Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Length of biography

I think that this article could benefit from a shorter biography section. While it may be of interest to those who are interested in Paul as a person, it is too long for the general reader who wants to understand who Paul was, what he taught, and what his influence on the shape of Christianity was. The whole biography section could be split to a separate article, keeping a number of shorter passages:

• Available sources - en toto
• Early life - shortened
• Conversion - maybe a little bit shortened
• Early ministry - shortened
• Council of Jerusalem & Incident at Antioch - one subsection
• Missionary journey - very short summary
• Arrest, Rome, death - short summary

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The article ought also to contain a discussion of whether Paul actually existed. What few sources there are for him are all biased toward the Christian message, and most of them (Polycarp, Ignatius, etc) are years later. I notice many articles about biblical characters appear to be written by believers, who not surprisingly have an unconscious agenda, and do not recognise that Paul, Moses, David, Solomon, etc, have little or no historical attestation outside the biblical texts that promote them. It's important this article be encyclopedic, and not apologetic. 2600:1:C354:B0FC:F8F8:1E30:F61B:BBC8 (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

- as far as I know, there are no notable scholars who doubt the existence of Paul (although I have not read every book on early Christianity) - adding content doubting the existence of Paul would require citations from reliable sources WP:RS - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

One "X-myth"-article suffices. What's missing, though, is Marcion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The only scholars I know of who deny the historical existence of Paul in some form would be Robert M. Price and the late Hermann Detering. And even they identify Paul with Simon Magus, rather than completely denying the existence of some sort of historical figure behind "Paul" altogether. It's certainly a fringe view. But I would agree that this article relies too heavily and unquestioningly on Acts as a source of historical information about Paul, since critical scholars seem pretty much agreed that its a very problematic historical source which seems to have been written for the express purpose of depicting a perfectly harmonious beginning of the church.

Also yeah, the article should talk about Marcion and his interpretation of Paul more. Montgolfière (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Paul's role as an Apostle

In stating Paul's role as an Apostle, I think the term "original" needs to be added. His contributions to the early church were considerable. Stating that he was not one of group of 12 insinuates that his role was less important. As far as I can tell, the scriptures are not clear if he was appointed to the Apostleship to fill a vacancy that occurred as a result of Stephen's passing (as was the case when Judas was replaced in the group of 12) or if the title fell upon him by his own doing. Seems to me since the order was established when Judas was replaced the same order continued with Stephan's replacement. 12original (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Largely self-appointed as an apostle. Saint Stephen was not an apostle either, just a deacon. The group of original Apostles named in the Gospels (who are of dubious historicity themselves) were:

• 1) Saint Peter/Simon Peter.
• 2) Andrew the Apostle.
• 3) James, son of Zebedee.
• 4) John the Apostle.
• 5) Philip the Apostle.
• 6) Bartholomew the Apostle, often identified with Nathanael.
• 7) Thomas the Apostle.
• 8) Matthew the Apostle.
• 9) James, son of Alphaeus, often identified with James the Less.
• 10) Jude the Apostle/Judas Thaddaeus.
• 11) Simon the Zealot/Simon the Cananite, often identified with Simon, brother of Jesus and Simeon of Jerusalem.
• 12) Judas Iscariot. Following his suicide, he was reportedly replaced by Saint Matthias. Dimadick (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Section "Phisical appearence": 1Corinthians 11,1-16 unique reference to the Christian canon of the Bible

Hi @Epinoia: with this reverted edit I wrote:

In 1Corinthians 11,1–16, Paul the Apostle prescribed the baptized men to have shortly cut hair and the women to enter Churches with a headcovering. St. Paul invites Christian believers to the Imitation of Christ through his example, as Jesus is the head of any human creature of God.Hence, it can be supposed that Paul didn't have long hair, by choice or by way of his constitution. Hence, it can be supposed that Paul didn't have long hair,, by choice or by way of his constitution.

1Corinthians 11,1–16 is a WP:primary source. The current article and the questioned section "Physical appearance" are largely based on secondary and tertiary sources.

The section quotes the apocryphal Acts of Paul, commented by the biblical the scholar Robert Eisler. Perhaps, there are is no single reference to the Christian Canon of the Bible at the moment, except 1Corinthians 11,1-16 that I've proposed. I think it would be useful to add the following text:

"A possible reference for the phisical appearence prescribed to the early Christians is mentioned in 1Corinthians 11,1–16, where Paul the Apostle recommends the baptized men to have shortly cut hair and the women to enter Churches with a headcovering."

— alternative text proposed

The direct supposition about the phisical appearence Paul is deleted, so as to have a more WP:NPOV section.Wait for your (someone's) opinion.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

1. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." WP:PSTS
2. The passage from 1 Corinthians does not say that Paul had short hair. To jump from his recommendation that men have shortly cut hair to the conclusion that Paul had short hair is original research (WP:NOR). A reliable secondary source is required to confirm that Paul had short hair.
3. The term "short" is a relative term. How short is "shortly cut"? Brush cut, above the ears, below the ears, collar length? The term is so vague that it cannot be used as a description of Paul's appearance.
4. The proposed addition of, "the women to enter Churches with a headcovering" has nothing to do with Paul's appearance.
5. The article contains four references to Paul as bald, so the claim that he may have had shortly cut hair is contrary to the sources. - Epinoia (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2019

There are missing Epistles that Paul wrote. 1st and 2nd Timothy; Colossians, 2nd Thessalonians, Titus, Jude, Ephesians! I am rather surprised as it is quite easy to find the listing on so many on-line bible apps! 98.178.194.26 (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

- these writings are mentioned in the article section Authorship - Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are considered pseudepigraphical; Colossians and 2 Thessalonians were possibly written by Paul's followers - the Epistle of Jude is not attributed to Paul - for more information, see the main article Authorship of the Pauline epistles - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Marking as  Not done per the above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

the name Saul

>perhaps after the biblical King Saul, a fellow Benjamite and the first king of Israel.

