Talk:Paul the Apostle

• Archive 1 | Archive 2

Unmaried Paul

The argument is made that Paul wrote that he was never married. While that it seems likely to be the case, we still cannot be sure from this excerpt: "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am" (1 Cor 7:8). Just because a person is not married does not mean that person was never married. This should be more fully clarified. Stevecrozz 03:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Archives

I have archived previous discussions, as it was getting very unwieldy. Follow links at the top of the page. David L Rattigan 09:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge New Perspective on Paul here?

The content of New Perspective on Paul does not seem to me to merit an article apart, and is already dealt with here, even if not with quite as much detail. Lima 08:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The New Perspective on Paul is a major movement in New Testament scholarship. The article gives far more information than is included here, and has plenty of scope for improvement and expansion. Paul of Tarsus is a long enough article as it is without merging more information into it. David L Rattigan 09:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestion to merge. NPP deserves a separate article. Jim Ellis 13:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the suggestion to merge these two articles. Paul of NC 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

An excellent article on the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), Federal Vision (FV) theology, and the Reformational understanding of the Christian doctrine of justification can be found at [1]

Since not even one editor has agreed with the idea of merging the two articles, I am removing the "merge" tags I put there. I very much appreciate the input that there has been. Lima 12:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Another View of Paul

This section is heavily POV and also smells of original research. While it is a viewpoint held to by some, it needs to be rewritten in NPOV. 152.23.75.21 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; it looks like someone just put their divinity school paper up on Wikipedia. It should be heavily edited or removed altogether. I haven't read the article closely enough, but perhaps it already says what other sections say. -Patstuart 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Paul of Tarsus

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed link

I have been instructed to post my website: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appp.html for review. Please, if any reader think it is worth to be posted, do so. Bernard Muller

Saul's Letters of Credit

Can somebody fix the main article to explain how, exactly, Jerusalem had sufficient power to extradite Christians from Damascus? Was Damascus a vassal state at the time, held in subjugation by Jerusalem, somehow? Weren't both Jerusalem and Damascus equally compelled to render tribute to Rome? How would either one of them have had enough money left over to pay for the kind of arrests and prosecutions that we are now led to believe were so much more common in Rome a hundred years later, when the likely audiences of Acts were more likely to accept is a reliable, historical account?

Are there any records of Roman provincial governors managing the persecution of Christians in 60 AD? Are there any payroll ledgers that mention either Saul or Paul working for the governor there? (Every now and then some archaeological digs yield up payroll and requisitions ledgers.)

In Acts, Saul is said to have made a name for himself in Jerusalem as a notorious persecutor of Christians, and - based on that reputation - somehow obtained certain "letters of credit" with which to effect the extradition of Christians from Damascus to Jerusalem. This looks like an unsubstantiated claim deserving a citation outside of Acts. Did Saul have any notoriety at all, either as an upstanding Jew, a Roman man of means, or an intrepid persecutor of the Jews? Can somebody cite a source (outside of Acts) where Paul was said to have been a successful baiter and persecutor of Christians? Is the account in Acts the sole source for connecting Paul with Saul?

At least one work, "Saint Saul" by Donald Harman Akenson (Oxford University Press, 2000) argues that the final version of Acts was not circulated until long after an earlier letter to the Galatians was already received. More importantly, the letter was apparently recovered from where it had been sent, and if it was only fragmentary at that point, reassembled or recompiled by an unnamed devout Christian of the 1st or 2nd century, and copied and passed along, before Acts was even drafted for the first time. If there are intermediate hands at work, those hands might well have belonged to an heir to Luke's line, if not Luke himself rewriting what he had already written 10 or 15 years earlier. Akenson sees a conflict between Acts and the Letter to the Galatians, and argues that the Letter to the Galatians had, at least at the start, a measure of chronological priority.

Jews were generally not roman citizens and thus had no appeal to Roman juridical procedures, instead they were governed by Jewish authorities. Financially speaking, persecutions are cheap, sometimes even profitable if the persecuted has wealth. The persecutions in the 60s AD were undertaken by Nero in the city of Rome, and many sources, including Roman historians, attest. As far as "pay-roll legers", I think you overestimate just what archaeology is capable of. In ancient history, sources are virtually nil, and our written texts which we have almost always survive in medieval vellum manuscripts in their oldest form. Sometimes the sands of Egypt yield some papyrus, but we never could expect to find the kind of sources you request. Our information on Augustus Caesar's imperium is built off some thin sources. We know almost nothing about his heirs to the throne. If it were not for Tacitus, we would know almost nothing about the conquest of Britain, &c.

