Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Science and Academia / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Christianity: Bible / Theology / History / Saints / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Syriac / Anglicanism / Lutheranism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Christian history (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance). This article is within the scope of the Syriac Christianity work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as Top-importance). Religion: Interfaith Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Ancient Near East Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Turkey Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreece Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^[1] 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.^[2]" Mksword (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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;^[3] 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.^[2]" Mksword (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]