that Jesus would have died in agony on the cross....”

8

How do you know that Paul thought the Old Testament God was "never jealous"? Paul never said that, indeed his beloved Scriptures said the opposite (Exodus 209:5). In fact – Paul quoted this in 2 Corinthians 11:2 !

My friend, we must keep in mind your argument from earlier, if we are to knowanything about anyone, perhaps its best to read their own words. Very well. 'Love knows no jealousy' in Corinthians 13:4. Now it would seem Paul blatantly says Love knows no jealousy, unless you want to revert back to the idea that perhaps Paul didn't write this document? Please cite sources again.

What does this have to do with "scholarly consensus"? What does it mean that Irenaeus "joined" the four gospels together? There are earlier references to gospels books before Irenaeus (like Justine Martyr) – besides again this is an opinion about the development of the Gospels. What does his quote about the four corners of the earth have to do with anything? The sudden mention of Marcion is strange, with no explination – what is he doing here? Orthodox doesn’t mean straight – the ortho part means that, the dox part means something else (and important addition, mind you). What does the business about arid sands of Egypt and Gnostic texts have to do with anything? This is perhaps all a strange and disjoined reference to "Paul's significant to the formation of Christian orthodoxy" – hey, if you want it in make that section (and make it make sense).

We would both agree that the term scholarly consensus implies a consensus, or rather an agreement. Thus Bishop Irenaeus joining or combining the four gospels with Paul's epistle is worthy knowledge as it reveals the logic. You appear to argue that it is misguided for such an article, however the date and the logic are still fact and quite pertinent to understanding the history of Paul's doctrines. It is also a worthy endeavor to explore a point before posting it, thus your comment orthodox doesn't mean straight is off base relevant to religion. One who is orthodox is one who is straight and conforming to canonized views, those who are heretical in essence choose. Luckily we are already aware which direction you support. I will also add the reference to the Gnostic gospels should've been elaborated. Paul spoke of Jesus' revelation, or the idea that he would soon return and instill a political kingdom on earth. The gnostics were perhaps more credible as they preached Jesus' wisdom, Paul was quite off base with his assertion God would rule over the earth. You must also understand the term Christian, as some like to classify Paul as a first Christian, however the wouldn't be used for another 50 years. Paul never used the term. He was also a proud Pharisee Jew. Marcion mentioned the paradox of teachings prevalent in the New and Old Testament in his antithesis which can easily be observed from reading the bible. Also I would like to add I appreciate you organizing the article and I am no longer speaking in Irony. I just browsed and reread the whole thing and I appreciate you including the proper topics in each section, as you can see, I still have a *few* things I disagree with and I must find time to poke and prod and add information. Never worry, i will provide sources.

Biblical1 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I just wanted to apologize, I've been having lots of 'angst' per say. and I just spent a lot of time updating sources, references, things like that, etc. I apologize for my "rant" up above, it's sorta pointless, just ignore my irony, I apologize. Either way, thanks for editing ym stuff, the page looks better.