What is the point, and source, of this speculation? In Jewish tradition, children are named after deceased relatives. And if he wasn't named after a grandfather, then he may have been named Saul because his parents liked the name. In Biblical times they had Popular Baby Names just like we do now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1383:8601:214E:F718:7E06:E552 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedians simply WP:CITE WP:RS, that's all. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2019

173.54.207.22 (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

ON here; Wikipedia it states that saint Pablo died in a fire in Rome. Yet in the bible, it states that he was decapitated.

 Not done The Bible isn't a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE. Sorry, around here academic learning (mainstream history) trumps Sola Scriptura. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

How can there be an "early life" section of this when it's very possible Paul is a myth?

You can't use a mythological text like the Bible as a reference to where someone is from. There's little chance anyone existed in the Bible.

I contrast this with articles written about say, Indian religious figures. There's plenty of Hindus but in wiki articles, it says they're mythological, from what I have read. The Bible is mythological and isn't a history of anything unless we want to claim the religions and supernatural creatures are the only real ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:49:4300:14B0:E5AE:F2A3:C8EC:3135 (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Paul persecuted Jews or Christians?

According to the recent changes to the article, now all the article says that Paul persecuted "Hellenised diaspora Jews" and not Christians. It is completely contradictory the new sentences because Hellenistic Jews tried to kill Paul. Acts 9:29 "He [Paul] talked and debated with the Hellenistic Jews, but they tried to kill him." I would check if the references are reliable. --Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If the new edits aren't properly sourced you can feel free to revert them.Achar Sva (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through and edited the references to bring them closer to the referenced source, which is a reliable one. Achar Sva (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the edit in question; it added "converted to Christianity" to several sentences. That's an anachronistic usage of the term Christianity. Yet, the subsequent editing done to those changes also removed relevant info, some of which was added/edited by me diff. I've further edited it, and restored some of the removed info, after checking Dunn (2007) again:

• Dunn is clear that Paul did not persecute (emphasis mine) "the embryonic Christian movement," but a specific group within that movement, that is, Hellenised Jews; see p.345;
• Dunn describes Stephen as a Hellenised Jew, maing explicitly clear the importance of the difference between "Hebrews" and "Hellenists"; see p.242-244;
• "Hellenised diaspora Jews living in Jerusalem, who played an important role in reaching a Gentile, Greek audience, notably at Antioch" is a crucial piece of info;

The crux is, that Helleneised Jews, like Paul himslef, played an essential role in the transmission of the "Church of God," the early Christian movement, from Jews to Greek-speaking Romans. Without this bridge, no Christianity as we know it today, but a Jewish sect such as the Ebionites. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Peter & Paul were executed by the Romans on Oct 13, 64 AD - the 10th Anniversary of Nero being Emperor

There are several sources that state that Peter & Paul were executed by the Romans on Oct 13, 64 AD - the 10th Anniversary of Nero being Emperor. 73.85.203.37 (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

Special:Contributions/2001:A61:4E5:8301::/64 is edit warring. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

of Tarsus

That wasn't his own name, that what the place he came from. Most ancient people did not have a last name or family name. As Bart Ehrman said, there are many Marys in the New Testament, and in order to know who they are the evangelist told the town they came from. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

View on Homosexuality

This section states that "most scholars have concluded that 1 Timothy (along with 2 Timothy and Titus) is not original to Paul[.]" "Role of women" above in this section states that 1 Timothy is one of Paul's undisputed letters. Can this be clarified? The internal inconsistency is troubling. 4.31.138.211 (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

St. Peter & St. Paul were both Executed on Oct. 13, 64 AD: Dies Imperii

I tweaked...The date of Paul's death is believed to have occurred soon after the Great Fire of Rome (in July 64) on October 13: the 10-year Anniversary of Nero becoming Caesar: Dies imperii. Saint Peter was crucified upside-down on the same day.<ref]http://www.mdrevelation.org/the-crucifixion-of-st-peter/ </ref] 2601:583:681:8430:31CF:5223:1B2A:C04 (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It would be interesting to find a reliable source that says this, but the link to a religious website that you have provided is not that. However, it does reference research by one Margherita Guarducci, so the place to start looking for a reliable source on this would probably be by seeing what academic papers pertaining to that research are available on Google Scholar. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Obviously no historical documentation exists, but this has been a matter of tradition from very early on. Lower down, the article says: "Eusebius states that Paul was killed during the Neronian Persecution and, quoting from Dionysius of Corinth, argues that Peter and Paul were martyred "at the same time"." Saint_Peter#Crucifixion_at_Rome has other sources. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Antioch

Hi, in reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Council_of_Jerusalem, it says that "Despite the agreement achieved at the Council of Jerusalem, Paul recounts how he later publicly confronted Peter in a dispute sometimes called the Incident at Antioch". Yet, here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem#Issues_and_outcome, it says that the purpose of the Council of Jerusalem was to "resolve a disagreement in Antioch". So there is an inconsistency as to the relative order of the Antioch incident and the Jerusalem meeting. Perhaps the experts in NT history can fix this, or, if it is just about terminology, add some clarification. Thank you. 65.113.226.67 (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Switching infobox image

