Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 7

"Arrest and death" Consensus

I have shortened the previous version, including the removal of some bible quoting and rephrasing. I also merged with elements from Roger's preferred version.

To make additional cuts would likely cause an irreparable loss of pertinent information.

I hope this edit can bring about an agreeable consensus. WikiMasterCreator 01:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, but in my opinion they do not really help. You have reworded a few parts, but you have not shortened it significantly. My opinion is that the 1st five paragraphs should be shortened to only 2. Specifically:

• The first para - the comment that Acts 21-28 is the only source is unnecessary (and maybe wrong).
• The second para (beginning "Upon his arrival...") is mostly OK but could be shortened. I'd also like to see re-inserted the comment that some scholars dispute that Paul would have kept the law so strictly. The Catholic Encyclopedia quote, which used to be in there, summarised well both the criticism and a response to the criticsm.
• The third para (beginning "Almost one week...") can mostly go. We don't need the quote from Acts. We don't need the detail. Suffice to say that he was arrested on suspicion of breaking the Jewish Law. Merge it into the second para.
• The 4th para (beginning "The Roman commander of Jerusalem was notified...") can be deleted entirely. It's a diversion. Without it, the net effect is the same - Paul was arrested.
• The 5th para (beginning "The Roman commander took Paul into custody...") is mostly OK.

In summary, delete the 1st and 4th paragraphs, merge the 3rd into the 2nd, condensing the 5 paragraphs down to two. That is my opinion, anyway. And, for what it's worth, the version I reverted is much closer to that. Which is why I'd rather start from that shorter version, not the longer version. Peter Ballard 02:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Great suggestions for the most part in my opinion. I have attempted to address the broad spectrum of disputes, but I see that you are very interested in maximum conciseness.

Please allow me a bit of time to work on implementing some of your suggestions, and attempt to shorten this section as much as possible without causing a rift.

As for the first para, I'd prefer it to stay, as it is a "good faith" effort, although I agree that citation needs to be made if at all possible. WikiMasterCreator 02:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I implemented some of your suggestions, performed additional shortening while attempting to be as "surgical" as possible. I also returned information on dissenting views and the Catholic Encyclopedia quote, although the added information somewhat offset much of the effect of the shortening. Thanks to your suggestions, this section has been vastly improved in my opinion.
Thanks! WikiMasterCreator 03:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've taken it further, pretty well doing what I said above. I've also shortened the Catholic Encyclopedia quote to the most relevant bit (I hope). I don't pretend that it's the final version or that it'll make everyone happy yet, but hopefully we're getting closer to consensus. Peter Ballard 06:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, I made a few grammar corrections, and smoothed it out a bit. WikiMasterCreator 07:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Coming back to the article today and getting a fresh read on it, it was blatantly clear that the information on Paul's relationship with the law was out of place, and caused a terrible disruption to the flow of this section. I relocated it to it's proper section, "Relationship with Judaism", and provided an anchor to it. WikiMasterCreator 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding citations (to secondary sources)

I've added a lot of and other notices where references are most urgently needed. Please don't remove them without addressing the underliying problems. I've made a start (with some great help from Riferimento) on providing sources. I hope they are helpful. Grover cleveland 03:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Great work both of you, much needed! WikiMasterCreator 03:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have explained, the references are there. The question which editors need to answer is what purpose is served by references. They are intended to direct readers to the source. If subsequent editors do not look at the source, this is their problem. Those who rely on online sourcing should be encouraged to find a library. Those who do not know enough about the subject should consider themselves readers, not editors. The contention that everything should be referenced is arguable. The material on dating is all in Ogg's essay in Peake's commentary on the bible. Please read it - it is short - before changing things. White makes his own assured contribution, but it is essential to read his claims in the light of Ogg (and others). The 'underlying problem' may be the unwillingness of editors to use paper libraries. If the unwilling lead the unwilling, all will fall into a ditch. We have to remember that the whole purpose of this exercise is to help readers. I have written this before and do so again because this article is in huge danger of falling into the hands of people who are sure that they are right but differ from each other. Roger Arguile 10:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to "Second missionary journey"

The recent edits to this section strike me as jarring, as they introduce a theological controversy over the circumcision of Timothy, where the rest of the related sections read like a historical account. I suggest that issues surrounding Paul's complicated relationship with the Law be handled in the section 'Relationship with Judaism' Tiki2099 12:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the information has been relocated to the proper section. WikiMasterCreator 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew Translation

Isn't (שאול התרסי in Hebrew), pronounced as: Shawul HaTars ? (not sure about last word) and not : St. Paul ? We all know that Saul ( שאול ) was the name of St. Paul before his name was changed to Paul, but surely there's a hebrew alternative to Paul.