Biblical1 08:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your work on the article and comments above. Let me respond to them briefly. It is important not to import personal judgements, especially to which there is not scholarly consensus, as facts. The issue of Marcan priority, and whether Mark was one of the “seventy” disciples of Jesus, is abundantly discussed within wikipedia itself in the relevant articles (Mark the Evangelist, Gospel of Mark. Gospel of Matthew, Two-source hypothesis, Augustinian Hypothesis, et al.). Surely you understand that your interpretation of the Kingdom of Heaven is not universally held, hence you must tolerate information concerning other positions. That Paul claimed to know James and Peter is explicit in his letter to the Galatians, whether or not this is true is not judged by the sentence I wrote, rather the claim is merely expressed (and it is certainly a relevant claim). I do not understand your accusations of bias, since I merely wish to have the article encompass the relevant views of Paul, and I have not edited out the diversity of views (you have done that), instead I have included more than one intentionally. As to what I called “looks sloppy” was not the argument in question, but the fact that it appeared word-for-word twice in the article due to your edits, and I merely removed one of the copies. I stand behind the assertion that one ought not to claim special knowledge of the mind of Paul absolutely, though quoting his letters is the best way to express this unbiasedly (there is a section, and a separate article specifically, on the reliability of his letters, so this is not an issue). Even though you took pains to refute that anything in Paul’s letters should be used, you took up a particular interpretation of 1 Cor 13:4 to support your judgement that Paul though his God was never jealous – why place such judgements in the article? There are articles on Gnosticism and its relation to Christianity, if any mention of that belongs here it much be in the context of Paul, and still ought to link to the more proper article (this is an organizational issue). The first use of the term Christian appears in Acts 11:26 (see Christian). All that said, I will review the article in its present incarnation and see what I think. Thanks again for entering into a spirit of collegiality in this matter. Lostcaesar 10:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The incident at Antioch is already mentioned, so I tried to reduce and merge some of the text quotes, including only the essential material. Is White's book really a "novel"? If so it ought not to be in the article at all (I suspect it is a history book, though, so I left the material). I also fixed your footnote style (and removed the product ISBN number!). I also cut down on later stuff too, keeping your inserted points but using less language. Basically I summarized some, and put references rather than quotes from some biblical passages, when possible so as to reduce the bulk of the article. The article is almost too long for wikipedia standards, and we need to be careful. I would like you to look at the quote from Russell – I chopped off a bit of this because it was so long, and I think the point gets across in the first part, but let me know if you agree. I did some reverting on the Scholarly views section, since I am still not satisfied with some of your rewordings, though I left in your additional material. I removed the material about Paul considering himself a devout Jew because this is not pertinent to his writings, and is already covered a bit in his life section – if it is put back in it should go elsewhere. We don't need the quote from Irenaeus, I don't think, rather just the reference link in his writings is fine.Lostcaesar 11:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The article was much condensed, subsequently losing some of its information and evidence. The numerous resources explaining Paul's eschatology were reworked, eliminating some, and didn't quote from Paul's works at all. This is important information. I also question the removal of Paul's Jewish tradition in Scholarly Opinions. Paul did not classify himself as Christian, this is a popular myth amongst many, it should not be removed.

I'm also unfamilar with why the ISBN and page numbers were eliminated with some sources. I fear the subjective condensing of the article relates to altering whatever information one chooses and briefly summarizing controversies rather than leaving in their articulation.

Biblical1 16:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean up bias... scholarly opinions, eschatology, and Consultation with other apostles restored

Facts, information, and sources are not to be edited to promote a special bias. The fact Paul believed Jesus' would return from heaven and instill a political kingdom has forced alteration of the article attempting to cover up the evidence and controversy. This is being disguised as solidifying the article, or perhaps drastically moving the information to other parts. New logic to eliminate these facts is also the article is too long, perhaps the server time on wikipedia will slow. I also find it rather ridiculous that I have gone out of my way to include sources, scholarly information, page numbers, isbns, etc. Only to have an individual alter much of it because of popular christian views and markan theory, this is then grounds for LostCaesar to continually add:

Christian tradition has seen Paul in a much more authoritative light

He also continually edits, Scholars who hold that Jesus' disciples did not author the works traditionally attributed to them consider Paul's epistles to be the foundation of Christian literature... The above alteration is intended to incapsulate a differing view (perhaps a scholarly view with sources from the Oxford University press taught at public universities)... unfortunately there is no other source, nor any other view associated with this claim... it therefore gives grounds to completely altering an article with factual information. It is also rather obvious the bias that prevails. One who continually alters new information on Saint Paul is not likely Jewish. One only needs to read Caesar's Christian tradition has seen Paul in a much more authoritative light the first four times whenever he alters scholarly information. Also the titles, "Yale" and "Harvard" have been removed from my sources, perhaps to discredit them. I sincerely question the above where he stats, "Is it a novel". I suppose this childlike question gives ground to massive editing in which sources for Paul's apocalypse and his view of himself as a pious jew are altered. Do not edit anything without first consulting sources and facts. Promoting christian beliefs in the effort to eliminate Paul's short comings will not be allowed. I have even included sources praising Paul, this remarkably was kept (Adolf Harnack), and then humorously Professor MacDoanld's elaboration on no writing survives from Jesus in his disciples was removed. I would very much like for one to attempt to refute the information in question, as I have yet to uncover a single hypothesis with any credence that Mark actually wrote Mark. Scholars generally believe Paul to have been the same age growing up with Jesus, Mark would've had to been in exile for 40 years and in his sixties addressing a community concerned about crucifixation. (Unless we are to say he was 12 when he was Jesus disciple... then perhaps he was 52 when he wrote it)