Several weeks ago I switched the infobox image to Rembrandt's The Apostle Paul (c. 1657), but this was reverted for being an "undiscussed image change that doesn't seem an improvement". The current image in use is St Paul (c. 1611) by Peter Paul Rubens. My reasoning is as follows:

1. As overviewed by the National Gallery of Art, "throughout his life Rembrandt was fascinated by the apostle Paul, perhaps because Paul’s writings were the most important source for Reformation theology, or perhaps because he personified the Christian ideal of grace received independently of merit ... the solemn expression of Paul’s strong features underscores the depth of his belief and sense of purpose in his mission to spread Christianity to the heathens". When compared with Rubens' portrayal, I feel that The Apostle Paul certainly carries more meaning.
2. I feel that the red and mud colour tones in The Apostle Paul seem to convey a better overall picture of Paul's history, character, and redemption, as opposed to the brown and blue used in St Paul. The feature image will obviously carry a lot of weight in setting the scene for what is to come throughout the article.
3. According to Google Ngram, mention of Rembrandt throughout scholarship is (on a scale) considerably more than that of Rubens. This means, in a general sense, that using The Apostle Paul could have a further degree of historical notability.

I realise that there is a certain amount of subjectivity regarding what should be used for a feature image, but I hope that this helps convey my thoughts to anyone interested. If there is no general opposition, I will proceed in making the changes soon. VistaSunset (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

With no replies in 48 hours, I have proceeded in making the changes. VistaSunset (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2022

The article suggests that 'Paul' is a Romanised version of 'Saul'. I would like to point out that this seems unlikely since ‘Paul’ means ‘little’ yet ‘Saul’ means ‘prayed for’ so 'Paul' is perhaps more likely a name given as he started to move into the world outside of his home, at which point he was obviously not the tallest of people. I guess it could be likened to John Little aka Little John who was one of the allies of Sir Robert of Locksley (Robin Hood). Paul's full name at the time of his writings in Scripture would have been 'Rabbi Saul Paulus' with perhaps other unknown names too. He was from a fairly wealthy family, perhaps indicated because his parents were Roman citizens, and he was born a Roman citizen.

David Prof David M Harris - wiki-david@harris-clan.org Gentle.Knight (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Noted. The statement about 'approximation' was also wholly unsupported by the cited sources: this unqualified guesswork has now been removed. Thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

One of Bart Ehrman's odd questions for the test for his students (before teaching them anything) is "What is Apostle Paul's second name?" And the correct answer in his view is that most people from Antiquity did not have second names. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Auto-archiving, please change

Hi, The Auto-archiving feature is doing it every 3 months. This is just not that active a Talk thread for that frequency. And having to slog through Archives is no fun at all. Based on looking back at previous Talk page archives, I would suggest that this either be set to 18 months, but no sooner than 12 months. And if it has slowed enough, set to even less often. The Help files on this were arcane. Can someone with skill, change it accordingly? Thank you! Misty MH (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2022

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Paul the Apostle → Saint Paul – Like Saint Peter and Saint Anne, the WP:COMMONNAME of this individual appears to be the individual's name preceded by "Saint" by an order of magnitude. This is the case among scholarly works (550K results for "Saint Paul" vs 25K results for "Paul the Apostle") as well as in popular press works (see NGRAMS). As such, the title should be moved in line with the article subject's WP:COMMONNAME. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. This is certainly the most common name for him, although "the Apostle Paul" is probably not too far behind—I would guess "Paul the Apostle" is somewhat further back, with "Paul of Tarsus", a former name of this article, considerably less common than all of the above. I don't believe that our "sainthood" guideline is relevant here: some people don't like him, don't think he ought to be celebrated, and maybe they're right—but he is celebrated, has been since the beginning, and nearly every denomination considers him a saint; non-Christians don't usually care whether Christians consider someone a saint, or complain about having to call somebody one. I think that guideline is mainly useful when someone's sainthood is widely disputed, or another name for the person is similarly common—neither of which is the case here. The best objection to this move is probably the existence of Saint Paul, Minnesota; but that article is distinguished through natural disambiguation, and in practical terms most people outside of the upper midwest will assume that "Saint Paul" refers to the saint, rather than the city named after him, unless the context suggests otherwise. P Aculeius (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I'd prefer all the apostles be at "xyz the Apostle" as it clearly shows what the topic is, instead of the large number of "Saint XYZ" topics, including famous landmarks, places, and other saints -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You seem to think Paul was one of the Twelve Apostles - he wasn't. That is one of the problems with the current name. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't. He had an "epiphany on the road" and converted after the resurrection, as frequently stated. He's one of those extra apostles from early Christianity, and not one of the 13 disciples who travelled with Yeshua the Nazarene. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd be inclined to support the request per WP:COMMONNAME but consistency is also relevant and I see that we have John the Apostle, Thomas the Apostle, Andrew the Apostle, Philip the Apostle, Jude the Apostle, Matthias the Apostle, Bartholomew the Apostle, Matthew the Apostle. True enough, we also have James the Great, James the Less, Simon the Zealot and Saint Peter, plus Barnabas... Probably "Saint Paul" would be precise enough to be unambiguous, but there are other saints who are named Paul, so perhaps "Paul the Apostle" is preferable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The current name wrongly suggests that Paul is one of the Twelve Apostles - in fact he never even met Jesus. Very different to those you name. There are indeed many other saints called Paul, but they are all without exception remarkably obscure. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that argument holds: Paul claimed to be an apostle because he had seen Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1); but more to the point, all branches of the Christian church recognise his claim to be an apostle. Adpete (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: For the reasons Gitz6666 gave. Paul the Apostle seems in-line with WP:Consist as noted by Gitz. Vyselink (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - certainly in Protestant scholarship "Paul the Apostle" or some variant ("The apostle Paul", or simply "Paul") is more common. The 550k Google scholar hits claimed should be treated with caution, because a large number of them are for Saint Paul, Minnesota. I admit that Catholic and Orthodox scholarship may well prefer "Saint Paul", so on Christian scholarly usage alone it is probably balanced; but "Paul the Apostle" has the advantage of being more neutral. (Disclaimer: I am Protestant myself). Adpete (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Mild oppose - James Dunn uses "Paul the Apostle; that says enough for me. Compromise: "Saint Paul the Apostle." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - As is the case with the rest of the twelve, whether or not the one proper title for Paul is "Saint", "Apostle", or "Disciple" is disputed, with only those who venerate Paul using the title "Saint" and reserving it for formal, denominational use, which not all Christians do. Besides, as has been mentioned before, you don't want people mixing him up with the city of St. Paul, Minnesota, particularly as that's a state capital and separation of church and state is an issue, and I have a feeling that's not the only city that's so named, even in English. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: for consistency with other apostles and per MOS:SAINT. The foundational principles of the WP:COMMONNAME case here also has some holes. If you just flip 'Paul the apostle' around into 'apostle Paul', it comes up on top in Ngrams, while scholarly hits for 'apostle paul' are also more numerous than estimated above (86k results). As also noted above, there are also A LOT of false positives in the 'saint paul' search results, including potentially references to the likes of 'Saint Paul, Minnesota', the academic author Ulrich Saint-Paul, another author called 'Gilles Saint-Paul', and I'm sure the list goes on. There are no obvious parallel false positives for 'apostle paul'. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gamaliel