My hebrew is HE-0 , but i can pronounce the letters.

Regards --Lord Anubis 14:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, the reason I assume is the article was renamed but no one bothered checking the Hebrew! Anyway, why not just delete it: I suggest that the Hebrew is not relevant, since Paul wrote in Greek. Peter Ballard 12:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Hebrew but not the Greek given, Παῦλος? I see that the article name is contentious and so I don't want to just jump in here. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think the name is an issue anymore; I haven't seen discussion concerning it since I'd been watching the page. I think you should go ahead and add that if you can incorporate it.--C.Logan 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis. Will do. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to the top with citation. grc ≠ koine exactly I suppose. I'll watch this space to see if any issues arise. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Paul surviving Rome

I've commented out a sentence that claimed:

A number of other sources including Clement of Rome, say that Paul survived Rome and went to "the limits of the west.". The apocryphal Acts of Paul, the apocryphal Acts of Peter, the Muratorian Fragment and First Epistle of Clement 5:6 all say Paul survived Rome and traveled west.

I checked online texts of the Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, and the Muratorian fragment. I may well have missed something, but in none of them was there an obvious claim that Paul survived Rome. Acts of Paul even gives the gruesome detail that when he was executed under Nero milk spurted over the clothes of the executioner! As for 1 Clement, the matter is at least disputed, since Brown and others interpret the text as saying that Paul was martyred in Rome (see text in main article). I'm not sure if these texts are all saying that Paul went to Rome, left, and later came back to be executed. If this is the interpretation then we should at least make that clear. Secondary sources on the interpretation of these works would be a good thing, as always. Grover cleveland 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement appears to be a paraphrase of the Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Paul: "Finally, not to mention the later testimony of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and Theodoret, the well-known text of St. Clement of Rome, the witness of the "Muratorian Canon", and of the "Acta Pauli" render probable Paul's journey to Spain."

Clement 5:7 (2nd edition of Apostolic Fathers, 1992): "having taught righteousness to the whole world and having reached the farthest limits of the West. ..." "footnote 15: farthest...West: i.e. the Straits of Gibraltar"

Metzger's Muratorian Fragment 38-39: "as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] when he journeyed to Spain. ..."

75.0.15.51 06:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect it is not good enough to rely on online sources. It does not lie beyond the skill of children to surf the net. One of the improvements to WP editing could be if those do not have in their libraries or have access to original or translated documents would assume good faith. On my desk is a copy of 1 Clement which includes the text cited above. Whether St. Paul returned to Rome (!) and there was martyred is a possibility. Clement may be wrong. But I suggest that editors resort to a library before raising questions which cannot be answered from the net but which can be researched by using libraries or even bookshops! It is, as editors may detect, a source of some little irritation that such a basic prerequisite to adding or questioning material is not adhered to. Roger Arguile 10:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass editing

This article has now received hundreds of edits in the space of a few weeks. The net effect of this is to create confusion. The return (yes) of White's theories (after an absence of some months) without any attempt to integrate them into the text is a classic example. White's view is controverted by Ogg in the text. His claim to certainties where conflicts exist merely provides the reader (who matters more than the editors) with a confusion of information. I recognise that the hard work of reading articles carefully and integrating any well-founded sources into the text requires tme and diligence; but nothing else will do. WP is not a hobby for amateur theologians and church historians but a service to communities. Inevitably, after such a flurry of contributions, the task of restoring the text to some degree of consistency has to be the work of a very few minds. I am sure that many will disagree with this. Having worked on the article some time ago in order to remove contradictions, repetitions and assertions in the past, I feel I have some reason for making this statement. Roger Arguile 10:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Roger. I am utterly mystified by your comments above and by your recent edits to this article.