Biblical1 17:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't say that no writings survive from Christ's disciples...it is still up for debate, but many do continue to believe that Mark was written by mark, and that at least First Peter was written by Peter. Saying that "no writing survives from Jesus in [sic] his disciples" asserts something as undisputed fact which is actually debatable. Carl.bunderson 18:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I genuinely feel you have mischaracterized me and my edits. Frankly I am tierd of preserving you additions, cleaning them up, including painstakingly fixing your faulty citation system (It goes Author's name, Title (Publisher, Year) pages), and working to include every view thus added to the article, only to be accused of some unilateral bias. Case in point, you completely mischaracterized my statements about the "novel" (you put in a quote, said it was from a "novel" – I left this in the article but asked if it really was a novel and said, if so, it should be removed – and it should according to wikipedia policy). The ISBN numbers were removed because they are not part of standard footnoting, and this is not a place to advertise wares. I did not remove any page numberings from your notes. Many of the things you accuse me of removing I merely summarized (or left in). On and on it goes. Lostcaesar 18:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Canon discussion

I totally removed the paragraph at the end of "Scholarly views". It really doesn't belong in that section or even this article. It reads as though it was tacked on to the end of the section...it has nothing at all to do with the content before it. And it should not be in this article because a discussion of the formation of the canon belongs in Biblical canon or somewhere similar, not here. A brief discussion of the Pauline epistles' inclusion in the canon is already mentioned in the intro; it could be repeated in "Writings" if necessary. But a discussion of the decision to make 4 gospels canon does not belong in an article about St Paul. Carl.bunderson 18:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Very well, I appreciate the edits to the article and you discussing them here. It is not my intention to discredit those who have edited my improper grammar, however as you can see it is easy to get frusterated after pulling from various sources only to have someone edit it and erase some of the informative quotes and attributes. I would also like to add that the grammar surely is sufficient by now.

Biblical1 19:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Eschatology & Paul's Jewish piety

Further editing of the Eschatology section should be to correct grammar as the sources listed more than display Paul's view of an oncoming apolocalypse, any alteration of content seems to be an attempt to undue the evidence. Paul's view is also not unusual, see Jesus and the Gospels. Readers should not take it negatively as one must be ignorant to think the bible has not been redacted to refrain from this view, it has been over 1900 years since the time of Jesus and his pronouncement of his return. What his return is has changed meaning..

There are certainly passages in the Gospels that make it clear that Jesus is anticipating an imminent moment of apocalypse. That the end is very near. Certainly the earliest Christians took away from his message the belief that his return would occur in their own life time. And in his final sermon to his disciples before his arrest, when he's asked, "What are the signs of the end times?" He tells them about wars and conflict and wickedness and evil, that then ends with the promise, "All these things shall be fulfilled in your own time. So yes." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/bios.html#boyer

As for Paul's piety I believe it should go on scholarly opinions because it seems The Early life section simply reflects his Jewish background. That is all. The scholarly opinion section is attempted to give incite to the uninformed, the quotes are directly pulled from this in the world of acadamia, thus Scholarly opinions. It would do no good to pull those quotes and place them elsewhere, only to be summed up with Paul was jewish. He was far from Jewish and he was not Christian, thus it does one well to explain this in scholarly opinions.

Wikipedia is not a place to prove a thesis, it just mentiones the revelant ideas and moves on, do you understand this? Lostcaesar 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Browsing the scholarly opinions section displays no such thesis. If there is than it certainly conflicts and I have already failed because I cannot write sources correctly! Nevertheless, I have fixed that. Paul's Jewish piety is simply ellaborated with sources. Biblical1 20:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup, legends

Other than some basic cleanup and removal of redundant points, I omitted the legends section. It doesn't have a clear thesis other than piecemeal information on the development of the canon (which has a proper article), the Pastoral Epistles (another proper article), and the Acts of Paul (another proper article, again). Not needed in so long a page. Though I do think there might be a need for a "Paul's views on Women", and the section did interestingly allude to that a time or two. Lostcaesar 12:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I would prefer you explain the redundant points in question rather than alter many of the sections for the article. I think you would agree, it would be detrimental to let a Jewish Talmud loyalist drastically fill Paul's page with bias, yet somehow you keep getting away with eliminating Paul's Jewish piety. Perhaps this is detrimental to your personal opinions; nevertheless, your reason for alteration should be discussed. Perhaps Paul should have his own "Jewish piety" section, simply alluding that Paul was a "reformed jew" in the introduction is not satisfactory. I would also like to address your continual alteration..