The sources for Paul are his own letters and Acts, soemthing we are lukcky to have as nothing exists similar in the case of 99% of people in the Roman world. There are some apocryphal texts on Paul, but they have no real biographical value. The difference between his comments in Galatians and Luke's description in Acts, which is concerning his conversion, has been known since antiquity and subject to understanding ever since.Lostcaesar 07:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry to mess this about - my mistake Roger Arguile 20:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision needed

I have made a few deletions on the ground that this article no longer distinguishes between the views of serious commentators and both famous people who have not expertise in this area and cranks. It is far too long and lacks any real guidance to the reader as to what are the serious contenders for believability. I fear that, as so often in matters religious, everyone who has an interest thinks that they have a right to a view and to add information. It needs a lot of work to disentangle the wheat from the chaff and to give it some focus Roger Arguile 20:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

From 'Scholarly Views' onwards a complete rewrite is needed. Those scholars cited represent but a small and not necessarily representative sample of US scholarship. As long as WP is not the preserve of the USA it is very important to remember the existence of German and British, not to mention Italian etc. scholars. That the editor has read a few books is not enough for the kind of good scholarship towards which WP aims. I am sorry to be cruel. I feel it would be better to delete the whole of the article from SV onwards and start again. Roger Arguile 21:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

'Alternative Views' Some brief reference might be made to Maccoby and others but we have too many oddball views in extenso here. Having taken the bull by the horns and removed the very extensive coverage of Michael White, a scholarly conspectus is needed. Frankly Professor White's views are not hugely original; Ed Sanders, by contrast, gets very small short shrift and Dunn even less. A decent bibliography for those wanting scholarly views would not go amiss. What happened to Kasemann, Ck. Barrett, Raymond Brown (who gets a brief mention), and what about Karl Barth? (I think he wrote a slightly(!) influential commentary on Romans). Roger Arguile 21:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the note very long because, as I have indicated, a revision is being worked on which may supercede the request to hive off material into other articles. I think that the suggestion insufficiently notices the particular problems of dispersing informatin which needs to be all of a piece. Roger Arguile 22:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now revised the Life, taking into account, but not concealing the inconsistencies between Acts and Paul's own wriritng. I have reduced the number of links as being far too many. I am very keen to have discussions about wwhat I have done but the above produced no response so I went ahead. I am working on the Writings at present because I believe that some mainstream scholarship needs to be presented for the benefit of readers. PLEASE COMMENT Roger Arguile 18:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now attmpted to respond to some of the comments. May I suggest that it is not possible to provide simply alternative views of the chronology and leave the reader to decide; there are to omany imponderables and uncertainties. There are at least five views each of which depends on making asusmptions but none of which reconciles all the statements. There may be texual errors, St. Paul's memory (about fourteen years) may have been faulty' Acts' informants may not have known the whole story and so on. What I have presented is a very short resume of a considerable debate. (I have identified fifteen major works on the subject). To opt for any of them could be regarded as POV. Could anyone wishing to make a change contact me here first? I know that is asking for a lot. Roger Arguile 14:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Further Revision

I have done some work following the biographical stuff. I am putting it here for people to comment on for two reasons a) I have not finished it b) it is a radical rewrite of the article. My view is that there is far to much extraneous and eccentric material. We are, after all, giving basic information to those who may not know much about St. Paul but who have access to a bible and may want look up scholarly works. What follows is what I have done so far. I hope this may help. If it is thought not too bad or partisan I will put into the text.