• If White is contradicted by Ogg, the correct way to handle this is to present both views, attributing them correctly to each scholar with references, and to let the reader decide between them. It is not the job of Wikipedia to champion one scholar's position and to suppress all opposing views. Please see WP:NPOV. Your talk about "removing contradictions" from the article suggests that you may not understand how NPOV works.
• The edits removed a lot of very useful references that used Wikipedia's approved citations templates and contained direct links to the pages referenced, replacing them with less useful references. Please explain how this improves the article.
• The attitude expressed in your comment that "WP is not a hobby for amateur theologians" comes very close to showing disdain for your fellow editors. Please respect that we all are trying to improve the article., and that you are not the owner of this article.
• The removal of a large number of citation-needed tags, in most cases without adding citations, suggests that you don't take seriously Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. Even where you do provide references, they often do not include page numbers. Your attitude to the reader seems to be "trust me: I've read the literature". That is not the way Wikipedia works: every assertion in an article that might be challenged must be supported by citations.

I am tempted to revert your changes, but instead I'm going to ask the other editors on this page to add their views on this matter, while I cool down. Grover cleveland 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

GC is quite right to question. I shall try to reply.

As I have indicated there are many cases when wikilinks are provided.

Secondly, I am sure the GC is right that one should not trust that any person has read the literature. However, in some cases the reference is to the bible which is in the text. Moreover, the fact that an 19th century commentary which is online but which could easily be replaced by quotations from modern commentaries which take into account modern scholarship makes one wonder why anyone who has a modern commentary on their bookshelf should choose to quote from a book which is not available in print and which is over a hundred years old.

Thirdly, the correct way to comment on Ogg is not to lay out a table which in no way relates to or argues with him from White. That is, as I stated, to create confusion. I have not championed Ogg. On the contrary if GC would read it it would be plain that Ogg coes not take up any position at all but makes the point that all of the solutions present their own partciular difficulties which is why it is so hard to make any sense of White's description of five visits without explanation. It is this which makes it difficult to elide White's views with those of anybody else.

Fourthly, my intemperate remarks about amateur theologians, which may be harsh, press the case for editors to indicate that they have read modern books rather than stuff that happens to be on line. If I have disdain, it is for those who do not quote from relevant modern literature. I think that one of the reasons why people become upset is that they have not read widely and rely on surfing rather than reading Davies or Wright or Munck or Schmittals etc. The most useful references are not the the most easily accessible books online but to the best scholarship. Regretably perhaps, but I don't think that Davies' Paul and Rabbinic Judaism is online; but if we haven't read it, I wonder if we can comment.

I am happy to find page numbers by picking the books of my shelf. I shall remedy that defect shortly (on the assumption that I don't get reverted!)

As so often I find myself dealing with generalise remarks but without specific examples. thisi a constant headache with WP. I deny that GC is right and have offered explanations at each edit. I would be grateful if she or he would instantiate her/his objections.Roger Arguile 18:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Roger

With respect I don't think your comments really addressed the issues. I also don't think that they justified the edits that you made and that I referred to. I'll try to be more specific with two examples.

• Example 1: you removed the table comparing Acts with the Epistles with respect to Paul's mission to Jerusalem. Your justification for this removal is that the table is "controverted by Ogg", that it "introduces certainties where conflicts exist", and that it "confuses the reader". I will respond to all three of these points.
  • • If the table is "controverted by Ogg" then the correct response is to describe Ogg's objections, with citations, not to remove the table. You will notice that the table was specifically ascribed to White and a reference, including a link, was given to the page of White's book where the original is to be found. The section was not asserting that the table was correct: it was merely ascribing it to White.
    • You claim that the table "introduces certainties where conflicts exist". I am not sure what certainties were introduced: the possible identification of the passage from Galatians 2 with the Council of Jerusalem was specifically qualified with the word "possibly". I don't see any other certainties introduced here.
    • You claim that the table "confuses the reader". I would respond that the table is a darn sight less confusing that prose such as this, which you reinserted into the text