Scholars classify Paul's epistles (or letters) as a foundation of Christian literature. Scholars who hold that Jesus' disciples did not author the works traditionally attributed to them consider Paul's epistles to be the foundation of Christian literature.

The above is intended to encapsulate another view, evident in the wording scholars who hold that Jesus' disciples did not author the works traditionally attributed to them consider Paul's epistles the foundation of Christian literature. Let us assume Mark really did write Mark and recall it came around the year 67. This in turn is the first written work by one of Jesus’ disciples. Would we then say Mark's gospel is the foundation of literature? First we must address what foundation means, and surely one gospel is not a foundation when Paul's letters have been blossoming for 20 some odd years. It follows your alteration is unnecessary. It also goes out of it's way to eliminate the link to Professor MacDonald who surely is more informed than both of us, perhaps you would not like to hear his view as you continually sum it up...

Professor Dennis R. MacDonald of Harvard writes in his work Early Christian Literature that Paul's writing were the first in Christian literature.

"No writing survives from Jesus or his disciples. When early Christians transmitted their memories of him to others, they did so primarily by word of mouth... [Paul's] First Thessalonians is the earliest of all surviving Christian literature. Believers in Thessalonica had requested additional teaching from Paul, so he wrote them a letter, reluctantly, twice telling them he really did not need to write them because they already knew what they needed to know." (see Paul of Tarsus#Eschatology)

Now as you can see, this is valuable information. You completely alter out this due to clean up, which is thus far an unreasonable defense.. and you promote a bias. Again you write, "Christian tradition has seen Paul in a much more authoritative light", this perhaps is a theme of your writing. All of the scholarly information done on Paul, with sources and page numbers, is edited or widdled down to comments like, "L. Michael White argued a thesis." As if this thesis is not commonly accepted, this is also similar to the grounds of your faulty view on the gospels in which you hold Mark to be the foundation of Christian Literature, this foolish ideal is never supported in your responses and it is the only reason why one would make your remarks. You also edited the lovable quote..

"Paul was not the 'first Christian.' In fact, Paul never uses the term "Christian." Instead, he clearly saw himself as a pious Jew who had been called on by God, through Jesus, to take this new message to non-Jews. Thus, Paul's self-understanding remained thoroughly Jewish, even when he argued with Peter, James (Jesus' brother), or other, more stringently Jewish followers of the Jesus movement. Paul, then, must be seen as a part of the sectarian diversity of the movement that gave it vitality and opened new horizons

Whether one is Christian or atheist, it would be beneficial to include this information. I myself am Catholic and this completely erases the view that Paul was a pious Christian. This view is for the uneducated, again, as Paul and Jesus both taught in traditions relevant to Judaism. Paul also adamantly believed the end was near, so did the Gospel of Mark which we can discuss later, but this information is not to be tampered. You have also altered the three quotes summarizing Paul’s apocalyptic view near the picture as the formatting was rather perfect. This alteration exposes the idea that format and clean up are not your priorities. You are in no way a gate keeper of this article and your alterations surely are not designed for the public good. You are to refrain from editing articles until you can defend yourself as you simply edit without reason. I suppose clean up is sufficient reason to completely erase the article, after all, I'm sure a blank page surely would be more neat than one littered with the controversial life of Saint Paul. On a lighter note we will no longer appeal to pity, as you constantly explain you’ve worked quite hard editing the article, never mind whether the article alteration was good, simply the fact that you worked hard deserves credit.

Biblical1 22:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of cleanup

I will explain my cleanup, gladly. I have attempted to reduce redundant areas, especially when an entire quote is already expressed in a summary sentence. A good benefit to this it that it avoids giving one point of view undue play by extensive quotations. Also, I have attempted to be inclusive of relevant points of view. I think an examination of my changes will notice this. The reader of an encyclopedia doesn’t want a point of view pushed, or even extensively elaborated upon, rather he wants to know what the points of view are and where to read more about them, my version does this just fine. Lastly, I reformatted some pictures and simplified captions.

