Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 1

Peer Review

This article had a peer review that has been archived. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article.

---

"the anonymous collection of wisdom sayings known as the Q Document that was in circulation in late 1st-century Galilee."

The phrasing of this sentence suggests the the Q document has been proven to exist.

---

This article is a joke. Specifically it is a POV nightmare with the opinions of extreme minority groups presented as prominently as the opinions of 2000 years and billions of Christians. 71.198.169.9 16:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Why nothing discussing the possiblity of Paul being an epileptic? Some scholarly research into this has been undertaken, and it does help explain the road-to-Damascus incident. If I can find some decent citations, I might consider adding them. Does anyone else think this a relevant addition to the article?

That would be interesting if you could find an appropriate place for it.

It would be nice to have a map of the Meditteranean showing Paul's travels. Pdxgoat 19:29, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is wrong: "Paul expressed a number of social views in his writings that were very much grounded in the mores of his contemporary society, which include his restrictive views on sexual morality, condemnation of homosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9f; Eph. 5:21-33" contemporary pagan mores were tolerant to promiscuity, homosexuality, and the like. In fact, you may read about it in Romans chapter 1: "he [God] gave them up to their own lusts", etc specifically about homosexuality. His judgments about morality were based on the Old Testament law and, presumably, on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Watcher

--Mlo 06:20, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)mlo Actually, the Roman Empire was not very tolerant towards women at all. He was very much a man of his times.

You seem to be confusing modern notions of "tolerance" with Roman and/or Christian morality. Paul was not trying to be tolerant/intolerant to anybody, he was expounding the religion's view on marriage, sexual morality etc. It is a view that at times roughly coincided with the one common in society, e.g. his take on marriage duties of husband and wife are similar to those commonly accepted at the time. In other matters, Paul's instructions are radically different from society's attitude, in as much as Romans were tolerant of deviancy and promiscuity, and the Christians and Paul himself obviously were not. Watcher 10:30, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Paul was quite a radical egalitarian for his time. He abhorred class distinctions and preached against any difference in status based upon wealth. Consider also what he says in Galatians 3:27-8: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Misogynist attributions, for example, tend to come from the Timothy Epistles, which evidence suggests were written 30+ years after Paul's martyrdom.[1] Other commentators have attributed an anti-female statement in Corinthians to later interpolations added after Paul [2] Thus, what we have in Paul is someone who espoused theretofore unheard of arguments that all men (and women) are created equal; all backgrounds, all classes, all sexes are equal before God. --Rehnquist 17:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you folks can say you are right or wrong. Both arguements can find justification in his writings. An in depth analysis of his way of thinking would be necessary. For instance, I would say that paul's egalitarian views can only be taken as such by someone for whom the maxim "all men are created equal" holds any meaning. Rather, paul seems to think that we are not created equal but can be made equal by proper belief. On the other hand, he still sets out certain roles for men and women, such as dress and hair length, etc. These do indeed conform to the norms of his contemporary society being indications of sexual morality (or lack of it). Get the point? These questions need more context provided in terms of paul's distinct way of thinking.

Two Questions

Two questions: 1. Why no references to show where the information in the article came from, only the alternative view section gives a reference? 2. Why such a short talk page for such a long article? ChessPlayer 02:34, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Judging from the history, this article is a homegrown product of Wikipedia. References are sprinkled here and there, supporting various points. Some major portions bear the marks of Stephen Carlson, a particularly good Wikipedian, writing mostly on religious topics, and an expert on NT textual criticism. For the last question, in my experience talk pages grow longer only when an article is in trouble, especially when some individual is pushing his personal version of "neutrality". Mkmcconn — 06:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

It would seem an odd state of affairs that anybody could do that, as others could simply direct such a person to Neutral Point of View, and quote to them where what they say in their private interpretation is in conflict with what is said on the NPOV page, using direct quotes if need be. No, I don't think that explains the shortness of the talk page at all. In my experience, what can quickly expand the size of a talk page, is when instead of keeping to a discussion of the article and related issues, people start slipping in personal attacks, veiled or otherwise. ChessPlayer 07:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Just in case you say this here because you suspect me of a veiled criticism, I am innocent! I am honestly reporting my experience and opinion that, a busy edit history, producing a long article and a short talk, is the sign of vigorous wikihealth - well-commented and supported edits don't need a lot of chat to straighten them out. Mkmcconn — 19:40, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Paul's conversion

His conversion may have been famous enough that he felt no need to describe it explicitly. - This statement is a common apologetic, a standard theological speculation by those who are trying to build a case to explain why Paul doesn't describe his conversion. As it argues a POV, the article is wrong in stating it like this. Correct would be citing a representative theologian who believes it, and attributing the view to him. The article is taking on a biased tone by incorporating statements like this into a smoothly flowing text. ChessPlayer 06:35, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

We only have Paul's word about his "conversion", anyone else who told such an outlandish story wwould be locked away for his own good. Paul was no more than an opportunist who furthered his interpretations of the Mission of Jesus at the instigation of the Roman Empire. Why? To divide and conquer. --Numerousfalx 15:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, right. They DID lock Paul away for his 'story' (preaching the Gospel), several times, mistreating Paul for years, and finally be-heading him in Rome. But he never changed his story. Doesn't sound like an 'opportunist' to me.