      Thus, while Michael White thinks that Galatians 2:1 corresponds to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, others think that Paul is referring here to the meeting in Acts 11 (the "famine visit") and that the letter to the Galatians was written after the men had come to Antioch demanding circumcision and before the "Council of Jerusalem," the public meeting, had taken place—or even as he was setting out for it — this interpretation would make Galatians the earliest letter to be written (it is generally dated between 48 and 55). If the meeting was private, Luke's informants might have had no knowledge of it; however, it could not have taken place fourteen years after the first encounter (or seventeen from the date of Paul's conversion), because the famine relief took place in the reign of King Herod Agrippa, according to Acts; he died in 44. That would put Paul's conversion at 27, likely before Jesus' death.

  • Example 2: You removed helpful information from references. You changed this:

White, L. Michael (2004). From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollins. pp. 148–149. ISBN 0060526556.

to this

Michael White From Jesus to Christianity (Haper Collins 2004) ISBN 0060526556 p. 148

which misspelled "HarperCollins" as "Haper Collins", neglected to terminate the italics, removed the helpful web link, and omitted the "L." from "L. Michael White". Again, I ask you to tell me in what way this represents an improvement. And you have done this to many references.

In view of this attitude towards references, your remarks about "quoting from modern sources" rings hollow. In fact all the references I added (and which you have removed or disturbed) did quote from modern sources, with the exception of the Lightfoot translation of 1 Clement, which I don't see is out-of-date in any way.

I would love to hear what other editors of this page have to say about these examples. Cheers. Grover cleveland 19:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My misspellings I apologise for. They need correcting, but I am not clear what rings hollow. The sentence which sets out a complicated issue I don't apologise for. I am not sure who inserted McGarvey. It could be argued that the inline system is more accessible, indeed it is, but it leads to quotations from a narrow range of books and is inconsistent.

A comparison with the article on FDR (Roosevelt) would be instructive. That article has been fiercely guarded, as I know to my cost. I attempted to add material when I knew rather little save from a very few books which I have on my shelf. Another widely read editor noted that my knowledge could not be justified from the key authors. He did not suffer from my poor typing skills, which was good. I wholly disagree that White's table, without arguments from him is helpful. As for the remark about bravado, I left it in, but it lacks evidence itself. What does typify most of the references is that they are online, which makes one suspicious, perhaps unwarrantably so. But I repeat myself.Roger Arguile 19:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A total revert of much refering as well as controversial but detailed undos? I think we need a moderator. Please will and admin help Roger Arguile 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe Roger fully understands Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Cite sources policy. 75.15.200.189 19:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Case in point, at User_talk:Grover_cleveland#Paul_Article Roger wrote: "I can't prove that I have sources for what I have added" 75.15.200.189 19:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was an admission, wasn't it! Fast typing: I should have added 'at the moment'. It seems to me that CG's objections are fine so far as they go, but they don't go very far. Personal comments I shall ignore. Substantive improvments to asked-for sources had been begun, but are now deleted. I wonder if anyone will bother to restore any of them. If some are pleased with having caught me out, I trust that the enjoyment is full hearted. The problem of inline only sources remains, as it has for a long time in this article. It is a bad way to proceed. As before I note that the major purpose of WP guidelines is to produce the goods for readers, not to enable point scoring.

I should point out that I rewrote a good deal of the article some time ago. I did not quote sources and it is time-consuming to identify them all. I make no complaint about doing the job which should have been done before. But havng been detered by recent vandalism I await the judgement of an admin. Has anyone read Davies' book yet? Roger Arguile 20:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

PS "Any editor is entitled to demand a source: there is no requirement that they must have read any books on the subject in order to do so." I think that's lovely.Roger Arguile 20:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying you refuse to follow Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines? 75.15.200.189 20:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply review his history here on Wikipedia, it's really quite obvious what the answer to your question is.

Add these to your list as well:

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Wikipedia:Etiquette

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

I have really been impressed by the work that everyone "besides him" has been doing here lately; lots of friendly, collaborative dialog and editing has been taking place, and Grover's excellent attention to so many of the very important "little", and not so little, often overlooked details, which are so crucial to the finish and polish of an article has been fantastic. All was going well, the article was finally progressing again, and thanks to the friendly collaborations that were taking place by the editors, the article has improved considerably, but alas, "he's" at it again!

