Talk:Conversion of Paul the Apostle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Items that are "doubtful and potentially harmful"

This information meets the qualifications to be moved to the talk page according to #2 on Template:Verify source, which reads "If it is doubtful and potentially harmful, move the information to the talk page and ask for a source."

• This is nothing unusual for those who have a naturalistic or atheistic starting point and make assumptions before they read Dr. Luke's reliable account.

Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Which information? -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Changes

In general, I'm trying to turn this into a sub-article of Paul of Tarsus, so that the larger article about Paul can fit more in line with summary style.

Fortunately, this sub-article's topic is sufficiently narrow that we can probably present the relevant source texts directly, accompanied by summaries. So, that's the direct I'm going, apologies for any mess in the interim. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I took out the ridiculous Bruce Springsteen ref. "Blinded by the Light" is a song, not album; it has nothing to do with Paul's Damascus experience.76.105.183.62 (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Things I see as issues, but I am often wrong:

- This is a dilemma for the Wikipedia community Under the Christianity & Bible Portals, but is our use of the NIV as well as other Bible translations not in violation of their copyright? 

"The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher". Does Wikipedia have written permission, or are we assuming that each article is a different document.

- The Section "Feast Day" should either become it's own article with a briefer summary here, or (my personal recommendation) that we remove or move the text that has to do with Paul or his conversion alone and not the Feast.

A possible edit: The Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul is a feast celebrated during the liturgical year on January 25, recounting the Conversion of Saul of Tarsus. This feast is celebrated in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran churches. This feast is at the conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, an international Christian ecumenical observance that began in 1908, which is an octave (an eight-day observance) spanning from January 18 (observed as the Confession of Peter) to January 25. This event has been depicted frequently in works of art and music, most notably paintings by Caravaggio (1571–1610) and musical works such as the choral motet Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris by Giaches de Wert (1535–1596).

- The article needs to be edited to meet Wikipedia's requirements on Neutrality. See my edit under Neutrality on the Talk page.

Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reorganised to put the feast and the discussion of music into separate sections. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

... also to merge duplicate sections and reduce the excessive number of Bible quotes. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Neutrality

There are a few instances of dogmatic point of view in here rather than a neutral, historical, analytical point of view. For example:

"Furthermore, no seizure, depressed mental state, nor lack of awareness of blindness (a characteristic of cortical blindness) were reported in Acts."

Reported in Acts? Do we expect scientific/medical reporting of Saul's "conversion" in religious scripture? This sentence smacks of insertion by an apologist to undermine the possible scientific explanations for Saul's reported symptoms (which, it should be noted, are only self-reported and, therefore, extremely dubious by traditional historical standards anyway). Not to mention the contradictions between the Epistles and Acts regarding the experience itself. None of the Epistles mention anything about a vision and Galatians records Paul's testimony on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.28.116 (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming that the POV issue applies only to this section? -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And what exactly is the problem, anyway? -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The entire article needs to be edited to create an impartial tone. See Neutral point of view.

• Luke's Credible Account of Paul's Conversion
• so this was obviously not a vision.
• Dr." Luke
• To date, the nature of Paul's conversion experience remains indeterminate for those who refuse to believe the simple, straight forward account given in the Bible.

Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume these comments relate to material which no longer exists. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Any idea about the timing?

I think some indication of time is grossly lacking. At the very least, it should be indicated that the event took place after Jesus' mission (ie after his Ascension).Axxxion (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There is only a general timeframe for some things in the book of Acts, so there are differences of opinion on what year by our present calendar Saul/Paul was converted. The marginal date on Acts 9:1–9 is A.D.35, which is bishop Lloyd's revision of Ussher's Annals that was added to the Bible in the 1701 edition. The book of Acts has an A.D.33 starting point. Those dates are based on an A.D.1 birth year for Jesus, instead of subtracting the 4 years correction as our present calendar does. And the A.D.1 calendar is not based on January 1st as the beginning of the year, but 7 days earlier, on December 25th. People that put his birth on December 25th in A.D.5 are in error. (More could be said, but who hath ears to hear? :)
Telpardec (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Kicking against the pricks