Paul's education by Gamaliel is mentioned in Acts but definitively not what "modern scholarship agrees" on. Cf. Jürgen Becker (1998³), Paulus der Apostel der Völker, p. 39, points to the difference between Acts and Pauls own words in Gal 1,22-24. Cf also E. Sanders (2015), PAUL The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought, p 20f "Since the primary evidence for Paul is his own letters, we must reject most of the material about Paul in Acts 1–9." Kipala (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

How many books?

Part of this article says 13 books have been attributed to Paul; another section says 14. 2601:643:8D00:970:D0AC:A67:1F14:8E20 (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I have now edited one of these statements that was confusing. In fact 14 books have historically been attributed to Paul, but only 13 name Paul as the author. The Epistle to the Hebrews does not include the name of its author, but people have long speculated over who might have written it. The idea that it was written by Paul used to be very popular, especially during the Middle Ages, though scholars have long argued that Pauline authorship was unlikely, and nowadays very few people accept this view. Some older Bible translations still include Paul's name in the title of this book. - Lindert (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The "casual" student of the Bible will usually knit pick to say it's 13 because they are usually unaware of the historical and academic contexts in which authorship of Hebrews is considered. I like your edited rewording as it avoids this, and certainly errs on the side of the "known" (vs the "assumed"). There are a couple of existing footnotes that are related to this (specifically 2 and 3 under current numbering). It might be a good idea to add one or both to this sentence as notes as well. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I also note in your article you refer to 27 books in the NT. I count 26 i.e. the Bible all up 66 books of which 39 are OT. Your thoughts? 218.215.118.180 (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

My mistake 218.215.118.180 (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

ποιησας χρονον

I am not aware that ποιησας χρονον means `about a year'. Literally it means `making/doing time'; perhaps `spending time' would be a colloquial translation. SilverCynic (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

sources about being the patron saint

Hello, I'm Brazilian so some words may be wrong. I was editing wikipedia in Portuguese and I added him as the patron saint of missionaries and so on. I forgot to put the source, and when I came to look here to re-edit I couldn't find it. Does anyone know where it is located? Saul Lucena (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

First paragraph

Paul did not spread the teachings of jesus. It is not clear that he was even familiar with them 47.7.222.121 (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2023

Paul did not spread the teachings of Jesus, as per the opening paragraph. It is not clear that he was even familiar with them. 47.7.222.121 (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The citation in the article is simply 'Powell 2009.' Based on this model, I would point to any of the Pauline epistles, or to Acts. Alternatively, I think either of these 2 books work, among many others:

James Tabor, Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity, Simon & Schuster, 2012, ISBN 978-1-4391-2331-7

Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1997, ISBN 1-84293-026-5 174.213.162.152 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. To explain further, pointing to religious texts as the sources for this change would amount to original research. For the two books you've provided, please point to specific pages or chapters that present/discuss the argument that "Paul did not spread the teachings of Jesus." Pinchme123 (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said, citation #9 just says 'Powell 2009.' Why must I be more specific than that? 47.7.222.121 (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I would suggest that the first sentence simply be changed to 'was an apostle in the first-century world's. 47.7.222.121 (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

See WP:DUE. To be clear, Paul was obviously transitioning from the teachings of Jesus to teachings about Jesus. Whether he was ignorant of the former is guessiology. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. I think it would be best if this edit request was not reopened until it is hashed out whether or not a change should be made. – Recoil16 (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, under the 'Understanding of Jesus Christ' heading of the 'Views' tab of this article, one does not find mention of Jesus' teachings. I would suggest that the absence of such is ubiquitous. How does one cite that? 174.213.162.118 (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

‘previously called’

That’s utter nonsense. Saul is the Jewish name, Paul the Greek one. There are other Jews having two different names in the Bible, just take a look at the Book of Daniel.

—2003:F5:FF01:E100:AC47:45BE:D26A:8852 (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think the problem is here. All of this is explained under "Names". Iskandar323 (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that ‘previously called’ suggests that he changed his name from Saul to Paul, which is wrong. One name was used among the Jews and the other one among the nations, a practice common long before and after his lifetime.