"Authorship

Of the fourteen letters attributed to St. Paul, one, Hebrews, was disputed from an early date and is generally not thought to have been written by him. As for the rest, there is no dispute about the authorship of Romans, First Corinthians]], Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians and Philemon. The authenticity of Colossians has been questioned on the grounds that it contains an otherwise unparalleled description (amongst his writings) of Jesus as ‘the image of the invisible God’, a Christology found elsewhere only in St. John’s gospel. Nowhere is there a richer and more exalted estimate of the position of Christ than here. On the other hand, the personal notes in the letter connect it the Philemon, unquestionably the work of Paul. More problematic is Ephesians a very similar letter to Colossians, but which reads more like a manifesto than a letter. It is almost entirely lacking in personal reminiscences. Its style is unique; it lacks the emphasis on the cross to be found in other Pauline writings; as; reference to the Second Coming is missing; and Christian marriage is exalted in a way which contrasts with the grudging reference in 1 Corinthians. Finally it exalts the Church in a way suggestive of a second generation of Christians, ‘built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets’ now past. The defenders of its Pauline authorship argue that it was intended to be read by a number of different churches and that it marks the The Pastoral Epistles, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus have likewise been put in question as Pauline works only in modern times. Three main reasons are advanced; first, their difference in vocabulary, style and theology from St. Paul’s acknowledged writings; secondly the difficulty in fitting them into St Paul’s biography as we have it. They, like Colossians and Ephesians, were written from prison but suppose St. Paul’s release and travel thereafter. Finally, the concerns expressed are very much the practical ones as to how a church should function. They are more about maintenance than about mission. Views are advanced on the basis of the balance of opinion of scholars, but there is no certainty and some may think that questions of authorship do not affect the authority of the letters. Two further epistles attributed by some to Paul (since some of the prior epistles mention them) have been lost: Epistle to the Alexandrians (lost), of which nothing is known letter apart from a brief mention in the Muratorian fragment that claims it was a forgery; the Epistle to the Macedonians which is lost.

Paul on Jesus

Little can be deduced about the earthly life of Jesus from St. Paul’s letters. He mentions specifically only the Last Supper (1 Cor. 11:23ff) his death by crucifixion (1 Cor :2:2; Phil. 2:8) and his resurrection (Phil. 2:9) . Instead he concentrates on the nature of the Christian’s relationship with Christ and, in particular, in his saving work. In St. Mark’s gospel, Jesus is recorded as saying that he was to ‘give up his life as a ransom for many’. St. Paul’s account of his idea of a saving act is more fully articulated, albeit in various places inhis letters, but most notably in his letter to the Romans.

What Christ has achieved for those who believe in him is variously described: as sinners under the law, they are ‘‘justified by his grace as a gift’’; they are ‘‘redeemed’’ by Jesus who was put forward by God as ‘expiation’; they are ‘’reconciled’’ by his death. The gift (grace) is to be received in faith. (Rom 3:24f; Rom 5: 9). These three images have different resonances.

Justification derives from the law courts. Those who are justified are acquitted of an offence. Since the sinner is guilty, he or she can only be acquitted by someone else, Jesus, standing in for them, which has led many Christians to believe in the teaching known as the substitutionary doctrine of the atonement. The sinner is, in St. Paul’s words ‘justified by faith’ (Rom. 5:1). ]], that is, by adhering to Christ, the sinner becomes ‘at one’ with Christ in his death and resurrection (hence the word ‘atonement’). Acquittal, however, is achieved not on the grounds that Christ was innocent (though he was) and that we share his innocence but on the grounds of his sacrifice i.e. his crucifixion), i.e. his innocent undergoing of punishment on behalf of sinners who should have suffered divine retribution for their sins. They deserved to be punished and he took their punishment. They are justified by his death, and now ‘so much more we are saved by him from divine retribution’ (Rom. 5: 9) For an understanding of the meaning of faith as that which justified, St. Paul turns to Abraham, who trusted God’s promise that he would be father of many nations. Abraham receded the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. Thus law cannot save us; faith does. Abraham could not, of course, have faith in the living Christ but, in Paul’s view, ‘the gospel was preached to him beforehand’ (Gal. 3:8), which may be interpreted as part of Paul’s belief in the pre-existent Christ.

Redemption has a different origin, that of the freeing of slaves; it is similar in character as a transaction to the paying of a ransom, (mentioned in St. Mark) though the circumstances are different. Money was paid in order to set free a slave, one who was in the ownership of another. Here the price was the costly act of Christ’s death. On the other hand, no price was paid to anyone – St. Paul does not suggest, for instance, that the price be paid to the devil – though this has been suggested by learned writers, ancient and modern, such as Origen and St. Augustine, as a reversal of the Fall by which the devil gained power over humankind.