There is one thing that I do agree with him on though, which is his statement regarding the need for a moderator, but for the sole purpose of moderating his generally unacceptable, unilateral, and dictatorial behavior here on Wikipedia.

Roger, your "latest revert is quite wrong. It misuses the notion of vandalism. This is the kind of approach which creates edit wars." Please reconsider you attitude, as well as your activities here: "join" the community, rather than fighting to control it. I suspect that you have much to offer in the way of contribution, but unfortunately it is being overshadowed and prevented by your own attitudes and actions, which are also harming other individual editors, and the community as a whole. WikiMasterCreator 00:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Status

Hello everyone, I've been away for awhile. The article is looking better than ever, congratulations to everyone for their hard work and diligence, it definitely shows! I think what this article is most in need of at this time is a "citation expert"; to get those taken care of, to clean things up, especially in the later sections. I also think a good picture in the "Arrest and Death" section would be an important addition. Other than that, and a few little tweaks here and there, I think the article will be ready for re-submission for review as a Wikipedia:Good articles candidate. What do you think? WikiMasterCreator 06:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the "later sections" were written by User:Roger Arguile. It would be nice if he would document his claims or kindly delete them if they are merely Original Research. 64.149.83.133 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I shall do my best.Roger Arguile 15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Complaint 2

What most people don't realize is that Saul is responsible for the crucifixion of Christ based upon the deceitful testimony of one of his intelligence assets that Jesus was a false messiah. This can only be proven by the application of Common Sense. Whoever gave the order for Jesus to be Crucified first had to be the most prominent Jew of the day, Saul (because Jesus is Messiah) and, because he was crucified by the Romans, this person must of necessity have held Roman Citizenship, again Saul. This simple triangulation of facts leads to the inescapable truth, though in some sense circumstantial, that Saul of Tarsus, Paul, Saint, gave the order for Jesus of Nazareth to be killed. That he was decieved to do this is also inescapable because, according to his letters, which all churches accept as Holy Scripture, Paul was zealous of the Law and wanted to do nothing but please God, do His will, and prepare for the arrival of Messiah. It seems that there was a vast conspiracy to give Saul a bad name. Make him do that which he was most averse to doing, 'Kill the Wrong Guy!' And how hard would that be? Saul was born killing people at an unprecidented rate. Anyone who can persecute The Church must of necessity be the most prolific killer of all time. Setting up Paul is easy, especially for one of his spies. Escaping him, after the fact, would be impossible. Only a fool would try to give Saul of Tarsus a bad name.

Virtue Lord Purple 14:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Virtue

Um... would you care to elaborate on your religious affiliation/perspective?--C.Logan 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Gladly. I was raised Roman Catholic in Montclair NJ, was born in 1968 to an African father and an English mother. My mother raised me, a black boy in the midst of the civil rights movement, as an English boy, as some kind of experiment. How could I look scornfully upon this? A black boy with an aristocratic British accent!! Please raise me as an English Boy!!! I have a unique perspective on Race in America, and the World. After many years in the Catholic Embrace I have found deeper truths to the meaning of The Eucharist, as an example. I have found that one does not need a trained Priest to bless the Bread and Wine, but simply a sincere heart and grateful Spirit. With these, one can celebrate in peace and alone if necessary as I have had to do. As I write this, I am currently a prisoner in the Psych ward at Colombia Presbiterian Hospital in NY and will suffer whatever is necessary for the name of my blessed savior Jesus. As time is a constraint right now I will leave this discussion and look forward to converse in the future. May you find and let the peace of The Lord settle upon your heart. With Sincerety, 156.111.149.96 19:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Virtue Lord Purple

Well, I hope that Christ blesses you, and helps you in this time in rehabilitation.