While it's true that "kicking against the pricks" is in the King James Version (and is not juvenile vandalism), it's also true that most if not all Bible translations of the past 150 years or so omit this, as well as the part of the following verse about Paul trembling and astonished. I assume recent scholarship has decided that these sentences are a later addition, not part of the original text of Acts. So I'm replacing the KJV quote with a quote from the ASV, which is also public domain but omits the parts in question. Pais (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I have restored Saul's question. The pricks of conscience are not felt by people, (including translators,) whose conscience is "seared with a hot iron", (1Timothy 4:1–2) and such people don't like to be exposed to the sharp two-edged sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, that cuts away the dead tissue and exposes them to the law written in their hearts. The main reason the "children of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2–3) use Jehudi's "penknife" (Jeremiah 36:22–32) to eliminate the latter end of verse 5 and the first part of verse 6, is because their "father" (John 8:44) doesn't even want people to be converted, let alone realize that the first question a new convert should ask the Lord Jesus Christ is:

• "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" (Acts 9:6p)

The word "pricks" in the passage is a translation of the greek word kentra, (where our English word centre/center comes from,) which Strong's concordance (2759) says is from kenteo (to prick) ... "i.e. a sting (figuratively, poison) or goad (figuratively, divine impulse)". But, of course, Jesus didn't use the greek word kentra, but the "Hebrew" (Acts 26:14) word for prick as in Psalms 73:21.

• Google's pricks of conscience (143,000 results, but less than 600 english pages)

The plain fact of the matter is that Saul's conscience was giving him a conniption fit. The word of God was flooding his soul with light, but he kept shaking off the conviction, until the Lord as much as said, Okay, well, as the BK commercial says, Have it your way! KA-BOOM! The sky lit up as bright as a "flesh" (Zechariah 14:12) consuming new clear boom, when Saul, who wasn't watching where he was going like his companions, but had turned toward the west to gaze at the beauty of mount Hermon, suddenly found himself face to face with the very glory of God, the light so bright that "no man can approach unto" it! (1Timothy 6:16) And he could not close his eye lids fast enough before the surface of his eyeballs were SEARED. That got his attention! (Well, dear gentle reader, are you awake yet?) Three days later the "scales" (Acts 9:18) of dead tissue on his eyes fell off and the Lord healed him. The Lord can remove your scales of unbelief if you do as Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Grace be to them that cherish the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
Telpardec (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't make sense. Where's the evidence that the KJV translation reflects the consensus of modern scholarship about what the original text was? The passage is omitted from the Revised Version and the American Standard Version, neither of which was exactly theologically progressive or liable to omit difficult passages. 20th and 21st century translations all omit the passage in question, regardless of where they lie on the spectrum of Christian thought, and again these are not translations that omit passages the translators may have theological quibbles with. The evidence is that the passage in question is a later addition to Acts, and not part of Paul's original testimony about what happened to him. Pais (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the passage in question does appear in Acts 26, when Paul is re-telling his story. But in Acts 9, it appears to be a later addition. See [1] for example: "the expression in question does not appear in any of the original Greek manuscripts"; and [2]: "Acts 9:5 it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. This reading is absent here from the Greek manuscripts." and "Acts 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? and the Lord said unto him. This reading is found in the Latin Vulgate and in other ancient witnesses. It is absent, however, from the Greek manuscripts". Pais (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Contradictions in Acts Concerning the Account

