Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 5

Arrest and death section

While the Apostle Paul taught that practicing the Law played no part in the salvation of an individual, he choose to continue to observe it personally, at least in part to maintain fellowship with the Jewish community that he loved so deeply, and to be a living example of the Law fulfilled in Jesus Christ. This is also the reason for the circumcision of his disciple Timothy, who was born to a Jewish mother, and was to preach the Gospel to the Jews as well. To suggest that the Apostle Paul was a "Judaizer", is factually without merit, and is theologically and historically indefensible.

Since I'm new to this article, I don't want to jump in and potentially "step on anyone's toes" that have put much hard work and effort into it, but I would like to see more clarity brought to this issue. WikiMasterCreator 10:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anywhere where the article calls Paul a Judaizer. Peter Ballard 12:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that clarity would help; if only we could agree as to what one would say. The knub of the disagreement comes in the relationship between Acts and the letters. Long arguments have already taken place between those who, supported by scholars such as Conzelman, think Acts to have a comparatively low historical value, emphasising the hostility towards Judaism expressed in Galatians, and those who regard Scripture as consistent de fide so that any one statement must be reconcilable with any other. Critical scholarship makes the second view difficult to hold, though it is represented in the article. the statement about St. Paul's prctice would be controverted on precisely these grounds by a number of editors and, more important, by scholars. It is always hard for editors to cope with the fact that we are not, as a matter of WP policy in a position to say that anything is 'indefensible. That is POV - a point of view. We can say that this learned person or that has argued in this way or that. Whne I last looked at the article it nowhere suggested that St. Paul was a Judaizer; quite the contary as Peter Ballard writes.

In short, I fear that one person's clarity may be someone else's POV. Because we have no credibility of ourselves, we must cite someone else, someone who has some scholarly credibility. Roger Arguile 15:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As for POV, notice that rather than editing the article, I courteously and rightly posted "here" first, sharing some information, attempting to engage in a friendly dialog, and hoping to work together to find some more meaningful and helpful information to include in the article.

Realize that "Wiki editors" are generally "Wiki users", and as such, I came upon this article while doing some research of my own. I think this gives me a fresh perspective in many respects. Please take that into consideration.

Often times when a person has spent a lot of time on a project, and is intimately familiar with it, they can easily become "desensitized" to the impact of some of it's material, or lack thereof. Sometimes it's good to get some independent opinions, and even step away for awhile, and then come back to it with a fresher perspective.

I am not saying that this section of the article outright states that the Apostle Paul was a "Judaizer", it's just that it is left so "open-ended" and "ambiguous" by the introductory statement, and the text immediately following the encyclopedia quote. It leaves an impression as almost to infer it, so that a person could easily come away from it no better informed than before, or worse yet, with a new source of confusion. I think we can do better.

While I agree that the quotation from the cited encyclopedia does not portray the Apostle Paul as a Judaizer, and rather appears to state just the opposite, it's more to do with the way the WP editor wrote the introduction in front of the quote and the first few words following, and that the quoted encyclopedia's article's heading is noted as "Judaizers". These things in combination are causing an apparent disunity of information.

"Upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem, he gave the apostles his account of bringing Gentiles to the faith. According to Acts, James the Just confronted Paul with the charge that he was teaching the Jews to ignore the law and asked him to demonstrate that he was Torah observant by taking a Nazirite vow (Acts 21:26). However, that Paul did so is difficult to reconcile with his personally expressed attitude both in Galatians and Philippians, where he utterly opposed any idea that the law was binding on Christians, declaring that even Peter did not live by the law (Galatians 2:14). Various attempts have been made to reconcile Paul's views as expressed in his different letters and in Acts, notably the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Judaizers ...

In any case..."

Honestly, "that Paul did so is" "easily" "reconcilable" if you will simply refer to a few, clear, easily understood supporting scriptures. No propeller hat required!

The base nature of man is to over complicate and bring confusion to even the simplest of matters; to wrangle on and on, endlessly in a gray haze of the unknown and the "who can know", with an ending no better, or more often than not, worse than the beginning. This is no more true than among many of the "academics" and "board certified" theologians of the world, which are the very ones we are supposed to choose from for citation. This endless wrangling keeps them in book and speaking engagement revenues though doesn't it! This being the case, we definitely have our work cut out for ourselves!

As for those who enjoy endlessly disputing what is and what is not legitimate scripture from verse to verse, they will never come to any consensus or conclusions of any worthwhile substance, leaving important matters of faith and doctrine forever "up in the air", in a gray area of worthless confusion and tail chasing. Let's not carry this discussion further into that trap.