129.24.93.219 20:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (Nov.) And, Paul DID talk about his conversion- in the Letter to the Galatians.

• comment on this statement: "In addition, an adequate explanation for Paul's conversion is lacking in the absence of his vision."-- I wonder if the explanation that rather than converting he simply hijacked the existing faith would be considered 'an adequate explaination.' ~~amyanda2000

Naming of Paul

It has been stated 'one cannot start the article with "saint" as that is something that is conferred on Saul/Paul later'. While this may be true, articles at Encyclopædia Britannica, Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia.com all are titled 'Paul, Saint'. Our article is 'Paul of Tarsus', I presume because Saint Paul is a disambiguation page. Pædia 14:31, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

He knew Latin, he just thought of himself as a small part of what the movement of christainity was then in his time. He probably thought that his past acts, when he infact persecuted those that believed the Christainity doct, that he was not worthy of such a call upon his life.

If you ignore the way the verbs conjugated, and the need for Greek to have definite articles, Classical Latin looks amazingly similar to Greek. The perception of similarity is magnified accordingly when one considers how the Hebrew language was written without vowels, and that kind of a convention, as extended to the Romans and Greeks of the Palestine world, naturally made their languages so much more the indistinguishable. Consider, for instance, how the Greek Paulos (with a short 'o') corresponded to the Latin Paulus (with a short 'u'). Would an Aramaic speaker take those two sounds for a significant difference, or would he pass it by as an orthographic difference, not worth the time spent dwelling on it?

Paulus

Doesn't paulus mean "small" in Latin? Why did he take this name? --Error 01:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) Did he even know Latin?

He was a Roman citizen. But I don't know what that would actually mean. --Error 23:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Citizenship had a particular status in the Roman empire and conveyed certain legal rights. Rome would grant citizenship to certain individuals or classes of people in allied nations or areas that became vassal states or Roman provinces. A Roman citizen sentenced to death could appeal to Caesar; Acts describes Paul as doing this. — OtherDave 01:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In Acts 21:37 he speaks to the Roman officer --- in Greek, then speaks to the crowd in the Hebrew Language (generally assumed to be Aramaic). He wrote his Letter to the Romans ... in Greek.

The question is why dump the name Saul? Too Jewish?

The word σαῦλος (Saulus) in Greek meant "waddling" or "prancing" and was often used to describe how a prostitute walks. [3] This was not the kind of a name that a self-respecting first-century man wanted to call himself. Think of calling a car Nova in Spanish-speaking countries (no va = "does not go"). Stephen C. Carlson 04:06, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

Actually, that Nova thing is a common business myth which has nevertheless made it's way into business texts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Paul_and_Thecla#Paul

---

So Saulus became Paulus, because the name was ridiculous in Greek. That makes sense, but then why call himself "Small"?

Besides, if he was Jewish why did he become a Roman citizen? If Romans were enslaving the known world, and if they routinely sodomitized their slaves, can we expect Saulus to have been sodomitized? Why did he become a traitor?

Enslaving the known world is too broad, I think. Many territories fell under Rome's dominion; not everyone, not even most people living in them, became slaves. The territory may have had to pay tribute, put up with occupying troops, and so forth, but as has been true throughout history, elites and ruling classes often acclimated themselves to the new order. Claudius I, born in what is now Lyon, France, admitted Gauls to the Senate in 48 A.D. — OtherDave 01:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus was rather forgiving with prostitues and burglars. Saulus was rather not, if we consider his "letters". Saulus even killed christians, then he became christian, but the apostolates were rather unconvinced because he was a murderer. Later christians were murderers also, but 1,000 years later. Is this a coincidence? I think Saulus views, rather confrontational, are the source of the problem. I think Saulus views are a big step in the opposite direction of the teachings of Jesus, because Saulus's language is rather offensive. While Jesus forgives and accept people as they are, only asking for a "change of heart", Saulus prefers to use the force.

The only book of the bible that was written in Greek was the apocalipse, which states that the antichrist has "a number that represents his name", being 666, in Latin that is DCLXVI. By the same time, the head of the christianity is called "Representative of the Son of God", in Latin VICarIVs fILII DeI. The letters that represent numbers are: VICIVILIIDI, sorted is DCLVVIIIIII. I think Juan, who wrote the apocalipse, was trying to warn us about Saulus.

