Talk:Paul the Apostle: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Adpete (talk | contribs)
Adpete (talk | contribs)
Line 93: Line 93:
:::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. [[User:Adpete|Adpete]] ([[User talk:Adpete|talk]]) 03:36, 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. [[User:Adpete|Adpete]] ([[User talk:Adpete|talk]]) 03:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': For the reasons Gitz6666 gave. Paul the Apostle seems in-line with WP:Consist as noted by Gitz. [[User:Vyselink|Vyselink]] ([[User talk:Vyselink|talk]]) 02:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': For the reasons Gitz6666 gave. Paul the Apostle seems in-line with WP:Consist as noted by Gitz. [[User:Vyselink|Vyselink]] ([[User talk:Vyselink|talk]]) 02:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - certainly in Protestant scholarship "Paul the Apostle" 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). [[User:Adpete|Adpete]] ([[User talk:Adpete|talk]]) 03:36, 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). [[User:Adpete|Adpete]] ([[User talk:Adpete|talk]]) 03:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:56, 14 August 2022

Template:Vital article


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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[1] and, quoting from Dionysius of Corinth, argues that Peter and Paul were martyred "at the same time".[2]" Saint_Peter#Crucifixion_at_Rome has other sources. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Eusebius, Church History, Book 2, Chapter 22, Paragraph 3
  2. ^ Eusebius, Church History, Book 2, Chapter 25, Paragraph 8

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 13 August 2022

Paul the ApostleSaint PaulSaint 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]