The biblical record very clearly reveals the Apostle Paul's preaching of salvation apart from the Law to the Gentiles (which we see angered the Jews), and his teaching of the Jewish believers to continue in the Law to maintain a brotherly witness among their Jewish brethren, which in turn became a source of confusion among some of the Gentiles. So Paul was in a sense placed between a proverbial "rock and a hard place". The enemies of Paul and Christ, used this confusion to their advantage against Paul. Not so hard to reconcile, is it? But wait, there's more!

The foundational Law of Paul's ministry and theology;

"But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 22:34-40 (NKJV)

Paul's passion for the souls of both his Jewish brethren, and the Gentiles;

"I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen." Romans 9:1-5 (NKJV)

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you." 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (NKJV)

"All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness.” If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness.” “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved." 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 (NKJV)

"But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned."

Titus 3:9-11 (NKJV)

Hard to reconcile? Not at all, except in the minds of those who "choose" to be confused and to confuse others; the record is just too abundantly clear, there's no room for a hopeless gray area of endless confusion here, unless you imagine that there is! WikiMasterCreator 06:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, you've made your point! But the fact is that many people see problems in reconciling elements of Acts with Paul's letters, and the article should note that. We can't just gloss over that. But I do agree there is a problem in one way: the article just asserts there are problems between Acts and Paul's letters, without providing evidence. A citation is required. (A secondary source, not a list of Bible verses). Peter Ballard 13:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect,there are examples of a difficulty in reconciling Acts and Paul's letter. In particular that relating to the Council of Jerusalem. While this does not raise theological questions - which may be how it got through - it does indicate problems with Acts. I agree that the matter needs untangling. However, part of the problem lies in the nature of WP. The Catholic Encyclopaedia is a legitimate source. The use of the 1911 edition has been defended as against such scholars as Raymond Brown. I have attempted to tighten up the arguments but eventually one gives up; in religious matters, the right to disagree is fiercely defended and conservative as well as speculatively radical views come like snowstorms. I don't know how knowledgeable current correpondants are. There is a deal of literature which needs inserting. With encouragement I shall return to the anvil and offer a blow or two. Roger Arguile 20:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this article include this?:

Catholic Encyclopedia: Acts of the Apostles: OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE AUTHENTICITY: "Nevertheless this well-proved truth has been contradicted. Baur, Schwanbeck, De Wette, Davidson, Mayerhoff, Schleiermacher, Bleek, Krenkel, and others have opposed the authenticity of the Acts. An objection is drawn from the discrepancy between Acts ix, 19-28 and Gal., i, 17, 19. In the Epistle to the Galatians, i, 17, 18, St. Paul declares that, immediately after his conversion, he went away into Arabia, and again returned to Damascus. "Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas." In Acts no mention is made of St. Paul's journey into Arabia; and the journey to Jerusalem is placed immediately after the notice of Paul's preaching in the synagogues. Hilgenfeld, Wendt, Weizäcker, Weiss, and others allege here a contradiction between the writer of the Acts and St. Paul."

75.15.196.129 20:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, above, it appears Roger Arguile claims the Catholic Encyclopedia has been used to the exclusion of scholars like Raymond E. Brown. Wikipedia policy is NPOV, both Catholic Encyclopedia and Brown, and other Wikipedia:Reliable sources should be included, no significant and noteworthy opinions should be excluded. Wikipedia reports on significant viewpoints, it doesn't judge which ones are worthy of exclusion or inclusion nor does it engage in Original Research. 75.15.196.129 20:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is always helpful if editors would read the back correspondance. As to the assertion. I fear that I did not make such a 'claim'. Howevere there is archived material to which the anonyumous editor can refer if she or he desires. Roger Arguile 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm refering to your statement: "The use of the 1911 edition has been defended as against such scholars as Raymond Brown." 75.15.196.129 21:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Moreover

It is sometimes helpful to be reminded of WP policy, though one may have read it before. What WP sometimes struggles with is the weight to be given to different authorities. Some would suggest that the 1910 edition of the Catholic Encyclopaedia has been superceded by more modern scholarishop, but I realise that this is to make a contentious claim.