And as there is a stupid phrase vom Saulus zum Paulus here in Germany (possibly also in other countries) perpetuating a wrong idea of his change (as if he stopped being a Pharisee or a Jew, as opposed to his explicit statements that he was a Jew), it is important not to convey such nonsense in the introduction. Note that this is not a question of faith (whatever I may believe or not, which is my business and mine alone) but about facts. —2003:F5:FF24:8300:A541:B57F:5C59:6296 (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I have clarified this by changing “previously called” to “also named”. Dantus21 (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Too long? Again, ‘previously called’ implies dropping the old name whereas there is no evidence Paul got rid of it. The introduction is misleading the reader. —2003:F5:FF24:8300:4C03:BDAB:9A32:2A98 (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2023

The very first sentence of the article reads that Paul ...'was a Christian apostle who spread the teachings of Jesus in the first-century world.[9]' The citation here refers to 'Powell 2009,' but without a page number. At the very least I would suggest that change, but preferably more sources, because based on the texts (Paul's letters and Acts), at most Paul relayed 1-3 teachings that could be attributed to Jesus in the gospels, and I would challenge anyone to provide evidence of more.

Ideally I would remove the 'spread the teachings of Jesus' bit. Again, I believe it is the consensus of critical scholars and anyone with eyes that this is objectively true, but here are some sources to back that up (I don't know how you cite the absence of something):

http://thegodofjesus.com/articles/the-amazing-shift-away-from-jesus-in-the-popular-gospel

The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, Charles L. Quarles, and L. Scott Kellum, 2009, 370.

Faith and Understanding Volume 1 by Rudolf Bultmann, 1969, 220-223.

Geschichte der Paulinischen Forschung von der Reformation bis auf die Gegenwart by Albert Schweitzer, 1911, 191.

Furthermore, later in this same wikipedia article, E.P. Sanders is quoted: 'Sanders concludes that Paul's writings reveal what he calls the essence of the Christian message: "(1) God sent his Son; (2) the Son was crucified and resurrected for the benefit of humanity; (3) the Son would soon return; and (4) those who belonged to the Son would live with him forever. Paul's gospel, like those of others, also included (5) the admonition to live by the highest moral standard: "May your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"."[265][8]'

Notice the lack of emphasis on Jesus' teachings... It may seem counterintuitive to say, but the undeniable fact is that Paul largely did NOT spread Jesus' teachings, and this article should not say that he did. 47.7.222.121 (talk) 06:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I would re-read what Recoil16 wrote above, which I shall repaste here, as this is the second time you've requested this change with the semi-protected template, and the third thread you've made on the subject: "please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the "Edit semi-protected" template. I think it would be best if this edit request was not reopened until it is hashed out whether or not a change should be made."

I would also re-read what the semi-protected template itself says, i.e. "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

Your own argument says that Paul "largely" did not, not that he did not do so at all, and therefore simply removing the sentence would be inaccurate. Using EP Sanders quote as you did also does not help your argument, as you yourself said in this very thread "I don't know how you cite the absence of something". So just because Sanders did not say so doesn't prove your point. Also, thegodofjesus.com is not a RS, although the rest appear to be so. However, as many of us may not have the sources, any specific quotes you think help your point should be added here on the talk page.

My recommendation: start another thread, WITHOUT using the semi-protected template (as I imagine it will continue to be responded to with a "No"), state precisely what you want changed and what you want it changed into. Add your RS sources with quotes from the source so that those who can't immediately get to them can at least see what they say in the sections you are using as evidence (do NOT use thegodofjesus as that is not a RS and will be immediately rejected). Allow time for people to respond on whether they think the change is a good idea/should be made. This is how WP works, building a consensus using RS's and debate.

I do agree with you that the Powell source should have at least a page number added to it. I don't have the source, but if some other editor does, please add it. Vyselink (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, this is helpful. I apologize for me inexperience. 174.213.144.203 (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

To add to the above, please review WP:RS to understand what we consider to be a reliable source (and what is considered to not be a reliable source). Also, there is a list of sources that can or cannot be used here: WP:RSP. Note that just because something isn't in that list doesn't mean it can't be used if it meets WP:RS, but that list does give you information on sources that have already been discussed and there is existing consensus for their use or exclusion. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a New Testament scholar by any stretch (although I have read it many times). And I'm not an experienced Wikipedian (as evidenced by the fact that I don't even know what a "semi-protected edit request" is). I'm only here because earlier I pointed out an incorrect citation to 2 Timothy about Paul's arrest. BUT, seeing the comment on E.P. Sanders' summary of Paul's teaching in 5 points ("Notice the lack of emphasis on Jesus' teachings"), I thought it was important to point out the great extent to which these 5 points *do* occur in the four gospels (independent of the question of whether E.P. Sanders is correctly summarizing Paul's teachings). I'm sure I've omitted some references.

(1) God sent his Son:

(I have included some references where Jesus at least did not speak up to contradict the voice of the Father, or where he appeared to validate the statements of others. I have omitted additional references where Jesus refers to himself as the Son.)

Matthew 3:17, 16:16, 17:5, 26:63-64

Mark 9:7, 14:61-62

Luke 9:35, 22:70

John 1:49-51, 3:14-17, 9:35-37, 10:36, 11:27, 20:21

(2) the Son was crucified and resurrected for the benefit of humanity

Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:18-19, 26:32, 28:6

Mark 9:31, 10:34

Luke 18:33, 24:6

John 3:14-17, 10:14-17, 11:23-27

(3) the Son would soon return

(4) those who belonged to the Son would live with him forever.