I added a new section "Contradictory Details of the Account" detailing the lengthy debate over Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. Considering that discussions of Paul's conversion story (especially as told in Acts) almost always turn to this topic (at least in academic and even some Biblical circles), I think it's germane to the article. An Internet search for these two passages yields numerous articles solely devoted to this very discussion.--Kglogauer (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame you haven't sourced anything in that entire section, except one sentence from a non-scholarly source. It looks entirely to be original research at this point. 70.176.218.89 (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire; the first five references for this entire article stem from this one section, alone, and in fact, they are the only scholarly references in the entire article. All of the other references are simply passage citings from the New Testament.--Kglogauer (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have written some things that I believe are more objective on the subject. Luke is very credible in what he wrote in Acts. It does not matter what subject it is, you can find someone who will make it controversial. There is still a group that publishes articles claiming that the earth is flat. Does that mean the subject is controversial? Not at all! It simply means that there are people who will believe all kinds of things that have no credibility. The same thing applies to the two accounts of Paul's conversion. Bringing up the differences and pointing out a reasonable solution is one thing. Making it a big controversial issue is quite another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MA-MDiv-GLR (talk • contribs) 04:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The above comments are simply absurd. The author has created a false analogy between the well-known controversy of Acts 9:7/22:9 and flat-earth conspiracies in order to delegitimize the inclusion of this material. As I mentioned previously, an internet search for these two passages yields hundreds, if not thousands, of hits pertaining to the discussion of whether Acts preserves a Bible contradiction at 9:7 and 22:9. According to the King James Version (and most other Bible translations), it very clearly does, which warrants the inclusion of the material. It seems to me that you, and perhaps others here, are simply subjectively downgrading the degree of controversy inherent to this discussion so that you can quietly sweep it under the rug in an attempt to prevent people from knowing that there exists a controversy in the first place. What's very telling is that you (or someone else) didn't just delete the discussion of the material, but actually went so far as to delete the side-by-side comparisons of the different Bible translations of these two passages. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that you don't want people judging for themselves whether there's any controversy. The different Bible translations say very different things; no one can dispute that demonstrable fact. Nor can anyone dispute that these different translations have generated much discussion and controversy as it pertains to Biblical inerrancy. Regardless, the section has been reinstated, with the addition of a more in-depth scholarly discussion of the material. The arguments from both sides are accurately presented. If you feel that the information is incorrect, then you have an obligation to discuss what additions could be made to make the discussion even more exhaustive, complete, and accurate. What you cannot do, however, is perform a wholesale deletion of material you don't just like because it conflicts with your theological views.--Kglogauer (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The section certainly needs additional references, which I don't have time to dig up, but I've corrected some typos and referenced some standard lexicon entries. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now added some scholarly references (on an issue of grammar, citing grammar textbooks is probably useful), removed some apparent WP:OR, reworded to be less polemic, and trimmed some redundancy. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In your "trimming," you've essentially reverted the article back to a pro-apologetic stance (which was its primary problem in the first place), and also made the entire section hopelessly unintelligible. The 24 April 2010 version was much more readable and scholarly, as it explained the problem clearly and then offered a point-counterpoint discussion of how critical scholars and apologists each treat the apparent contradiction. I'm fine with your decision to reference works on New Testament Greek, but in so doing you've muddled the discussion by replacing the previous revision's introductory material on the problem with a very convoluted discourse on grammar. If people don't even understand the background of why there's a problem (and after reading your revision, they probably don't), discussions on grammar are going to be virtually pointless. I'll refrain from making the accusation that that was exactly your intention, but I will go so far as to say that you've seriously undermined the integrity and readability of the section by replacing so much worthwhile material with so much aimless, grammatical wandering. I'm also confused about what "typos" you claim to have fixed up. I've read over the 24 April 2010 revision and don't see any "typos".--Kglogauer (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate that people who refuse to believe the simple biblical account about what happened in the case of Paul's conversion, and in every other case where something supernatural takes place, must assert their unbelief and try to gain converts, attempting to find a naturalistic explanation for everything. Many naive persons do not realize that such an approach is simple atheism. The Scriptures are being fulfilled, right before our eyes: "Confessing themselves to be wise, they because fools."