As the the glaringly obvious (to Master Builder) alas, such clarity is not given to all. The fact is that it is not given to me, or to those many who have a low regard for the historicity of Acts. Moreover, whilst we may wish to dispense with the work of scholars (some of whom operate outside the US perception of the academic world as described above), we are not allowed to engage in what others may think of as original research -though we may contend that it is not more than the 'bleedin' obvious'. We have to live with the fact that others may consider us dullards. Roger Arguile 21:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. If you have a "low regard for the historicity of Acts", find Wikipedia:Reliable sources and add them. That should not be a problem, it is hardly Original Research that the historicity of Acts is highly disputed, even the Catholic Encyclopedia makes that clear. However, there is no justification for the removal of other sources, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, on the pov grounds that it has been "superceded". What is the problem with this kind of format?:

The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia states: "blah blah blah", however, more recent scholarship, such as Raymond E. Brown, or whoever, states: "blah blah blah".

Inclusion of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, not exclusion or pov pushing. Also, highly relevant would be published critiques of Catholic Encyclopedia views. However, to repeat myself, the fact that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not universally accepted is not grounds for its removal from wikipedia articles. 75.15.196.129 21:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make another point: Since wikipedia is open to editing by the public, the only chance of achieving some stability is if all significant Wikipedia:Reliable sources viewpoints are reported. If editors are allowed to pick and choose and exclude viewpoints they don't agree with, you have no chance of reaching any consensus. Consensus is only reached by accurately reporting all significant Reliable source viewpoints and not by pushing any particular pov. Inclusion, not exclusion. Think Ecumenical. 75.15.196.129 22:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Roger, just to clarify, I want you to know that my issue has never been with the cited quotation from the 1910 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, although it appears to be an issue for some of our fellows. On the contrary, I found it to be wonderfully clear, insightful, concise, and on point. My issue is with the way in which the controversy issue is presented.

To those who think that the controversy issue should be markedly expanded in this section, I must say that I disagree. As it is, it verges on detracting from the subject at hand and disrupting the cognitive flow of information proposed by this section, especially due to the "disjointed" way in which the issue has been presented. If you feel that the controversy issue is that crucial to the topic at hand, I suggest referencing it to another section dedicated for that purpose (Controversies), or the WP article on the book of Acts itself. WikiMasterCreator 07:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To repeat: the present conition of the article is unsatisfactory. It was, however, the result of long edit conflicts and I do not see that any likelihood but that this will not be repeated. The idea that we should be quoting from an out-of-date Encyclopaedia which has been superceded in the Catholic Church strikes me as remarkable, but I see that there are defenders of it. I notice that 75..129 thinks that it is a reliable source. (Michael Goulder might never have lived.) 75...129 also thinks that the rest of us have no access to WP policy documents without her/his assistance. Perhaps someone would like to offer an edit, only to be blown away by those who disagree. Roger Arguile 16:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Done! WikiMasterCreator 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a missionary tract. It's not necessary to dumb down the topic and gloss over controversies. 75.0.3.249 05:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You consider the relocation of arguments that had been mis-placed into the middle of an article section, being moved to their appropriate, dedicated section, with a reference link provided to such, as turning the section into a missionary tract, dumbing it down, and glossing it over? Sounds like a personal issue on your part, no? WikiMasterCreator 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a personal issue, it's Wikipedia policy, see What_wikipedia_is_not for details. Also, keep in mind that this article is Paul the Apostle, not Paul the Apostle according to an original paraphrase of the Book of Acts. All Wikipedia:Reliable sources are eligible for inclusion, including those that dispute the accuracy of the Book of Acts, including those that disagree with each other. Remember: NPOV. 75.0.3.249 07:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Reasoning_behind_NPOV: "Wikipedia works because it is a collaborative effort; but, while collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts not-p? A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. We are committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense, surely a well-established meaning of the word "knowledge"." 75.0.3.249 07:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that you enjoy finger pointing, arguing, and pulling out WP policy cards to throw at someone. Frankly, I'm not impressed. I stand by my previous statement. There is a dedicated section in this article provided, as well as other links to related articles that go further into any related disputes, which are the appropriate, designated places for such.

It appears as if you'd like nothing more than to turn this section of the article into a mishmash of argumentation and debate, however doing so adds nothing constructive to the presentation of information being sought by the researcher, and disrupts the conative flow of the information being presented, leading to confusion of, rather than a increased understanding of the topic at hand.