The International Bible Society and the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops agree that the language of the New Testament is Greek -- not a classic, scholarly Greek, but not Aramaic, Hebrew, or Latin. — OtherDave 01:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In Latin, parvus means "small" and paulus means "having little." For what it's worth, the accusative neuter of paulus was paulum, a form that was commonly in use as an adverb. When used as an adverb, paulum means "a little bit at a time" or "a small amount at a time." The Latin parvus simply does not mean the same thing as paulus or paulum. Get your adjectives straight. (Any ordinary high school student successfully completing his second year of Latin knows the difference between these words.) As it stands, Saul traded in on a lucrative bounty-hunting career as a Christian baiter and persecutor to a life of poverty. The symbolism is inherent in his choice of names, relegating his Hebraic background to the past, prefering a penniless sort of life, a kind of currency likely to have been regarded highly by the Christian factions he chose to associate himself with.

Unlike the accusative paulum, which can function as an adjective or an adverb, the word paulatim can only function as an adverb. They are all etymologically connected.

And then there's pauci, which means "few" (as in multi vocati sunt sed pauci eliguntur = "many are called but few are chosen"). For what it's worth, the Germanic labiodental f sound corresponds to the Italic bilabial plosive p, explaining how we got the English word "few" from Latin pauci - the p turned into an f and the -uc- sound (similar to -qu- in the final position) reversed to a k^w. They are all etymologically connected.

Latin has exactly two adverbs (procul and simul) ending in the letters -ul, much resembling what may have been treated colloquially as clipped superlatives. Since Hebrew is a language whose nouns do not admit inflection, one of the questions that has to be asked, is how Hebrew behaves when imported into a language that does. For instance, if Saul simply swapped out the first initials to his name, then Paul would have been taken for a superlative - having or carrying as little as possible.

Paul's Theology

I removed recently added statements to the effect that the doctrines of Original Sin and the divinity of Christ were originated by Paul. At the very least, these statements go too far. The most that might be said in that direction is that Paul's writings are the earliest that clearly express these doctrines, which is not at all the same thing. -Rholton 16:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

O.K... but then who did originate the beliefs? And could I re-insert something about Christ's divinity? (Sorry about the edit, by the way -- after rereading it, I realised it sounded like Paul originated sin itself, or something. Brutannica 21:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. What I am mostly concerned with is the idea that Paul himself introduced these doctrines into the early Christian community. I realize that many people (including scholars) take this view, but it is far from universally accepted. I have no problem with this line of thought being included in the article, but not as simple facts. Ideally, it would be good to supply a reference to a published work to support this view (as well as any opposing view). As I have time over the next couple days, I'll see if I can find references for both views. Keep on editing! This article can use lots of work, and anything you can do to improve it is great. -Rholton 05:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

O.K. I have no reliable source (at least not one I would feel comfortable quoting) but I'll put something in with disputes mentioned.

Those statements are back in again. They're really troubling (at least with out counter point to be Wiki like)...and i would suggest a pretty major re-write. Not because the article is *bad* per se, but because it's incomplete. There are some views that support such supercessionist views, but there are a lot that don't. My training is more in the latter, but i do have grounding in the readings that do view Paul as an "ex-Jew" and author of the doctrine of Original Sin. I'll try some stuff up there over the next week or so. bwurtmann

Actually, I think the article's very good so far. I think the theology bit could use some fleshing out (he provided a good portion of Christian thought, didn't he?) but I'm very impressed with the bio portion. One thing it could use, as Pdxgoat mentioned, is a map of Paul's meanderings. Brutannica 21:30, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why isn't much in here about Paul's anti-semitic views? Didn't he accused the Jews in the Letters to the Thessalonians ? Didn't he write that they should be punished for their sins ? --217.235.119.173 20:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let's see... It says, "Then He will punish those who do not know God and who do not obey the Good News about our Lord Jesus Christ. Those people will be punished with a destruction that continues forever. They will be kept away from the Lord and from His great power. This will happen on the day when the Lord Jesus comes to receive glory because of his holy people." (2 Thessalonians 1: 8-10) That doesn't seem to single out the Jews specifically, or suggest Christians do it now. Brutannica 22:59, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It would be odd to accuse Paul of anti-Semitism, seeing how he was born & raised a Jew, & probably considered himself one to his death. (Although many Jews from his time on would eagerly disown him.) His views towards his fellow co-religionists are far more complex than any simple label would suffice to explain. -- llywrch 00:56, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Was the Apostle Paul really a 'Hellenized Jew'? In what way? Just because he may have read the Greek classics, does it make him 'Hellenized'? How many other 'orthodox' Jewish rabbis have read some or many of the Greek classics? Let's try to be consistent. 129.24.93.219 23:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (Nov.)

Paul is is exactly consistant with the definition and the historic use of the term "Hellinized Jew"DaveHM 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

His social views that became part of Christian doctrine

From section "His social views that became part of Christian doctrine" Second paragraph, second sentence:

"Some of his other dictums included advice to his contemporaries not to marry in the expectation of the near return of Jesus and the Apocalypse; permission to marry, or at least to stay married to, an unbeliever..."

Is this a typo? Not to marry in the expectation of the near return of Jesus and the Apocalypse? Not to convert?

Just wondering,

Confused passer-by

Not a typo, but definitely a matter of contention, and the article should probably be revised for NPOV.