Personally I find the section of Paul’s understand of his own Judaism to be confusing. The Life section contains all sorts of references to his conflict with Jewish authorities, his conversion is mentioned many times, the Christology section talks about his expression of Jesus’ divinity and the Trinity, and then this part mentions his proclaiming of Jesus to the Jews – so what does it mean to say he is a “pious Jew”. I think the difficulty is over when Christianity gained an independent identity distinct from Judaism, but this isn’t explained, so it is confusing. If, on the other hand, it just means that Paul was ethnically and culturally Jewish, that is well covered.

That all scholars classify Paul’s literature as a foundation of Christianity is undoubtedly true. Do all scholars think it is the foundation of Christianity? No, and that’s really all I need to say. Firstly, there is dispute over whether Matthew was written by Matthew, making his text foundational, likewise with the Gospel of John and John (was this a collection of Johannine thought existing independently and perhaps against Pauline thought? Some scholars have thought so). Besides, it ignores the role of oral tradition completely. Anyway, I think my sentence is clearly more balanced, and it clearly states your point; “scholars who hold that Jesus’s disciples did not author the works traditionally attributed to them consider Paul’s epistles to be the foundation of Christian literature.” Why do you want to remove another scholarly point of view? MacDonald is a scholar, not the final word; the quote is unnecessary – if a reader want to learn more he can follow the link. Lastly, that Christian tradition has seen Paul in a more authoritative light is a relevant fact, and belongs in the article.

Please do not assume that you know my view, clearly you do not. You have mischaracterized my edited from the start, probably because you think you understand my view so well. I would love to discuss my views in another setting, but this is not the place for personal view pushing.

It is false that I "altered three quotes summarizing Paul's apocalyptic view". I moved one quote you added, I left another entirely intact in the same position, and I removed one that did not mention the apocalypse in any way (Galatians 1:15-16), and which was already linked in the same section. Stop levelling faulty accusations and mischaracterizations against me, please. Lostcaesar 09:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is rather difficult for me to respond to your alterations. One such instance is where you continually edit out..

The best evidence we have as to what the followers of Jesus thought about the imminence of the end after his death is clearly Paul. We have very early letters from Paul. They date from the 50s AD and they're first hand, they're autobiographical. They're undisputed. And they say the most startling things. For example in First Corinthians, which we date about 54 AD, Paul says that it's better not to get married. The end of all things is at hand. In view of the present distress that he thinks is coming on the world, he's actually advising people, "Slaves, remain a slave. Don't try to really change the social order, because everything, very rapidly, is coming to an end." One of his phrases is that "the appointed time has grown very short." It's a phrase right out of the Book of Daniel, about the appointed time, the time of the end. He's our earliest and best evidence. So that tells us that in the 50s, around the Mediterranean world, Christian communities are sprouting up, believing that Jesus is the messiah. That he's going to come again, probably in their lifetime and that they shouldn't really worry too much about their economic and social order, and even their marital state, because the end is coming so soon.

If you are to actually read what you wrote, your emphasis for reworking these passages is, to reduce redundant areas and be inclusive of relevant points of view however not extensive. I suppose the above is extensive, so extensive it readily explains Paul's apocalyptic view so clearly, however you assume the reader does not desire such a thing. He would rather classify Paul as an apocalyptic Saint who had foolish views of the world, then move on. However we would both disagree, the reader would like this view to be elaborated. It is not your duty to alter these sections specifically, as you seem to do your best to sum up some of the rather good material.

I would also like to highlight your response

That all scholars classify Paul’s literature as a foundation of Christianity is undoubtedly true. Do all scholars think it is the foundation of Christianity? No, and that’s really all I need to say. Firstly, there is dispute over whether Matthew was written by Matthew, making his text foundational, likewise with the Gospel of John and John (was this a collection of Johannine thought existing independently and perhaps against Pauline thought? Some scholars have thought so). Besides, it ignores the role of oral tradition completely

So it seems your grounds for alteration is that not all scholars assert Paul's literature as the foundation of Christianity. You must be so dedicated to entirely rework in article over such a point. Let us examime it... my passage is the following ...