AGAIN; "You consider the relocation of arguments that had been mis-placed into the middle of an article section, being moved to their appropriate, dedicated section, with a reference link provided to such, as turning the section into a missionary tract, dumbing it down," "glossing it over", and now also violating NPOV? "Sounds like a personal issue on your part, no? "

Please put the policy cards away, take a deep breath, and find something constructive to do. Here's an idea! How about making a "collaborative effort" somewhere? WikiMasterCreator 08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a House of Comons conventiion of using the third person singular in these kind of discussions. It lowers the temperature. However, on the substance, MC has I think encountered the resistance which I partly foresaw. He has compounded this by using expressions like 'some scholars'. This is no good. We have to know which scholars who said what, where. Roger Arguile 09:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

MC's latest revert is quite wrong.It is full of paraphrases and misuses the notion of vandalism. This is the kind of approach which creates edit wars. Roger Arguile 10:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert War

I need concise and specific details, not a long, drawn out speech. WikiMasterCreator 10:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As to prolixity, MC may notice the length of her/his own contributions. She/he may have noticed the resistance I predicted. Expressions such as 'some say this' are not acceptable according to WP guidelines. More to followRoger Arguile 10:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being constructive; much appreciated. WikiMasterCreator 17:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith 75.15.203.214 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Good faith" cannot be assumed of those who have a stated personal agenda, and attempt to impose that personal agenda on others; maliciously attacking those who have operated in "good faith". (Still at it with the Wikipedia policy cards, eh?) WikiMasterCreator 19:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason for 'burying' the Catholic encyclopedia (1910) is that in the text is us unbalancing, stating only one point of view. I also wish people would quote from the 1967 edition rather than the out-of-date version. I can only believe that they do so because the former is available on line. Roger Arguile 20:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is time to stop quoting old editions of works simply because they are easily available.Roger Arguile 20:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The 1907-1914 Catholic Encyclopedia is public domain, thus quotable. The 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia is copyrighted. I'm not aware of any libraries that have disposed of their reference copies of the Catholic Encyclopedia because it is too old, it is a very useful reference work. Incidently, if you have a set that you're trying to dispose, I would be more than happy to take them off your hands. 75.14.219.155 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Any work is quotable for the purpose of referencing. What the PD status of the CE does for us is to provide entire blocks of text that can be simply pasted in unaltered. That doesn't invalidate any of Roger's concerns about it. It's useless for any developments in the 20th century -- if you tried to use it as a reference for Catholic liturgy you'll go seriously wrong -- it very much does not reflect the latest scholarship, and it's inherently biased.

But surely there are better sources to cite than an encyclopedia anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the quote in question: 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article by F. Bechtel on Judaizers states:

"Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after [the Council of Jerusalem] circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1–3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (21:26 sqq.)."

Is it your contention that this is wrong or out of date or superceded by the latest scholarship or biased? 75.14.219.155 22:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the above quote originally followed the following (unreferenced) statement in the article:

Upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem, he gave the apostles his account of bringing Gentiles to the faith. According to Acts, James the Just confronted Paul with the charge that he was teaching the Jews to ignore the law and asked him to demonstrate that he was Torah observant by taking a Nazirite vow (Acts 21:26). However, that Paul did so is difficult to reconcile with his personally expressed attitude both in Galatians and Philippians, where he utterly opposed any idea that the law was binding on Christians, declaring that even Peter did not live by the law (Galatians 2:14). Various attempts have been made to reconcile Paul's views as expressed in his different letters and in Acts, notably the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Judaizers states:

Also, as background, in case it's necessary, it should be noted that Catholics do not believe Paul opposed the Mosaic Law, whereas some Protestants do believe that, see Old Testament#Christian view of the Law and Expounding_of_the_Law#Antithesis_of_the_Law and Antinomianism#Antinomianism_in_the_New_Testament for details. 75.14.219.155 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find that in any of the references you've provided. Can you please help me with this? WikiMasterCreator 22:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't find what? 75.14.219.155 23:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic position? Catechism of the Catholic Church at the Vatican archives: "2076 By his life and by his preaching Jesus attested to the permanent validity of the Decalogue."

A Protestant position against the Law? Cyrus Scofield in his 1896 Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, ch. 6 LAW AND GRACE states: "The most obvious and striking division of the Word of truth is that between law and grace. Indeed, these contrasting principles characterize the two most important dispensations: the Jewish and Christian. "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). ... Law kills; grace makes alive. ... Law says, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"; grace says, "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Law says, "Hate thine enemy"; grace says, "Love your enemies, bless them that despitefully use you." Law says, do and live; grace says, believe and live. ... Law stones an adulteress; grace says, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." ... Everywhere the Scriptures present law and grace in sharply contrasted spheres. The mingling of them in much of the current teaching of the day spoils both, for law is robbed of its terror, and grace of its freeness."