(I'm not sure that Jesus taught that he would come "soon", but I'm also not sure that Paul taught that. Some teachings of Jesus, like in Luke 21:32, could be interpreted as "soon".)

Matthew 16:27, 24:3-30, 25:31-46, 26:64

Luke 21:27-32.

(5) the admonition to live by the highest moral standard

This is throughout Jesus' teachings. The Sermon on the Mount comes to mind, but there is much more, and probably my listing all the references wouldn't help.

I'm not sure if we're trying to define "Jesus' teachings" as something other than the words attributed to him in the Gospel or define some subset of those words to be what Jesus "actually taught". But if "Jesus' teachings" are taken to mean the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, I am baffled by the phrase "Notice the lack of emphasis on Jesus' teachings".

The assertion that Paul "was a Christian apostle who spread the teachings of Jesus" seems completely accurate to me. NathanReading (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Partial authenticity of 2 Timothy as unlikely as that of 1 Timothy and Titus?

I have read arguments (several decades ago, unfortunately I forgot where and by whom) that 2 Timothy is somewhat more likely to be partially authentic than 1 Timothy and Titus, based on the high amount of personal details contained in it (and not contained in the other two pastorals). The argument went that whoever wrote 1Tim and Tit was unlikely to be the sole author of 2Tim since 2Tim goes out of its way to furnish all kinds of personal stories and a very personal tone that are conspicuosly absent from the rather dry texts of 1 Tim and Tit. The article treats the three pastorals as being all of the same kind. Could anybody elaborate on this, maybe somebody who is more knowlegeable about these things than I am? -- 2003:C0:973F:5700:79AE:C5B5:DEEE:E7CD (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's possible that 2 Timothy had another author than 1 Timothy, but none of their authors was Paul. The overwhelming consensus of mainstream Bible scholarship is that the three letters are not pauline. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Reference to 2 Timothy

I am concerned about the sentence: "The Second Epistle to Timothy states that Paul was arrested in Troad in present-day Turkey [with a citation to 2 Timothy 4:13]." The actual verse in the Bible doesn't say anything of the kind. In the KJV, it says: "The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments." That is instructions to someone (I guess Timothy) to bring some of Paul's things the next time he comes. From there to Paul being arrested in Troas [Troad] is a huge leap. I haven't made any changes, because I'm not a historian or an expert on Paul, but it seems to me that this sentence either should be deleted or the "arrested in Troad" idea should be cited to the right source. NathanReading (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it is an assumption. Paul was imprisoned in Rome while writing 2 Tim. and since his things stayed in Troas, the traditional view is that he was arrested there. It could have been that he was arrested elsewhere and had left possessions in Troas simply to travel more lightly. I don't have any authoritative sources on this, though. It is worth noting that most modern scholars consider 2 Tim. to be a forgery, so perhaps none of these details are actually relevant. Qoan (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed the sentence in the "Death" section that stated incorrectly that Paul was arrested in Troas. As stated above by NathanReading, 2 Timothy 4:13 was incorrectly cited there; that verse does not say that Paul was arrested in Troas. Here's the sentence I removed:

"The Second Epistle to Timothy states that Paul was arrested in Troad in present-day Turkey and brought back to Rome, where he was imprisoned and put on trial; the Epistle was traditionally attributed to Paul, but some contemporary Biblical scholars consider it to be pseudepigrapha, perhaps written by one of Paul's disciples." Mksword (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

After I removed, from the "Death" section, the sentence that stated incorrectly that Paul was arrested in Troas, Vyselink undid my revision and then edited the restored sentence to remove the incorrect assertion that Paul was arrested in Troas. After giving further consideration to said sentence, I realize that this sentence does not belong in the "Death" section. If it belongs anywhere in this article, it belongs in the "Third missionary journey" section. Accordingly, I have removed the sentence from the "Death" section. If someone wants to insert it into the "Third missionary journey" section, they may do so. Here's the sentence I removed:

"The Second Epistle to Timothy suggests that Paul was in Troad in present-day Turkey shortly before his arrest, imprisonment and trial in Rome as he specifically asks for his cloak and other belongings he had left behind; the Epistle was traditionally attributed to Paul, but some contemporary Biblical scholars consider it to be pseudepigrapha, perhaps written by one of Paul's disciples." Mksword (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Death

Lactantius

I think we need secondary sources on Paul's death. The church father accounts are not reliable, inconsistent, and don't say what this article claims they say. E.g. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.iii.v.ii.html versus https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07/Page_120.html; where does it say that Lactantius said Paul was beheaded? NLeeuw (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Lactantius does not say how Nero killed Paul, he only says that Nero slew him. However, many other Church Fathers do mention how Paul died. --Rafaelosornio (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It is only Philip Schaff who writes in the footnotes that 'St. Paul, as a Roman, was beheaded', and on p. 120 in another footnote says that Roman citizens have a right to be beheaded rather than crucified, but this is not something Lactantius himself wrote. All these accounts of the church fathers were phrased as if they all report the same thing: Paul was beheaded like John the Baptist. They don't. Although many can be reconciled, each says something else, and we shouldn't just throw them all together, that's WP:SYNTH. I'm gonna check the them all and write out what they say exactly. Preferably I'll get a secondary source to summarise things. NLeeuw (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Jerome and Eusebius

Especially with Jerome, whose chronology is all over the place, I need to be selective about what he says, but I'm edging towards intepretation, which we shouldn't do with WP:PRIMARY sources if we can prevent it. I've cross-checked the English translation of Ernest Cushing Richardson (1892) at New Advent with this Latin edition by Ruslan Khazarzar that I happened to find online, which seems identical to the one at Latin Wikisource.

