Talk:Paul the Apostle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Paul under house arrest in Rome for 2 years? Says who?[edit]

The article claims that:

He arrived in Rome c. 60 and spent another two years under house arrest (beyond his two years in prison in Caesarea).[18][Acts 28:16]

However, Acts 28:16 (ESV) only refers to a guard being with Paul on his arrival to Rome:

And when we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who guarded him.

Subsequently, Acts 28:17-20 tells this:

After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews, and when they had gathered, he said to them, “Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. When they had examined me, they wished to set me at liberty, because there was no reason for the death penalty in my case. But because the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar - though I had no charge to bring against my nation. For this reason, therefore, I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain.”

After this declaration, Acts 28:30-31 ends with:

He lived there two whole years at his own expense,[g] and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance., where footnote [g] refers to: Or in his own hired dwelling

So why should we suppose that Paul spent the 2 years in Rome under house arrest? It rather seems to me that we're merely told that there was a guard with him when he arrived and that 3 days later Paul talked about wearing a chain (perhaps a figure of speech and certainly not indicative of house arrest), while Acts subsequently insists that Paul was preaching without hindrance and makes no mention of a house arrest. So, do we have other sources to back this notion of house arrest up? Citation 18 is just a blind quote to the Oxford dictionary of the Christian church and doesn't seem particularly helpful here.

Mojowiha (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Other than Bible. Actually I think it might be church tradition. something here, for example, here too - books here and there. Hafspajen (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
My point is that the Bible (or Acts, to be specific) doesn't clearly say that Paul was under house arrest. That Acts 28:16 has a guard with Paul when he entered Rome doesn't mean that Paul was under house arrest for the subsequent 2 years, and Acts 28:31 seems to argue that Paul was free to do what he wanted as being under house arrest would certainly constitute a hindrance. If the 2 years of house arrest is a church tradition then we should have a source on it and remove the Acts 28:16 reference at it seems at best tangentially relevant to the issue.
Mojowiha (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you got a point there. But I think I read about this mentioning house arrest... Wonder where. Eusebius, maybe? This say: While under house arrest in Rome, Paul was able to conduct a limited ministry. ... This one is quite interesting ...Hafspajen (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[1]

If the house arrest narrative is a Christian tradition, then the citation should be to Eusebius or whoever of the church fathers or other early Christians wrote of it. My point is simply that it's untenable to equate the description in Acts with house arrest. It's a parallel to how the matter and time of Paul's death is never described in the bible, but subsequent tradition placed it at the hands of Nero in the aftermath of the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD.
Mojowiha (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
To me it seems that Acts is definitely implying a 2-year house arrest. "Without hindrance" simply indicates that Paul was not hindered from teaching and preaching by the Romans who guarded him. Anyway don't take my word for it. There's a clear consensus among contemporary scholars supporting this interpretation from Acts, and I've yet to come across a single scholar that supports yours. For example: David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, p. 330; Robert L. Cate, One Untimely Born, Mercer University Press, p. 129; Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Oxford University Press, p. 233; J. R. Porter, The Illustrated Guide to the Bible, Oxford University Press, p. 240; Brian Rapske, The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody Wm. B. Eerdmans, p. 434. So unless you have reliable sources saying otherwise, this is what Luke is saying in Acts 28:30-31. - Lindert (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Acts 28:16. [2]. Hafspajen (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Early "Life"?[edit]

This chapter is lacking the clue that all the "evidences" for Paul's life only stem from the Christians. There are Jewish reports on "Jesus", in particular, about parts of his life the Christians claim as "the lost years"...What about the Jewish accounts on "Saul" or "Paul"? The only evidence given for this figure by the Jews is that they do not miss a Pharisee called "Saul" of "Paul" but deem this name as an alias for another Christian, i.e. Simon Peter (see: The Toledoth Yeshu). In addition, this paragraph contains strange "constructions", e.g. when alleged that "Paul" refers to his mother by Romans 16:13. Let me scrutinize the text: Ro 16:13 "Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well." The text means the following: Romans 16:13 (ESV) "Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who (i.e. the mother of Rufus and not the one of mine that) has been (also a person like) a mother to me as well." However you want to interpret Ro 16:13, not in the least it is any evidence that "Paul" refers to his ("Paul's") mother and insofar, putting it mildly, this quotation contributes no sense to the context. This presentation of Paul lacks scientific standards since it does not take into account the Jewish reports or arguments on the "life" of this figure. In addition, the article does not refute the Jewish views that "Paul" only is a pseudonym for someone else! SCHINKELBURG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schinkelburg (talkcontribs) 08:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Schinkelburg (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

[1] states that the Apostle Paul was God's chosen vessel. This means that he alone was strong enough to stand in God's judgment without the need of a wife as a helper. The rest of the brethren needs to take on a wife as a helper. He wasn't just an apostle, but the highest authority among the apostles. He should be referred to as The Apostle Paul the Chosen Vessel. This means both the Apostle Peter and John were under the authority of Paul. They were indeed submissive to Paul because, unlike Paul, they were with Christ in the flesh and understood how the Holy Spirit had the power of death (the fig tree dropping its fruit after being cursed by Christ.) (talk)Uncle Emanuel Watkins

The remaining part of the verse after the phrase "chosen vessel" reads "to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel." Paul is a special vessel of Christ for a special purpose. It doesn't mean that other apostles were under the authority of Paul. All apostles are equally under the authority of Christ alone. JohnThorne (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox question[edit]

Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason why this for this change?

| name       = Paul
| title      = [[Apostle]]
| name       = Paul
| honorific-prefix = Saint

It might sound like a stupid question, but I sort of think the old version makes more sense and I really don't feel like scouring through the edit history to find the reason for the change. Thanks in advance. (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, just some people think Saint is NPOV. Hafspajen (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Acts 9:15