Another Protestant position against the Law? I believe Roger Arguile, who claims to be an Anglican parish priest, wrote this: "However, that Paul did so is difficult to reconcile with his personally expressed attitude both in Galatians and Philippians, where he utterly opposed any idea that the law was binding on Christians, declaring that even Peter did not live by the law (Galatians 2:14)."

75.14.219.155 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

75.14.219.155, this: "Catholics do not believe Paul opposed the Mosaic Law, whereas some Protestants do believe that" WikiMasterCreator 00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary of current edit war

WikiMasterCreator claims the Acts of the Apostles are a valid source for the life of Paul. Roger Arguile claims it is not. What is the solution to this edit conflict? 75.14.219.155 20:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I fear not. If only life were as simple as that. The intervention of more anonymous editors complicates matters. The matter may be stated thus. We may presume that the letters under consideration are Paul's words. As such they have a higher credibility than what is written about him by others. Whether therefore, the Acts, can 'easily' be reconciled with what Paul writes about himself is a matter of scholarship, bearing in mind that Paul's memory could be faulty about some things, that descriptions of events may be partial, that Paul may, indeed almost certainly did, respond to different situations with different perspectives (add your own quotations): this and allied questions are what concern us. But the idea that a 1910 edition of a book which has been revised several times since can be wheeled in simply because it is online, while the 1967 edition, which is not, is not quoted, seems to me to show a serious lapse of judgement.Roger Arguile 21:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Question has the quote from the 1910 edition been revised, or has it been removed from the 1967 edition?--Riferimento 01:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the New Catholic Encyclopedia myself, it's found in most libraries. The entire article on Judaizers is not present. In general, the NCE is an abridgement of the original Catholic Encyclopedia, with more pictures than text and less technical discussion and more general overview type discussion, in keeping with the times. 75.14.212.224 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Acts 21–28 is the only source for the final trip by Paul to Jerusalem, his arrest there, and trip to Rome. The Pauline Epistles don't even mention it. 75.14.219.155 21:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia Dispute

For your review and consideration, I submit this entry taken from the 1995 edition of the Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism.

St. Paul: Theology

"Although Paul was controversial both during his lifetime and subsequently many of his basic convictions were traditional, rooted in Judaism and early Christianity. Two of his basic convictions were belief in Jewish monotheism and belief in the revelation of God in the Jewish Scriptures. Hence Paul always thought of himself as a Jew, both ethnically and religiously. From Christian tradition and his own experience on the road to Damascus came his conviction about the centrality of Christ, especially of his death and resurrection. Also characteristic of Paul is his conviction, rooted in his experience of the risen Jesus, about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles and the status of Mosaic law. For Paul there was "in Christ" no longer any distinction between Jews and Gentiles (Gal 3:28; Rom 3:22); all are saved through faith in Christ rather than through the observance of Mosaic law (Rom 3:21-30). Through faith in Christ is no longer any need for either Jewish or gentile Christians to observe Mosaic law as such. Although there is some dispute, Paul seems to have included in this both the ritual and the ethical sections of the law. Christian conduct was now to be guided by the presence of the Spirit by faith working through love, and by Christians becoming servants of one another (Gal 5-6). Paul also had a belief, based on but expanded from early Christian eschatology, that in the consummation of the world all things would be subjected to Christ and to God. For Paul this included the Jewish people (Rom 9-11). Although the precise manor of this inclusion remains uncertain, it is clear that Paul could not imagine a consummation of the world in which the Jewish people were not included. Paul's reputation in the second and third centuries remained controversial, especially for Jewish Christians. Interpretations of Paul's Letters were central to the thought of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin."