Now, where exactly did you come about this perspective on Paul? Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you claiming that Paul had a direct hand in the Crucifixion? This is something I've never heard, and I just have to tell you that we have a policy about the inclusion of information: it has to be reliably sourced. We can't turn Wikipedia into a forum for our own ideas and opinions, and therefore we discourage what's called original research. If you could elaborate on the above, in a straightforward manner (it's currently more of a discourse, which can be confusing to the uninitiated), it would be much easier to work with this information. Most importantly, the information needs to be sourced. That is to say, if any particular book led you to this conclusion, and it is written by a scholar, we may be able to include the information.

Keep one thing in mind when considering your sources: no synthesis. Any conclusions that you may have come to on your own from assessing multiple sources is unacceptable; there must be a source cited which reaches the same conclusion. If you have any questions, ask away.--C.Logan 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the 'Sources' that are relevant to this discussion are held secretly by The Vatican. We know that they hold many Secrets and many Sources. Regardless of whether or not what I say is true, The Vatican has much to explain; like The Inquisition; their role in the Slave Trade; their role in The Holocaust; their role in the current events in Africa and so on and so on. Who exactly gave the order for Christ to be crucified has been obscured by those who carried it out, for remember, Pilate Washed His Hands!! This is very important to remember. If Jesus had not knocked Paul off of his horse, Paul would definetly have wiped out The Church!! People forget just how powerful Paul really was. I could go on forever about how wealthy Paul was in the material sense, to say nothing about how wealthy he was spiritually. An example of this is that he was The Tentmaker! What does that mean? Do you really think that he supported himself sewing tents?!! That is preposterous!! The wealth of The Church was not made with a needle!!! To be a tentmaker is like being the owner of an Oasis. Everybody gets along in the Oasis, because if you raise your voice in anger in the Oasis, even at the man who just murdered your mother, you will immediately be kicked out, and you will die!!! Everybody gets along with the Tentmaker, because if he kicks you out, even if you are a King, all of your servents will die, because they will not have tents, your army will die, for the same reasons, and you will die! Remember you can not carry your house on your camel's back and you need to get from point A to point B. It is an enduring mystery, who killed Christ. Perhaps it is time; time for Joseph Ratzinger to open the Archives of The Vatican and let every mystery be revealed. Until this happens, I will forever remain a prisoner. May Christ enter into the lives of all those who wish sincerely to be at peace and to know a Sacred Love. Virtue Lord Purple 156.111.149.96 19:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Pauline authorship

In the introduction, I've altered the passage on authorship to make it more objective (not assuming authorship of Paul).Topologyrob 03:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Martyrdom

Hi,

I attempted to remove what I view as a nightmarish fantasy from this article. That being Paul's martyrdom. How do I go about doing so? A source written 600 years later can surely not be reliable? Even one written 200-300 years later seems feeble to me. Clement??? Where does Philippians mention guards? Sounds to me like Paul was having a nice time in Rome, hobnobbing with Caesar's household. Those other views are neither clear nor reasonable to me.

I'm left with Luke. Yes, Paul is under guard, but he lives in his own rented house (sounds very unRoman to let an enemy-of-the-state live in comfort by the way). Now why does Luke say so much about Paul speaking to the Jews (who aren't even angered by Paul's words), but nothing about his treatment at the hands of the Romans??? Two years Paul spends in peace and serenity as far as I can tell from Luke. And then? Martyrdom? Luke doesn't bother telling us??? Come On!!! Where's Luke's publisher?

Will someone please help me rid the (wiki)world of this nightmarish fantasy-view of the world. Let's replace it with REALITY. You know, the kinda stuff people are likely to encounter in their day-to-day real lives.

StephanNaro 22:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. Let's remember that just because you don't happen to believe or understand the entirety of the situation concerning Paul's martyrdom, you aren't warranted to change the article to reflect your opinion. Other than that, I'm not really sure where you're trying to go with the above. If you have a source which gives an alternate account, then feel free to bring it to the table.--C.Logan 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have empathy for the fact that certain people living AFTER the time of Paul had a desire for certainty as to his manner of death. I too like very much to KNOW the truth, but am slowly discovering that God does not always give us certainty.