First of all, one Christian position is that the entire doctrine of Christianity preexisted Paul, although most people (probably even most believers) reject that. Under this view, though, Paul's personal views never became a part of Christianity ... these things were all God-inspired.

Second, as for "Not to marry in the expectation of the near return of Jesus and the Apocalypse" the relevent text is I Corinthians 7, which should probably be read in its entirety. Here Paul advises against marriage, while repeatedly saying (over and over again, to make sure there is no confusion) that he is giving his own opinion, and not a command of the Lord. (These passages are, in fact, often lifted from their context to make a case that Paul was always giving his own opinion and never a command of the Lord, but Paul contradicts that view in I Corinthians 14:37.) Thus, he wanted it to be perfectly clear that marriage was allowed but might not be advisable. He says this is "in view of the present distress," and interpretation of that phrase is the key. Some believe the first century Christians expected an imminent return of Christ, so that is where the interpretation in the article comes from. Others believe this refers to persecution of Jews and Christians related to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. and also growing strong again toward the end of the century. Still others believe this refers to the distress of persecution and living a "not of this world" Christian life and refers to all time.

As for what you interpreted as "Not to convert?" I think you've misinterpreted what the article said, and I think the article has possibly misinterpreted what Paul said. The relevant passage is again in I Corinthians 7: verses 12 through 16. Here the commandment given is that if a Christian is married to an unbeliever they are not to divorce that unbeliever (though if the unbeliever insists on a divorce the Christian is to allow it). Many interpret this as permission to marry outside of the church, but that is certainly not explicitly stated in the text, and many believe other passages of Paul teach against marriage to unbelievers. The only thing that can be stated definitively is that this passage applies at least to those who were married before their conversion whose spouses have not converted, and possibly to those who have married outside the church since becoming Christians.

Permission (commandment, actually; the article should perhaps be reworded) to stay married to an unbeliever does not at all amount to saying the unbeliever should not convert or that conversion of that spouse is unimportant. In fact, conversion of the spouse is one reason the Christian is commanded to stay married to the unbeliever; see verse 16, where the question is asked, "How do you know whether or not you will be able to save (by conversion) your spouse?" Jdavidb 15:23, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I think that one thing that has been missed here is that Paul was warning his fellow believers against being 'unequally yoked', by marrying an unbeliever, and thus having her or him pull against the Christian believer in another direction. "And I would spare you", Paul explained. 129.24.93.219 23:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (Nov.)

Apostolic Council.

In the "Life" section, I've added some quotes from Acts 15 and Galatians 2 about the Apostolic Council, as this part of the article was comparing the points of view expressed in these sources and I did not feel that this was being done from a NPOV. What was there beforehand said that the two accounts "vary considerably" and stated a couple of things that weren't in the original sources to justify this (Paul saying he'd attended on his own initiative, and reference to excommunication).

I've not had much practice at writing from a NPOV myself though, so feel free to comment / edit / flame.

I also added a bit after that about Paul's disagreement with Barnabus, which was quite an important personal event in his life that led to where he went on missionary journeys and had not been covered at all in the article.

Apologies for not doing the edits from a user account (I was 82.152.147.32) - I've sorted one out now. I didn't know about edit summaries at the time (newbie missed the box, d'oh) so more apologies for not including one.

Ua heth 13:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It looks as if...

...cleanup is needed.

Not to nitpick, just to point it out.

4If anyone would like to be charitable and use this as a lesson for a wikipedian who doesn't know how to format articles I would be greatly appreciative.

Birth and death years?

These two years were added by an anon [4] with no reference. I'm removing them as I can't find any source to back them up. anthony 警告 00:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Noahide?!

What is this stuff about the new perspective on Paul being Noahide? That is complete rubbish! I have not heard anyone proficient in this area espouse this viewpoint. Where is the comment on N T Wright and others who are the proper representatives of the New perspective on Paul?

Noahide? Que! This is obviously a POV point, trying to make Paul into a religious pluralist. Please, some neutrality!

I will try and run some stuff up to replace this material. --Totalthinker 02:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What if his beliefs were more akin to noahide and or samaratan viewpoints? And who are you to say what the proper noahide persepctives are? Being loud and incrredulous does not make an argument or discussion. I read NT Wright and I have my own feelings about his personal beliefs.--Numerousfalx 18:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The determination of the Council of Jerusalem was Noahide. According to Acts, Paul accepted this determination. Paul in his letters doesn't mention the determination directly, however his teachings afterward reflect them.