Nero's emperorship lasted from 13 October 54 – 9 June 68 CE. Jerome says in the twenty-fifth year after our Lord's passion, that is the second [year] of Nero (Oct 55 – Oct 56 CE), at the time when Festus Procurator of Judea (Porcius Festus, 59–62 CE) succeeded Felix (Antonius Felix, 52–60 CE), he [Paul] was sent bound to Rome, and remaining for two years in free custody, disputed daily with the Jews concerning the advent of Christ. Festus became procurator of Judea in 59, but Nero's second year ended on 13 October 56; that's a 3-year gap (or at least 2 years, 2 months and a bit). We don't know exactly when the crucifixion of Jesus took place, but it must have been when Pontius Pilate was Prefect of Judea from 26–36 CE. What's more important is that Jerome equates the 25th year after the passio with the 2nd year of Nero (Oct 55 – Oct 56 CE), and later on the 37th year after the passio with the 14th year of Nero (13 October 67 – 9 June 68, he never completed his 14th year of reign because he died on 9 June 68).

The most significant difference is that the year Paul was executed, the fourteenth year of Nero, is equated with the twenty-seventh year after our Lord's passion in Richardson, but equated with anno post passionem Domini tricesimo septimo [in the thirty-seventh year after (the) Lord's passion] in the Latin editions. Either Richardson mistranslated 'tricesimo' as "twentieth" instead of "thirtieth", or he translated a textual variant which did say 'vicesimo', as mentioned earlier in the text. I'll try to compare more textual variants and see if any of them say 'vicesimo' here. It could be that two words were changed, and that Nero's 'fourteenth' year was actually his 'fourth' year, and that thus the 37th year after the passio was actually the 27th, so that the execution of Paul would line up either with the succession of Felix by Festus, or with the fire of Rome and Neronian persecution of Christians. But from the perspective of textual criticism, I don't find that likely: lectio difficilior potior. It's more likely that Jerome simply messed up his chronology and is an unreliable source.

While other sources seem to indicate Paul spent 2 years in prison and was then executed, Jerome seems to suggest Nero released ("dismissed"?) Paul after two years: It ought to be said that at the first defense, the power of Nero having not yet been confirmed, nor his wickedness broken forth to such a degree as the histories relate concerning him, Paul was dismissed by Nero, that the gospel of Christ might be preached also in the West. And for some reason, it wasn't until 10 years later in Nero's 14th year, near the end of Nero's reign, that Paul was somehow arrested again and executed. Jerome based himself a lot on conjectures in the Second Epistle to Timothy, especially the phrase "in/out of the mouth of the lion" (ἐκ στόματος λέοντος, 2 Tim 4:17). Those seem highly speculative, especially since nowadays scholars consider the pastoral epistles not to have been written by Paul, so these statements in the Second Epistle to Timothy are not autobiographical and cannot be taken to describe Paul's life as he himself narrates it.

It also seems completely implausible that Nero would somehow "dismiss" (release?) Paul [so] that the gospel of Christ might be preached also in the West. Why would Nero do that? If this is the same Nero who also persecuted Christians, why would he release Paul with the express intent that the gospel of Christ might be preached in the Western half of the Roman Empire? (I'll leave it up to others whether that means Italy, Spain, Gaul or some combination). It could only cause more trouble for emperors like him, as the monotheistic Christians were known to reject the worship of the Roman emperors as deities, which they regarded as blasphemous because there was only 1 god in their eyes, thus undermining imperial authority in the eyes of the Roman state. It makes no sense from Nero's perspective to release Paul and have him preach. NLeeuw (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I stumbled upon a good footnote by Philip Schaff who elaborates on some of these issues in Book II Chapter 22 of Eusebius' Church History:

Eusebius is the first writer to record the release of Paul from a first, and his martyrdom during a second Roman imprisonment. He introduces the statement with the formula λόγος žχει ("word has it"? Schaff translates it as "it is said"), which indicates probably that he has only an oral tradition as his authority, and his efforts to establish the fact by exegetical arguments show how weak the tradition was. Many maintain that Eusebius follows no tradition here, but records simply his own conclusion formed from a study of the Pastoral Epistles, which apparently necessitate a second imprisonment. But were this the case, he would hardly have used the formula λόγος žχει. The report may have arisen solely upon exegetical grounds, but it can hardly have originated with Eusebius himself. In accordance with this tradition, Eusebius, in his Chron., gives the date of Paul’s death as 67 a.d. Jerome (de vir. ill. 5) and other later writers follow Eusebius (though Jerome gives the date as 68 instead of 67), and the tradition soon became firmly established (see below, chap. 25, note 5). Scholars are greatly divided as to the fact of a second imprisonment. Nearly all that defend the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles assume a second imprisonment, though some (e.g. Wieseler, Ebrard, Reuss and others) defend the epistles while assuming only one imprisonment; but this is very difficult. On the other hand, most opponents of the epistles (e.g. the Tübingen critics and the majority of the new critical school) deny the second imprisonment. As to the place where Paul spent the interval—supposing him to have been released—there is again a difference of opinion. The Pastoral Epistles, if assumed to be genuine, seem to necessitate another visit to the Orient.