Scholars generally classify Paul's epistles as the foundation of Christian literature and according to Professor Stephen L Harris, "Paul is seen as God's principal instrument of transforming Christianity into a largely Gentile religion. More than any other individual, Paul is responsible for the future universality of the Christian church."....Professor Dennis R. MacDonald of Harvard writes in his work Early Christian Literature that Paul's writing were the first in Christian literature... "No writing survives from Jesus or his disciples. When early Christians transmitted their memories of him to others, they did so primarily by word of mouth... [Paul's] First Thessalonians is the earliest of all surviving Christian literature. Believers in Thessalonica had requested additional teaching from Paul, so he wrote them a letter, reluctantly, twice telling them he really did not need to write them because they already knew what they needed to know."

It would seem rather obvious that is no such place are Paul's letters definitively defined as the only foundation for Christian literature. The statement scholars generally classify them as the foundation is true. You do not even attempt to dispute this, you instead create a written sentence where I alledge Paul is the foundation of Christianity, this in turn gives you credence to alter the article.

I think it is rather ridiculous that it only takes 5 minutes of reading your alterations to see your goal. It is obviously not to give the reader the ideology of Paul. On top of this, if anyone is to analyze your alterations it is mostly done over eschatology, or Paul's view of the end of the world, scholarly views, or Paul's peity as a Jew along with further elaboration of First Thessalonians, and the Apostles with Paul, this describes Paul's blowup at Antioch where James and Peter pull away from him. If we are to observe each of the above three, they are rather detrimental to the common view of Saint Paul, in other words, a common Christian or catholic view. For you to refute allegations about me assuming your bias is rather ridiculous, one only needs to actually read your alterations to know your goal is to limit controversy, specifically over the more annotated material. User:Biblical1

I have reinstated Lostcaesar's clean-up as his points seem valid and have been explained on the talk page

However, I have changed the problematic term "joined the Jewish group" to "sided with Peter" - what is Jewish group supposed to mean - Peter, Paul and Barnabas were all both Jews and Christians. Judaizing would be possible but it would unnecessarily take Paul's side.

Finally, I included a fact tag. Is Mr White's book really a novel or is it a scholarly work? If it is a novel it shouldn't be used at all, if it is a scholarly work (though as the above quotes indicate of very poor quality) it shouldn't be called "novel".

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If Lostcaesar's cleanup is on solid grounds so be it, but this assumption is simply based on one who ignores the specific examples from above. If you truly desire to listen to Str1977's view, look at his alteration. Str1977 simply ignored the post prior and used the fallacy appeal to an authority, he often proclaims he is a historian and then goes out of his way to promote Christian propoganda. This will not be tolerated as long as I am here and able to discern your reasoning. Biblical1 10:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dodging the issues. And please, can anyone inform me on the status of White's book. Otherwise I will remove references to a novel. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Star, remember the above comments about the errors in the pbs documentary that was previously linked in the article? Well, L Michael White wrote that documentary. All Biblical1 did was change the notes, as such this entire article on Paul is a copy of the PBS article. Lostcaesar 13:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

It is rather obvious to me and others that Saint Paul's specific controversies have been vandalized by Christian enthusiasts. Simply read the discussion prior relevant to editing and check my specific examples. St1977 even has a history of deleting such controversies in the Christianity main page. If this continues the page will be locked and this clean up propaganda will be eliminated.