Anti-Christ

I have been on the ebionite website and they state that they believe that Paul was a fraud and an opportunist who usurped the teachings of Jesus and that the anti-christ in revelations was Paul in his position as an agent of Rome. In both the religious and imperial sense. What say you?--Tomtom 18:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Check out John Dominic Crossan's new book In Search of Paul for a recent, more conciliatory view. --Blainster 20:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added the statement "some" to the claim that begins "The Ebionites and some Restorationists argue that Paul was a Roman who tried to convert to Judaism" In fact I am not aware of any Restorationist claims of this sort, and I would appreciate it if someone could look into this. It may well be true of some (Restorationism as defined on the page linked too is a very broad movement encompassing all sorts of different religous sects, from Mormons to Adventists, but it is certainly not true of all. 146.82.111.234 20:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC) (That was me, apparently I had not signed in at the time) Demmeis

Along these lines I would suggest S.G.F. Brandon's 1966(?) book The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth in which he suggests, as decade before Maccoby, that Paul grafted Greek mystery religion and Elusinian concepts onto Christianity. Brandon has a fascinating way of reading the Bible and clearly shows how Paul was furious and frightened by word coming to him from the original Christians to stop warping the teachings of Jesus.

New Perspective on Paul

This article should include a section on the New Perspective on Paul: http://www.thepaulpage.com

Computer Analysis

I believe recent computer analysis of word frequency and patterns in the epistles has come to the conclusion that he only wrote the first 4 epistles, regarded as his major ones, plus probably Hebrews. The others are all by different authors, except the the 2 to Thessalonians are by the same author, as are the 2 to Timothy. This view at least deserves a mention. A very small number of theologians did already hold this view. PatGallacher

Response: I am somewhat familiar with this, but not enough to write about it in a cogent fashion. I would recommend that this information be included in Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles. I will be inserting a reference to this article in the appropriate section shortly.--Midnite Critic 05:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Supercede -> Supersede

The reason why I changed the above is because I had read: List_of_common_misspellings_in_English.

I'll revert your changes for now. If you have a problem with that, please let me know first. Thanks, Ian Cairns 23:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I would have preferred 'supercede' myself, but every dictionary I can find confirms that 'supersede' is the correct modern spelling... Supersede is derived from supersedere, to sit above... Though in Med L. supercedere is also found, that would be to go above or to yield... closer to the mod. sense of supersede... Influenced by cede, precede, procedure, etc. Codex Sinaiticus 23:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Keeping it NPOV

For qn article like this, is is paramount that we keep all terminology as NPOV as possible.

User Dougdelt has just now added as section with "new" information on the subject of whether or not Paul announced the abrogation of Mosaic Law. This is a highly controversial point; indeed, most of the article as it stood beforehand already addressed this very difficult point in as factual and NPOV a manner as possible, without appearing to endorse either POV in this controversy.

The new section starts out:

"The weight of the evidence proves Paul announced the abrogation of the Law of Moses."

It then goes on to say "Some Christians claim... others claim... " and then continues with language like : "However, neither view fits the corpus of Paul's works"...

I'm sorry, but this new section does not strike me as being written from a neutral point of view. If it were at all true or correct that the "weight of the evidence" proved one thing or another, ther would be no controversy. The very fact that it is unclear and subject to varying interpretation, is precise;y why we have such a controversy. This is an encyclopaedia, not a soap-box, or a place to impose one POV over another. Any sections that address this controversy (as most of the existing sections of this very lengthy article already do, from every conceivable angle) need to be written from a neutral point of view, and not summarily declare that one side or the other is "correct". Especially on theological matters. Therefore, if this new pov content is not re-written from a more neutral standpoint, it will have to be deleted. Codex Sinaiticus 12:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. So I took it out. There might be some good contributions in there, but someone needs to rewrite them to make them NPOV. Jdavidb 13:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

To study theology without faith turns it into history in the worst cast or at best philosophy, it is neither. I think this articual is overly historical and not greatly theological. To create NPOV in a subject area which presurposes a POV (i.e. Paul is writing to Christians) misses the point. Comments please - i'm open to Wiki-education - but let me guess, "there's an articual i need to read...[.html]" (you). Lastly to complete the circual and thereby, paradox, which we postmoderns are so proud of living amongst, i surpose that NPOV is infact a POV itself! Now i'm ready to read that articual...--Indigrthym 11:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

New image

There is an image of a statue of Saint Paul at Image:StMarysAylesburyDetail2.jpg that I took yesterday: the statue is one of two on the south door of St Marys Church in Aylesbury. I don't know whether you would want this included in the article or not: personally I think the article could do with another image but don't know where is best to place it. -- Francs2000 13:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks great, good pic! But can you (or someone) zoom in on the statue a little bit? This can easily be done by "cropping out" the surrounding photo. As it is, unless we make the photo quite huge, it will be hard to make out any detail of the representation. I'd crop it myself, but don't trust myself to do it properly. Cheers, Codex Sinaiticus 13:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

What about this one: Image:StMarysAylesburyDetail5.jpg. -- Francs2000 16:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Year of death

St Paul was listed under "Deaths" on both the articles 64 AD and 67 AD. I'm assuming the latter is correct, as that's the one that's on this article, so I've removed him from 64. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge

Since St. Paul redirects to Saint Paul (disambiguation) and since that article already has many St. Paul's on it, does it seem proper to merge St. Paul's (disambiguation) and redirect to there? Zhatt 17:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea - I may do it myself shortly. sjorford #£@%&$?! 12:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Rufus/Pudens