A third expression, reconciliation, is about the making of friends which is, of course, a costly exercise where one has failed or harmed another . The making of peace (Col. 1:20) (Rom 5:9) is another variant of the same theme. Elsewhere (Eph. 2:14) he writes of Christ breaking down the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile, which the law constituted. As to how a person appropriates this gift, St. Paul writes of a mystical union with Christ through baptism: ‘we who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death (Rom. 6:4). He writes also of our being ‘in Christ Jesus’ and alternately, of ‘Christ in you, the hope of glory’. Thus, the objection that one person cannot be punished on behalf of another is met with the idea of the identification of the Christian with Christ through baptism.

These expressions, some of which are to be found in the course of the same exposition, have been interpreted by some as metaphors for the effects of Christ’s death upon those who followed him. Rather than writing a systematic theology, Paul, on this view, is trying to express something inexpressible. According to Ian Markham, on the other hand, the letter to the Romans, is ‘muddled’.

But others, ancient and modern, Protestant and Catholic, have sought to elaborate from his writing objective theories of the atonement on which they have, however, disagreed. The doctrine of justification by faith alone was the major source of the division of western Christianity known as the Protestant Reformation which took place in the sixteenth century. Justification by faith was set against salvation by works of the law in this case, the payment of indulgences to the Church and even such good works as the corporal works of mercy. The result of the dispute, which undermined the system of endowed prayers and the doctrine of purgatory, was the creation of Protestant churches in Western Europe, set against the Roman Catholic Church. Solifidianism (sola fides), the name often given to these views, is associated with the works of Martin Luther (1483-1546) and his followers. With went the notion of Christ’s substitutionary atonement for human sin. The doctrine has thus been the focus of some of the ecumenical discussions between the Roman Catholic Church and both Lutheran churches and the Anglican Communion.

In one letter, that to the Colossians, he describes Jesus as ‘the image of the invisible God’, Col.1:15) as rich and exalted picture of Jesus as can be found anywhere in the New Testament, which is one reason why some doubt its authenticity. On the other hand, in the undisputed Pauline letter to the Philippians, he describes Jesus as ‘in the form of God’ who ‘did not count equality with God as thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross…’

The Holy Spirit

The new life is the life of the Spirit, as against the life of the flesh, which Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, so that one becomes a son of God. God is our Father and we are fellow heirs of Christ. This Spirit brings together the different members of the church, the Body of Christ, into union as different limbs and organs (1 Corinthians 12) each with its different functions. The Spirit distributes different charismatic gifts of the people of God. Its fruits are the virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. (more to come)

Relationship with Judaism

Paul was himself a Jew, but his attitude towards his co-religionists is not entirely easy to fathom. He was very hostile to the practices of circumcision (whose practitioners he called ‘dogs’) and to obedience to the Mosaic Law, and though he may have opposed observance by non-Jews he also opposed Peter for his partial observance. He writes that there is neither Jew nor Greek, but Christ in all and in all.. On the other hand in Acts, as we have seen, he is described as submitting to taking a Nazirite vow, and earlier to having had Timothy circumcised to placate the Jews.

The background to the various arguments is the ongoing dispute over the observance of the law, which, as we have noticed, was with Jews but also with so-called Judaizing Gentile Christians. In Galatians and Philippians, St. Paul is emphatic that the law is of null effect; it only makes men and women aware of their sinfulness. His own sense of relief at discovering that what the law was incapable of doing, the risen Christ had done permeates his letters. The question of whether Christianity was a Jewish sect or a world-wide faith open to everyone is answered pretty emphatically as the latter.

However, considerable disagreement at the time and subsequently has been raised as to the significance of ‘works of the law’. In the same letter in which Paul writes of justification by faith , he says of the Gentiles ‘It is not by hearing the law, but by doing it that men will be justified (same word) by God.’ (Rom. 2:12) Those who think Paul capable of inconsistency have judged him not to be a Solifidianism himself; the more frequently taken line has been that he is merely demonstrating that both Jews and Gentiles are in the same condition of sin. (more to come: Ed Sanders etc.)

The Resurrection

The resurrection not only of Christ but of his followers is for St. Paul, the touchstone of faith. ‘If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most miserable’ (1 Cor. 15:19) However, the resurrection body is a spiritual body, not the old body of decay.

The World to come (parousia etc.)