So at the time Schaff published this English edition of Eusebius' Church History in 1885, opinions were still divided on whether the pastoral epistles were genuine or not; these days, the consensus is they are not. That seems to undermine the whole idea that there was a release and then a second imprisonment as first claimed by Eusebius (c. 313–326) and then by Jerome (De Viris Illustribus (Jerome), c. 392–393), which none of the earlier sources report. There's no reason for Nero to release Paul, and no indication that he did prior to Eusebius 2.5 centuries later making that assertion. Schaff goes on to reason that there would have been enough time for Paul to make two journeys to Spain before being imprisoned again and executed, but this assumes the pastoral epistles to be authentic, which they aren't, so we need not speculate about that. The summer of 64 seems the likely date of death of Paul, not 67 or 68. We can't make it much later because of the governorship of Festus ending in 62, and Paul spending 2 years in prison / house arrest in Rome before being executed. NLeeuw (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Tertullian

The article claims Tertullian writes that Paul was beheaded like John the Baptist. Not really. In De praescriptione haereticorum XXXVI [3], Tertullian wrote: Ista quam felix ecclesia cui totam doctrinam apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt, ubi Petrus passioni dominicae adaequatur, ubi Paulus Ioannis exitu coronatur, ubi apostolus Ioannes posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur;.
This has been translated by Peter Holmes (1885) at New Advent as: How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! NLeeuw (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

1. Which John is which? There are lots of New Testament people named John.
2. There is no verb describing "beheading" in Latin there. Literally, the passage reads where Paul is crowned with the exit of John. That can mean all sorts of things, especially as long as we don't know which John.
3. There is no indication that the first Ioannis is in fact John the Baptist. Although the Synoptics all report this John was beheaded (see Beheading of John the Baptist), he was not a Christian, because he preceded Jesus. So why would we think he was part of this happy 'church', and count him as an 'apostle'?
4. Holmes does not add a comma here as in the Latin text on Wikisource, and seems to suggest Ioannis and Ioannes are the same person: John the Apostle. That may be right or wrong, we don't know. If we assume they are the same and 'the exit of John' means beheading, however, why does it end with an island-exile instead?
5. An island-exile seems to be Tertullian mixing up John the Apostle with John of Patmos, the author of the Book of Revelation who was exiled to the island of Patmos. There's no indication John of Patmos was ever tortured or beheaded, and scholars are pretty sure he is not John the Apostle, John the Baptist or the author of the Fourth Gospel (traditionally called "the Gospel according to John"). One thing we can say is John the Baptist was probably never exiled to an island though (according to Josephus, he was imprisoned in Machaerus).
6. These mixups of Johns happened all the time in early Christianity. Wikipedians shouldn't be asserting this passage to refer two one and the same John, or two different Johns, nor to conclude which ones they were based on conjectures or extrapolation of information known from other sources. (The only link I see between Paul of Tarsus and John of Patmos is that Paul's imprisonment in Rome is kinda like John of Patmos' island-exile, but that's it.)

Therefore, this is just WP:SYNTH which WP:FAILs upon verification. NLeeuw (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This is what happens with bad translations from Latin to English and they are taken as a reliable source since one thinks that is what the original source in Latin says.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. To be fair, this Wikipedia article cited the Latin original, but without linking to it. I just compared the English translation I could find on New Advent with the Latin Wikisource version. At any rate, it's WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to claim Tertullian said anything about beheading, and to claim the "Johns" he is referring to is or includes John the Baptist.

The tradition that Paul was "beheaded" appears quite late in our sources. It may well be a later invention, rather than going back to the historical Paul. I've always heard it said Paul was beheaded "because he was a Roman citizen", and therefore had the "right" to be beheaded rather that crucified (like Jesus and Peter reportedly were), the assumption being that the latter is a more painful and humiliating death (which seems plausible). But none of the Church Fathers seems to be particularly concerned about that distinction, unless I missed something? (Schaff has a lot to say about it in the footnotes to Lactantius, who himself doesn't mention it). NLeeuw (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Mistranslation of Galatians 1:16

The Greek word ‘en’ translated as ‘to’ is an error. ‘En’ has the meaning of ‘in’ or ‘by means of’. This error has important implications for the understanding of Paul’s story and the reason for his relaying it. 72.131.111.189 (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Take it up with Crossway, I suppose?

(Come to think of it, a Wikipedia-native Bible translation project would be something else. Remsense留 04:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC))

Origins

This source says: "However, Paul himself indicates that he was from the area of Damascus which was in Syria (see the letter to the Galatians)."

https://www.worldhistory.org/Paul_the_Apostle/#google_vignette

Does anyone have access to that letter? Or does anyone know more about his supposed claim of Damascene origin ? Whatsupkarren (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Dude, it's in the Bible, & therefore (ahem) quite widely available - see here. The statement he makes re Damascus is not that clear however. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Saint Paul (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Citation 65 - Incorrectly states that Greek was Paul's native language

The work cited to support the claim that Paul spoke Greek as his first language, rather than Aramaic, actually says just the opposite to what is claimed. On page 43 in Bruce, Frederick Fyvie (2000). Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-4778-2. - that author states "Aramaic, and not Greek, was the language spoken in his (Paul's) home." Also stating - "it is a fair inference that it (Aramaic) was his mother tongue." The work cited says just the opposite of the claim it is cited to support. 176.88.102.25 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. I have looked at the source and changed the wording in order to reflect what was actually written. Vyselink (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Paul and Jesus

the introductory paragraph says that Paul spread the teachings of Jesus, and cites 'powell 2009.' this statement is untrue, and what is this work? 2600:6C46:537F:8A12:A1D0:C5BF:22C2:4DCA (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Birth

The source as no evidence and just says he was born from 5-15 ad/ce I have no evidence against it but it is not the best source also I know it is pbs which is reliable but just seems like very little evidence

thanks for reading this 95.89.217.99 (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)