May I ask for references about the identification of Paul's brother, Rufus, with Pudens? If these references are those in Rufus Pudens Pudentianna article, could we remove that part from Paul's early life?--Panairjdde 15:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Lutheran veneration?

venerated as a saint ... some Lutheran sects ... Does anyone have references for this? also veneration should be a link, i'll fix it. Srl 19:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Surprised me, too. Possibly someone was trying to state that Paul is often called "St. Paul" among Lutherans, without implying that he, or other "saints," are "venerated" by Lutherans in the way that they are among Catholics and the Orthodox. --Midnite Critic 19:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Many Lutheran churches are named St. Paul, but I think that is veneration as in honor and not as in veneration. This came up in discussion on w:mt:Talk:Pawlu_minn_Tarsu. I think this should be clarified, but I don't have the refs to do so. Srl 20:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Paul and the Charasmatics: New Section on Pnuematology propsed

How does faith balance with NPOV? I would love to add to this articual and have been reading and rereading it for a while always intending some additions, but not been brave enough, for fear of overt POV. I like the lastest edition but feel it lacks mention of the Holy Spirit.

My studies have been evangelical / penticostal / charasmatic in nature through the University of Wales, which obviousely colours (I'm English btw) my POV. Much of the infomation I would like to add would probably sound pneumatologically bias. It seems, however, that for Paul to be a Chirstian was to be "in Christ" and to be "in Christ" is most closely defined as being a dwelling (temple) of the Holy Spirit. Indeed the majority of H.S. doctrine comes from the Pauline corpus of whom / which Luke was probably a pupil that prephered the dramatic to the dogmatic. In short, Can I add some charismata and pneumatica? (I hate transliterating!)and is it posible to do so with out sounding like a "fire-preaching Texan"? --Indigrthym 11:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

NO. Please refrain from the Be bold dogma. Keep your infernal pneumatology to yourself, thank you very much. User:USER

sorry for the typeo. Any serious objections? Do the doctrines of the Holy Spirit originate with Paul?--Indigrthym 00:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Which Teachings of Jesus Did Paul 'Modify'?

• Paul asserted that Jesus was crucified, suffered under Pontius Pilated, died and was buried, and arose from the dead on the third day, 'according to the Scriptures'. At that time, the Gospel accounts had not yet been written; therefore, Paul necessarily must have asserted that the details of Jesus' life, death and resurrection had been predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament. Paul and the other early Jewish-Christians therefore proclaimed Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, according to traditional Messianic Judaism. The teachings of Paul and his ancestors the Jews were therefore 'in harmony'. If anyone 'modified' the teachings of Moses the Prophet, it was Jesus; who as Messiah and being God Incarnate, He had the authority to do so. 129.24.93.219 17:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I comepletely agree. this is a very problematic paragraph:

Due to his body of work and his undoubted influence on the development of Christianity, many modern scholars have considered Paul to be the founder of Christianity, who modified Jesus' teachings and added important new doctrines. However, this view remains controversial. Many Christian scholars say that no teachings were modified, and assert that Paul taught in complete harmony with Jesus. Some Christians, however, particularly those who embrace dispensationalism, believe that Jesus' teachings are for the Jews – especially those teachings found in Matthew – and that Christians necessarily have a different belief system since Christianity, according to this perspective, only arose as a result of the rejection by the Jews of their Messiah.

the language seems extremely stiltd and emphasizes an extreme minority view among both Christian theologans, Christian churches, and most secularly oriented theological scholars.

There seems to be something else going one here. Some of this revisionism on Paul needs to be reworded and certainly does not belong so high in the article. At the very least the emphais should be reversed so as to present the majority theological view ahead of marginal extremes.

"expanded" is more the correct term as the great majority of theologans do not see any disharmony.

What Would Have Happened if The Jews Had Accepted Their Own Jewish Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus, in around 33 A.D.)?

• It is conceivable that the Jewish Kingdom of Heaven would have been ushered in immediately at that point, and all of mankind's history since then would have been abolished and avoided, including the Jewish people's long wanderings, persecution and Diaspora, and also the Holocaust could have been avoided. 129.24.93.219 17:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Baloney, it is not conceivable in the least, in fact, it is quite inconceivable.

Jesus was appointed to die for the sins of man. It was predestined by God to happen that way, at that predetermined time and that specific way for God's intended reason. Silly question to ask.--ARNO 02:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)10 march 2006.

Was Paul Gay?