Perhaps portions may be deemed acceptable for inclusion. WikiMasterCreator 02:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it have the Imprimatur? 75.0.2.134 03:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Another reference to consider: Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification: Section 4.5 Law and Gospel: "31.We confess together that persons are justified by faith in the gospel "apart from works prescribed by the law" (Rom 3:28). Christ has fulfilled the law and by his death and resurrection has overcome it as a way to salvation. We also confess that God's commandments retain their validity for the justified and that Christ has by his teaching and example expressed God's will which is a standard for the conduct of the justified also. 32.Lutherans state that the distinction and right ordering of law and gospel is essential for the understanding of justification. In its theological use, the law is demand and accusation. Throughout their lives, all persons, Christians also, in that they are sinners, stand under this accusation which uncovers their sin so that, in faith in the gospel, they will turn unreservedly to the mercy of God in Christ, which alone justifies them. 33.Because the law as a way to salvation has been fulfilled and overcome through the gospel, Catholics can say that Christ is not a lawgiver in the manner of Moses. When Catholics emphasize that the righteous are bound to observe God's commandments, they do not thereby deny that through Jesus Christ God has mercifully promised to his children the grace of eternal life. [Footnotes for Section 4.5:] According to Pauline teaching this topic concerns the Jewish law as means of salvation. This law was fulfilled and overcome in Christ. This statement and the consequences from it have to be understood on this basis. With reference to Canons 19f of the Council of Trent, the VELKD (89,28-36) says as follows: "The ten commandments of course apply to Christians as stated in many places of the confessions.. If Canon 20 stresses that a person ..is bound to keep the commandments of God, this canon does not strike to us; if however Canon 20 affirms that faith has salvific power only on condition of keeping the commandments this applies to us. Concerning the reference of the Canon regarding the commandments of the church, there is no difference between us if these commandments are only expressions of the commandments of God; otherwise it would apply to us." The last paragraph is related factually to 4.3, but emphasizes the 'convicting function' of the law which is important to Lutheran thinking. "

Catholic Catechism: "2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; The Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments." "

75.0.2.134 03:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested in the latest Pauline scholarship, it's called the New Perspective on Paul. 75.14.211.73 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a sample of N. T. Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham, [1]: "The third point is remarkably controversial, seeing how well founded it is at several points in Paul. Indeed, listening to yesterday�s papers, it seems that there has been a massive conspiracy of silence on something which was quite clear for Paul (as indeed for Jesus). Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God�s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led � in accordance, in other words, with works. He says this clearly and unambiguously in Romans 14.10�12 and 2 Corinthians 5.10. He affirms it in that terrifying passage about church-builders in 1 Corinthians 3. But the main passage in question is of course Romans 2.1�16." 75.14.211.73 08:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"75.0.2.134" RE: HC Encyclopedia of Catholicism
I don't see an Imprimatur in the book, does that make it unusable? WikiMasterCreator 07:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not enough secondary sources

This article has a troubling dependence on primary sources (namely the New Testament). However, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources (see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). A lot of commentary in this article appears to be based directly on the New Testament, leading to possible original research problems. If anyone can support more of the article with published secondary sources, that would be great. Cheers. Grover cleveland 06:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the Bible a secondary source? 75.14.212.224 05:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bible is a primary source, according to Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary_and_secondary_sources. There is a good example there of the problems that using the Bible as the main source for an article can cause:

The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

I would suggest that all material that goes beyond direct quotations from the Bible to anything that could be regarded as commentary should cite the published work of theologians and historians. Of course even with direct quotations there can still be controversies over translation, textual variants and context, so secondary sources are important there too. Grover cleveland 15:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I fear not. GC is correct that the article contains too much primary material, interpreted by editors. While therefore it may be true that of Paul's arrest and death there is no other source but Acts, it is the case that the account offers a view of Paul very different from his remarks in Galatians 5.

I wonder if I might offer an observation. Having been here for some time, I remember when a flock of non-Christian editors descended and wanted to challenge every thing written; then some Christian editors appeared wishing to defend every biblical statement. Doubtless there is no finality, but I do agree with those who suggest that anonymous editors would do us a favour by registering. Otherwise it is hard to know with whom one is having a conversation.

Lastly, I hope that we can say goodbye to the old 1910 CE and take its successor as a source. I have no access to a copy. Roger Arguile 16:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

First, on the whole this is a very good article, and seems to me that the present regular editors are both knowledgeable and reasonable. Second, it is an unfortunate necessity that Wikipedia articles of religious nature must use a primary source (the Bible) to protect the article from opinionated religiously conservative editors who do not respect the work of noted theologians. I agree with Mr. Grover that the article needs more published secondary sources, but I do not believe that the tag is helpful.--Riferimento 22:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Riferimento. I don't quite understand the source of your worry here. If the edits from religious conservatives impose their own interpretation of the Bible without citations, then they can be removed as original research. If they cite religious conservative scholars, then that is fine as long as the views they express are attributed to those scholars per WP:NPOV. If other scholars are in disagreement, then their views should be added and attributed to them. Here's an example of how a paragraph might be structured:

Scholar X claims that the Bible is literally true, that Acts and the epistles are in harmony (citation). Other scholars, however, assert that there are contradictions between the accounts, for the following reasons: ... (citations). Scholar X replies as follows (citation).

This is how I think Wikipedia works best with these kinds of disputes. Grover cleveland 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)