The inanity of the above comment is pretty self explanatory. It has no place in a discussion of whether material should be deemed a worthwhile addition to a Wikipedia article. It's pure Christian apologetics; nothing more, nothing less.--Kglogauer (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with other editors: this section looks like original research. Even the claim that there is much debate cites only one source. I would suggest condensing down to two lines. We don't need all the quotations from different Bible translations. A scholarly source would help here. Martin Turner (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and do that! --Doric Loon (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"in the Hebrew language"

According to Acts:26, the voice heard was "in the Hebrew language", which was of course understood by Paul, but hardly by his companions, as it was an obsolete language. This can add to the interpretation that they heard a sound, but did not understand it. I am going to search about the languages that Paul could speak, and if that is not already in Wikipedia, it does deserve a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.90.54 (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The were Jews. They could all understand Hebrew. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction cover-up

I'm seriously irritated by the way this article dedicates a whole section to the attempt to cover up a contradiction in the Bible. Did Paul's companions hear the voice? Well, first Luke writes "they ἀκούω-ed the φωνή" and then he writes "they did not ἀκούω the φωνή". It couldn't be a blunter contradiction. I have no objection to scholarly discussions of what exactly ἀκούω and φωνή mean, but whatever they mean, they must mean the same in both places. If the same author tells the same story twice in the same text, and at the same place in both versions he has a sentence which uses the same two words with the same reference to the same people doing the same thing, you HAVE to translate those words the same way both times. But Evangelical translations dishonestly cover up the problem by telling us that they "heard the sound" but "did not understand the voice". This Wikipedia article seems to want to justify that by pouring enough doubt on the meanings of the words that both translations seem justifiable. What it does not do is point out the most obvious thing that any philologian would see: that if it is about hearing a voice, it is about hearing a voice in both sentences, because they are parallel. The article also fails to mention that in Acts 9.7, ἀκούω is in a non-finite form, which means that φωνή must be genitive irrespective of semantics. And above all it fails to mention that all the "scholars" cited in favour of translations that hide the contradiction are Evangelicals working in the service of a Church. This really won't do. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

For my money, BTW (but this is OR of the flimsiest sort), I reckon both passages originally said that they didn't hear the voice, but that the word "not" was dropped from Acts 9.7 by a simple scribal error. The best thing a translator can do is translate both passages with "they did not hear the voice", and add a footnote to say that the word "not" is missing in the Greek. That would be sound professional translation technique. But it would assume the one thing an Evangelical can't: that the received text is flawed in the same ways that any ancient received text must always be. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, a year and a half on, nobody has responded, so I have rewritten the section in what I hope is a neutral way. Is there actually anyone working here now? If so, there are other problems with this article. One of the biggest is that it rarely says who thinks what - when there is a difference in views, which theological tradition says what? I hope I have fixed that in the "differences between the accounts" section, but it applies elsewhere. Theological significance: Paul's conversion "is seen as..." - by whom? Alternative explanations - whose are they? This section assumes the rest of the text is true (the fact that the fellow travellers heard something speaks against a hallucination), so is it the view of semi-conservative Christians or what? I would have thought an atheist would just have said that the whole account is ficticious and be done with it. It is really important to identify the theological camp of every view cited. --Doric Loon (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to ultimately respond to you since no one else did and I did not read this until then. First while we do adhere to WP:NPOV we also adhere to WP:VALID / WP:FALSEBALANCE which means we are biased to academic research. We do not give equal validity to fringe theories like Jesus Mythicism. The Davis source is not in any scholarly or peer-reviewed academic source, in fact it is posted in the atheism section and based on the jacket, description, and opening paragraphs, it is downright unreliable. Secondly, you show your blunder when you say "Evangelicals working in the service of a Church". Seriously? One can make the same case about atheists working in scholarly fields to "shock Christians" and sell lots of books. This rhetoric does not fit with Wikipedia.