No mention in the article of the theory that Paul was Gay, eg as described by Bishop Spong in the book, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture ISBN 0060675187, which explains Paul's Thorn in the flesh, as well as his attitudes to women, as well as his conflicted attitude to Jewish law. User:USER

I'm against mentioning it, simply because there are zillions of theories about Paul which are not worth mentioning here. Bishop Spong's position is hardly mainstream, and seems to be as much for shock value in the current debate over homosexuality in the Anglican church as it is serious scholarship. Demmeis 20:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Spong's hypothesis is mere supposition. It is one thing to neutrally discuss different views of facts, it is quite another to recount every unsupported theory. The subject might be appropriate to a bio on Spong himself, but not here. Including such material would necessarily require setting forth the substantial evidence that refutes Spong's suppositions. For one, there is a consensus today that the "misogynist" statements about women attributed to Paul were most likely not wirtten by Paul, but originated after his death. --Rehnquist 23:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that its mere supposition. But it is a supposition that I have often seen made - its a popular view even if it isnt very well supported by academics or devout Christians, and so notable enough for it to be appropriate to mention in the article. The view tends to assert that Timothy was Paul's "boyfriend", though there is "debate" as to whether the supposed "romatic relationship" was sexual or celibate. Clinkophonist 11:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

favor?

I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. Perhaps among the contributors to this page there are some who could go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation they think necessary. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be grateful if someone checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"Paul as usurper"

Who is "A. Victor Gardatta" and why should I care about his opinion?--Midnite Critic 20:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I can’t find any information on A. Victor Garaffa apart from his articles at comparative-religion.com, nor can I find any references to Garaffa's credentials or publications. Therefore, I'm removing the "Paul as userper" section as original research. (Note: The section in question was added by 212.50.170.253 (talk · contribs) on June 24, 2004 [5]. —Wayward ^Talk 08:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul of Tarsus? no ... Paul the Apostle

title of "Apostle" post-conversion. See Galatians. -- GUÐSÞEGN

Note: Actually "of Tarsus" was never used as a surname, but a posthumous appellation, used almost font> – UTEX – 23:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (I'll count myself the first vote in favor)

GA review status

I noticed that during Peer review there was a request 1) You have cited and quoted from the Bible, so it would be good to note what version you are using and add it as a reference I also have the same request. Gnangarra

Image:Paul of Tarsus.jpg this image has an obsolete copyright tag, not enough to prevent GA but still needs to be addressed. Gnangarra

Image:PaulT.jpg this image claims PD-OLD but there no source information available. Gnangarra

(c. 3 – c. 67) is these dates can we assume 3AD to 67 AD or is that 3BC to 67AD Gnangarra

The lead makes a good stand alone article, it should be a summary see WP:Lead. second para says Paul is venerated as a Saint by all the churches that honor them, including those of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican traditions, and some Lutheran sects using Paul is venerated as a saint by all the churches that honor them. is sufficient to convey the same message within a summary. This sentence about names in honour should be in a section near the end of the article not in the summary He is the "patron saint" of Malta, the City of London and has also had several cities named in his honor, including São Paulo, Brazil, and Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA. Gnangarra

Also in reading the use of Some believe and Some commentators read as Weasel words use cites to avoid this. When presenting Alternative views suggest that consistance in format be developed and use. Maybe use a format of one source and then state the alternatives seperately. ie

• Marriage
  • Alternative view 1
  • Alternative view 2

Gnangarra 14:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

About 49, after fourteen years of preaching can we assume 49AD. All dates and numbers need to be clearly dates or numbers Gnangarra

Failed GA

I appologise but based on just what I have read and investigated there is sufficient cause to fail GA. Over the next couple of days I'll continue to work through the complete article and post suggestions here.

I suggest that this article be considered for a complete split into two seperate articles

• • Paul of Tarsus - focus this on his life and writings
  • Theological teachings of Paul of Tarsus - focus this on the use of his works.

That's not to suggest that both are mutually exclusive Gnangarra 13:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

the more i read the greater I see a need for Daughter articles as well. Gnangarra

Offer

I'm reluctant to offer further critisms, I have highlighted the first instance of issues only, all have repetitions. On the wikiproject for Saints I have suggested that this article needs a collaborative effort as the burden of a major copy edit shouldn't rest with one or two individuals.

I am willing review this article again at anytime in the future please leave a request on my talk page. Gnangarra 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Augustus

Augustus never had the title "Son of God", rather the proper translation is "son of a god". This is based on the Roman pagan understanding of the gods and their philosophical relationship with one another, and with the metaphysical organizational superstructure of the universe. "Son of God" would have been very out of character for Augustus' political maneuvering, would make little sense, and does not accurately portray his title which rather labeled him as son of the divine Julius Caesar (who was a god, not God).