The only worthwhile source referenced, Luke, leaves the question open. May I ask that we show some humility and follow his example?--StephanNaro 10:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Luke is NOT a worthwhile source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses secondary sources (like scholars), not primary sources (like the Bible). See WP:PSTS. The secondary sources are pretty well in agreement that Paul was marytred. You are welcome to disagree and form your own theories (i.e. perform WP:Original Research), but Wikipedia is not the place for that. Peter Ballard 12:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Peter Ballard. On a side note, I've read that Luke's silence on the issue was due to the book of Acts being written prior to Paul's martyrdom.--C.Logan 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a suspicion WP wasn't the best place to accomplish my objectives, but have my reasons for proceeding a while longer. I appreciate your taking the effort to give an explicit reason as I tend to duck when I see books thrown at me, so they don't normally hit me like that did. I'd further like to point out that my assuming the Bible to be an acceptable source was based on the fact that it already was used in the article: "According to Acts...". Shall I now expect that to be cleaned out? Oh, I'd also like to thank you for confirming my secondary suspicion, that I am somehow headed for Original Research. StephanNaro 17:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure whether your comment is directed at myself or at Peter Ballard, or which parts within it are addressed to either of us. However, it's worth noting that the use of a primary source as a reference is only acceptable in showing what the primary source itself says. It's very tricky to determine when and when not it is acceptable to use such sources. In this particular example, it is only reasonable to state that Acts of the Apostles says nothing on the matter of Paul's death, because that is indisputable. As I've already noted, however, such a note should be included with several secondary sources which relate the lack of information on the subject to be a sign of the time of authorship. In contrast, using your own interpretation of "what the verses say" to formulate your own exegesis is not allowed here. That said, any primary source citations in the article should be individually assessed to note whether or not they violate this rule. Another possibility, which I believe has been discussed here before, is the reservation of a specific section to a plain presentation of the Acts narrative. I'm unsure how this meshes with policy, but as long as it is noted that the purpose of the section is only to show what is said within Biblical sources, and specifically within acts, I for one see less of a problem with this possibility. Then again, I'm not as well-versed in policy as many others are. (By the way, I ran into a few edit conflicts, so this paragraph may be out-dated.)--C.Logan 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done gentlemen! When I made my modest edit, I didn't expect the effect to last long, but I am impressed with the speed and efficiency displayed in neatly turning me into a trivial and meaningless corner off the battlefield. It's what I get for bothering with an insignificant detail that Paul himself doubtlessly cares nought about. Thankfully, I still prefer the sleepdeath of Paul. It somehow smacks more to me personally of the type of "Hope, Faith and Love" Paul wrote of, than do the relics of Vitalian. Though I am absolutely aware of the possibilities provided by a martyrdom. If I chose to join battle again, I'll chose my battlefield more carefully, and come prepared! - StephanNaro 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know what happened to Paul in Rome, remember my biblical 'Joke' in the discussion pages on 'Saint' Luke. "Why did Luke not finish the Book of Acts? Give up? Because he betrayed Paul!!!" Virtue Lord Purple 75.194.223.184 21:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, you know... he simply felt that he had completed his two-part epistle to "Theophilos" at a certain point (for pressing time of because of a satisfaction of the story presented), which was apparently prior to Paul's martyrdom. There's no evidence as to why Luke would betray Paul, but it's an intriguing suggestion.--C.Logan 10:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Messy references

I agree that biblical references can get messy sometimes inside articles. One editor has just placed them as references which I first wanted to do when I first saw them. However, it has been done "historically" in biblically based articles. It makes the references easier to check. Also, it enourages editors to insert references and reject entries that someone has invented (OR). Thoughts? Student7 17:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to re reference the biblical quotations. The NIV is beloved by some but is a) not the only translation and b) regarded as very partisan by others. It is a tedious task but it not worthwhile if someone objects vigorously. Comments? Roger Arguile 15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Use Template:bibleverse and let the reader decide which translation version to use, for example: Genesis 1:1. 75.14.216.8 17:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Paul becoming an apostle

Intro: " He stressed that his apostolic authority was based on Jesus' appointment of him during that vision. "

I looked through the "vision" descriptions in Corinthians 9:1 and 15:8-9, and could not find support for this. Can anyone enlighten me as to where Paul specifically makes this claim? Trishm 01:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've removed that line, since the article is not the place for OR, especially in the intro.Trishm (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)