Next I want to ask you about "it would assume the one thing an Evangelical can't: that the received text is flawed". Which Evangelical says this exactly? See this source: It applies to the original autographs. As for the genitive and accusative response see: and finally, https://www.tektonics.org/lp/paulthree.php is another site arguing from EP Sanders, a scholar. There is no reason that the first case HAS to match up with the second case. Especially since Luke is recording the account with "hear" and then quotes Paul "understand". Two different people. Furthermore, even from a scholarly perspective I have to say when we recount stories we do so with a lack of precision. Sometimes we clarify things: "...they didn't hear it" if pressed further "...well they HEARD sounds they just didn't UNDERSTAND it or hear the words" and this is normal speech. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Ryan, thank you for engaging. I absolutely agree with your last point - imprecision and confusion are normal in human language, and that is why the vast majority of Christians throughout history had no difficulty saying that there is a contradiction here, even if they believed the story to be true. I am completely cool with that. But the Evangelical approach to scriptural inerrancy, which is actually no older than the late 19th century, gets itself tied in the most awful knots trying to smoothe out the difficulties so it can say the text is "perfect". As I was an evangelical preacher for many years before I came to the view that this approach to scripture is intellectually dishonest, I know this thinking inside-out. Evangelical theology does not allow you to say what all the other Christian traditions happily do say: that the Bible was written by humans and shows the flaws that you would expect from humans, and that whatever kind of revelation your particular tradition finds in the text can be sifted out despite that. But the Fundamentalist / Conservative Evangelical school needs to reconcile discrepancies in order to preserve the illusion of textual perfection, even when that involves intellectual contortions that defy credulity. (Judas hanged himself, but the rope broke and he fell to his death, wouldn't you know!) In the present case, I don't think any reader who doesn't have an axe to grind would read "they ἀκούω-ed the φωνή" and then "they did not ἀκούω the φωνή" and not think "oops, something went wrong there". Maybe the solution really IS that they heard but did not understand - but that's not what the text SAYS, and for a bible translation to "fix it" on the sly and not even add a footnote about the problem is deeply dishonest. And the reason for my comments above was that a couple of years ago this Wikipedia article was pushing that theology. Wikipedia has no room for apologetics. When I said "Evangelicals working in the service of a Church" I expressed myself badly, but I was trying to distinguish between Evangelicals who are true scholars, like F.F.Bruce (whom I admire greatly) and the vast sunami of second-rate apologetics that is churned out by many Evangelical publishing houses. Before I challenged it, this Wikipedia passage read like a horse from that stable, and I stand by my criticism of it. BTW, the Davis text was not my addition. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Doric it is not up to you to decide what is scholarly and what is not. If scholars state it, it is to be included. There are many intellectually honest "Evangelical" scholars out there. What makes a "true scholar" in your mind? I am okay with the way the article is now, however you've turned this talk page into a personal rant about "evangelicals" with blatant falsehoods. For example Catholicism and Orthodoxy both hold to Scriptural inerrancy the way that evangelicals do. No Evangelical holds to no errors in transmission. This is from scholarly sources like Wallace and Craig others. To say otherwise is a misrepresentation, and it's sad you don't understand your own "tradition".

If this were a forum to discuss I'd ask you to define what you mean by the "Evangelical approach to scriptural inerrancy" and then source "which is actually no older than the late 19th century". In fact Tradition (and now the Papacy) is held to infallibility and inerrancy as well. (Of course at least with the Pope there are ex cathedra infallibility limits). In fact, as a scholar, I find the Judas "contradiction" reconcilable and I do NOT identify as Evangelical. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

With respect, Dr Ryan, the only thing I am ranting against is the bias that was in the article when I first wrote here in January 2019. That bias has gone, so if you are comfortable with the article now, we don't really have an argument, or at least not one relevant for this talk page. I think you are wrong about Catholicism - their doctrine of Scripture is different from the one I described. You are certainly wrong to say that "no evangelical" holds to the views that are near universal in the fundamentalist circles I know so well. --Doric Loon (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References