I fiexed this Lostcaesar 23:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In Greek and Latin there isn't a difference between the titles; "Son of God" and "Son of a god" were written identically. Clinkophonist 22:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

They are written the same, but certainly the sense is different. That was the point of my comments. English articles ought to properly render the correct sense of Augustus's title, which is "son of a god".Lostcaesar 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research

Revmoal

I removed this line: "Paul taught that women were not to cut their hair (1 Cor 11)". 1 Cor 11 says "In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman." Nothing about hair. 1 Cor 6 says a woman ought to cover her head if it is a disgrace for her to have all her hair cut / shaved off. 1 Cor 15 says a woman ought to have long hair (not the same as "not cutting" one's hair - my wife has long hair and I still pay for the hair cuts, so I know). Lostcaesar 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If women were to never cut their hair then it would get really rather long. You don't really see early christian texts writing about women with hair so long it touched their feet. Clinkophonist 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Manual of Style and dates

The manual of style says specifically that AD/CE is only required if there is a range of dates that starts in BC/BCE. We don't say "AD 2006". And the wikipedia guideline clearly states this. THis is not the place to change that. Perhaps this needs to be discussed on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) so that the whole cite changes, instead of changing this one article. However, as it stands, this article needs to be formatted acordingly. --Andrew c 00:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Interpretation, a discussion on this very matter.--151.47.119.2 00:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's allowed in cases like AD 9; I wouldn't have known Paul wasn't born in 9 BC. This is the consensus and the very example used in the ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Where in MoS is written that it is allowed in cases like AD 9. Where is this consensus, and why did it not change the MoS accordingly?--151.47.119.2 00:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the guideline nowhere states that AD is "allowed" in this case. Furthermore, the date is wikilinked for anyone who is confused. The reason I want to remove any unnecessary or redundent ADs or CEs is to avoid edit wars concerning which dating format should be used. Ideally, I would like to see the dating format as a user preference that each individual could change how it displays on their computer. But in lieu of that, getting rid of these redundent ADs and CEs works for me.--Andrew c 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what "consensus" ??? is talking about over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The wording on the actual page hasn't changed. These edits are completely fine under the current guidelines. I understand that this issue IS being actively discussed on talk, but as far as I can tell, the guideline has NOT been changed (and there is not resolution to halt edits of this sort while this is being discussed). As I said, removing the redundent ADs and CEs avoids edit wars over AD vs. CE, or worse the "compromise" found at Jesus of AD/CE that just slipped into this article. Does anyone think seeing 9 is any worse than seeing 9 AD/CE?? I understand that some users, such as ???, does not like the guidelines, but it is disrespectful to revert another editors good faith edits that are simply following the current guideline that specifically states you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era. I personally do not feel that this is an article to article, but instead a site-wide style issue. Therefore, I'd recommend letting discussion finnish over on wikipedia talk, to see if the policy can be changed to allow these usages.--Andrew c 21:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Over the past few days my watchlist has been flooded with this edit war between AD/CE and “[[]]”. Why is this minor difference such a passionate issue? I would understand if it were between AD and CE (I have a rather passionate position concerning this myself), but the current argument just strikes me as overly trivial. Lostcaesar 09:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think seeing 9 is any worse than seeing 9 AD/CE?? Yes, actually. The sidebar currently says that Paul was born c. 9 January, which look slike his birthday, not the year of this birth. I strongly approve of the convention that either AD or CE or both should be used for dates between AD 1 and AD 999, to make it clear that the year is being referred to. Myopic Bookworm 13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is no source for the "January" so it can probably be removed. In fact, searching the Oxford Reference Online, they don't list a birth year, and list the death at "c. 64". and on a different article give the range of "62 and 68" (hmm.. and even Oxford doesn't list AD or CE with these years). Britannica online says "born AD 10?... died 67?," Encarta has "circa ad 3-62". I don't know where the January came from. Maybe we should give a range of dates, like they do for Jesus. And maybe we shouldn't wikilink the exact years, but instead 0s and 60s instead resulting in 3-10 — 62-68? --Andrew c 15:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The edits of removing AD and CE from article is just following the current guidelines in the Manual of Style. I understand now that a number of editors would like to see AD before single, double, and triple digit years. I personally do not want to see that because it increases the chances of someone coming along and changing the style from AD to CE when in fact, neither one is necessary. The edit wars have been between the people who are following the Manual of Style and the people who want to change the guidelines. --Andrew c 15:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall reading that, though I do recall reading: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." (the article did say that years should be linked, but I don't recall reading that this entailed dropping the BC/AD notation) So, though I am admittedly dispassionate about the matter, I must say that I disagree with this analysis based on my recollection. Lostcaesar 18:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Changing between AD to CE or vice versa is against policy. I did not change the era format. What I did was remove the era for positive years. Here is the guideline: Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range. For years in AD/CE, use plain numbers. Only add the era for ranges of dates that start in BC/BCE. Right? However, some people interpret the word "normally" differently than I. This is causing debate on the wikipedia talk page, and may lead to a guideline change in the future. But until that happens, I feel like my removing of AD from this article was fine according to the stated guidelines, but other editors disagree and reverted me. That said, I'm over that, and I would like to discuss the actual years included in this article (and I'm asking for a source regarding the month of Paul's birth). --Andrew c 18:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, I see – I wasn’t trying to get into a “who started it” sort of thing. My only real objection is that, if we are to use the AD dating system, then we should use it right and put the AD before the number. Oh, and I too would like refine the dates to be accurate (or ambiguous if we do not know). Lostcaesar 18:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)