Biblical1 10:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The edits I have made are not biased, as I have diligently explained. There is a section in the article on "alternate views of Paul", including six mutually exclusive views. I have left them all in, unchanged. I have left in seven references to White, MacDonald, and Russell – seven of the twenty-four references in the entire article, I might add. The section on Eschatology is dedicated entirely to their views. I have a documented history of including your numerous additions in this way or that, whenever possible. I cannot see how you construct a case that I am biased from this. I will agree with you, that my intent "is obviously not to give the reader the ideology of Paul." My intent is to give views on the ideology of Paul. My edits affirm this consistently. I stand by my revisions, and welcome the opinion of others. Lostcaesar 10:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not my intention to degrade you or question your edits, your edits often help. I question your elimination of particular sources (see above), specifically comments relevant to eschatology. It is quite possible you include other views, but the controversial facts surrounding the saint (his view of the judgment day) are summed up and some eliminated. I do not understand how such a crucial topic as eschatology and his jewish piety can be questioned, much less continually altered. I have requestd a third party and the page to be locked, not due to any criticism against you but to protect the page until our conflict can be resolved. I have no such problem with many of your alterations, it seems your recent ones are only over objective material however. Biblical1 11:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You have regularly degraded and questioned my edits, only the former of which is inappropriate. Nonetheless, now that you have requested a third party to moderate, and have thus subsequently and abruptly changed your manner of speaking and backed off pervious assertions (which I appreciate), there are still too many difficulties with your last changes, particularly the section on "Paul's Faith" – which is obviously PoV. Thus, I reverted – let your third part decide. Lostcaesar 12:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Biblical, I believe that Caesar's edits are in good faith. They are by no means vandalism. We all have good intentions here. If nothing else your edits must be edited for grammar, wording, etc. Your paragraph that you gave earlier [The best evidence we have as to what the followers of Jesus thought...] is really poorly written; it does not read like an encylopædia should. And when you first started making edits to the page, I felt that you were a POV-pusher, remember? I've done my best to support you since then, and I would appreciate it if you don't take others' edits as vandalism when they are well-meaning. And Ceasar, would it be too much trouble for you to make a user page, just so we could get to your contribs and talk from this talk page, cuz the link in your signature is red. O and I think the proposed solution sounds good enough. We really need to find something to solve this. Thanks ;) Carl.bunderson 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Carl, its good to get your advice. I actually had just finished editing a page that restored most of Biblical's lost information in accord with my proposal below. I included a special section for the moved material. I will save my edits on my computer, and will post them somewhere if it is requested. Interestingly, I think the page has actually gotten a lot better with all the changes, as much as the "revert war" appearance might otherwise seem. Also, I will work on my member page, my apologies. Lostcaesar 20:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that Caesar, and no apology is needed. Yeah, in the end edit wars are usually catalysts for a positive change. And congratulations on your marriage :) Carl.bunderson 06:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thx =) Lostcaesar 08:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

I propose we take all of the information and theses of L Michael White (and the PBS documentary he wrote) and move them to a section under "alternative views of Paul / White thesis". Thoughts Lostcaesar 13:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems fine. However, From Jesus to Christianity isn't a novel and that needs to be changed. White teaches early Christian origins at the University of Texas in Austin. The work meets Wikipedia's verifiability statues. Now of course, I agree that Biblical is using the source too heavily and that his edits exceeds Wikipedia's undue weight provisions, but there is no reason to exlude it or to call it fiction. Please unprotect the article and remove the word novel from the description of From Jesus to Christianity. JPotter 21:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought so, I wasn't sure though because Bib. wrote "novel" and kept saying that White was from Yale - so I thought it might be a different guy; we ought to fix that for sure. Lostcaesar 08:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Implementation of proposal

I am currently putting this proposal into effect, with the hope that it will provide a solution and worthwhile outlet for the energies of Biblical1, since much of his lost material is reintroduced in a more fitting area. Lostcaesar 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to create new article

Titled: Incident at Antioch

First place to start: Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers see section titled: "THE INCIDENT AT ANTIOCH"

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Incident+at+Antioch%22

Dunn, James D.G. The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11-18) JSNT 18, 1983, pg 95-122

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/antioch.html

recent quote deletion by Str1977

Again he ran into legal trouble in Corinth: on the complaints of a group of Jews, he was brought before the proconsul Gallio, who decided that it was a minor matter not worth his attention and dismissed the charges (Acts 18:12–16) which were ""This man," they charged, "is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_of_Tarsus&diff=68158472&oldid=68155087

My question: Why delete the direct quote? ""This man," they charged, "is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law."" 75.15.202.83 09:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because it was inserting in a less than proper way, coming after the dismissal of the charges. If you really think this needs inclusion (and I am not so certain about that), you should place it behind "complaints of the Jews", probably changing the grammatical structure a bit. But please don't just drop it unto the article. Thanks, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be included, facts are facts. Since when does wikipedia policy include censorship? Would you approve of the following?:

Again he ran into legal trouble in Corinth: on the complaints of a group of Jews ("This man," they charged, "is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law."), he was brought before the proconsul Gallio, who decided that it was a minor matter not worth his attention and dismissed the charges (Acts 18:12–16).

75.15.201.171 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

This article has been listed at the 3rd opinion page for quite a while (almost a month). Is a 3rd opinion still needed, or has the dispute been resolved? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Resolved; The person who brought it up was locked for a few hours, and didn't return, and it has been a few weeks since then. Lostcaesar 08:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just wonderin'g...

Is there any sources otside of the sources you gave for Paul's life?