Christian behaviour

Paul’s writing is full of pastoral advice. Every letter includes a section on Christian behaviour. His expectation of women is that they should be modest, obedience and silent in church, but he expects the love of husbands to be patterned on Christ’s love for the Church. Otherwise, he suggests that the single life is more appropriate. He extols the virtues of compassion, kindness, patience, forgiveness, love, peace, and gratitude (Col 3:1–17) His description of the nature of love is a lyrical classic (1 Cor. 13) . On the other hand he condemns a whole raft of vices: as impurity, lust, greed, anger, slander, filthy language, lying, and racial. He pays particular attention to sexual immorality, saying, "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body" This attitude is applied also to homosexuality of which he writes in terms of ‘dishonourable passions… unnatural relations…being consumed with lust’ (Rom.1:26,27) Some have suggested that this does not refer to stable faithful relationships but that is widely disputed. His attitude towards slavery is influenced by his view of the shortness of time until he believes Jesus will return.. Slaves are to serve their masters faithfully. On the other hand, in writing to Philemon about a runaway slave whom he is returning, that as a slave he is useless to Philemon, whereas he should be received as a brother. (Phil 16)" Roger Arguile 09:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research 75.15.204.210 20:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul of Tarsus - the BBC TV series broadcast in the 1960s

Paul of Tarsus was the title of a BBC TV series first broadcast in 1960 and repeated in 1962 in which the actor Patrick Troughton played the title role. DFH 19:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

Is it just me or is the timeline in the opposite order from what you would expect? It goes from 80CE to 20CE as you read down, I'd have thought it would be the other way around. --Joey Roe ^talk/contrib 17:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported Argument

It seems to me that the last two paragraphs of the current article, under "The mythicist position", is composed of bare arguments and assertions, ie. "It takes little rational study to reveal that the conclusions....are preposterous." I'm not sure if it's "original research" or what, but it's not encyclopedic. Snickersnee 10:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to Roger Arguile

If you don't like the appearance of hypertext in your web browser, blinking, underlined, whatever, change the settings of your browser, don't just casually delete links from the article. Wikipedia is by definition a hypertexted encyclopedia, not a collection of stand alone articles. Thank you. 75.0.1.12 01:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Also, it appears you object to Template: bibleverse because it has too many translation options. This is actually a feature as opposed to earlier versions with one or limited options, in support of wikipedia NPOV policy. 75.0.1.12 01:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to 75.0.1.12

This is a former good article, it says. I have been trying to improve it. Inserting the 1910 Catholic Encyclopaedia does not achieve this. Nor does it help inserting many links. I undertand the principle of cross referencing quite well. My point about 'flashing lights' is not merely visual; it is not very scholary. putting back extraneous information without much justification doesn't help either. There will be a judgement about what links there should be. I think many of them unnecessary. What helps is not giving people access to the bible in lots of languages but well sourced information. I do believe that your interventions are achieving that. I am inclined to return your edits. Roger Arguile 09:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I think we may have a serious dispute here. As I said above, this is a former good article. It may well be that it is unimprovable since various attempts are being made to pull it in different directions. This is a particular problem with religious articles where the faith (or otherwise) of the contributor affects matters hugely. Doctrinal views that the Bible must be internally consistent are not good scholarship; modern scholarship has to be presented. (The present piece on new perspectives is, frankly, unacceptable as it stands. I was hoping to add something in the Paul article. But we need good well sourced facts. At present we are not heading much in that direction. If it helps, I can withdraw from the scene; but I would rather see the article improved so that scholars (of different pesuasions) at least regard it as a serious contribution. At present that is not the case. Roger Arguile 09:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see you add to this article. So far you have been largely deleting. For example, though you may personally object to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources, i.e. well sourced fact, not Original Research. Feel free to add other referenced opinions, that would be in the spirit of NPOV, however, deleting a small paragraph from the Catholic Encyclopedia is not. Also, keep in mind, this is an encyclopedia, not a research blog, not a way to publish original research, it should document existing reliable opinions, not make any serious contribution, that would be Original Research. Please carefully review Wikipedia:List of policies. Thank you. 75.14.219.240 09:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, you should be aware of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule which you are on the verge of violating. 75.14.219.240 10:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

For reference purposes, this is the apparently disputed section:

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:

"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 (1 Cor 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.)"

75.14.219.240 10:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have only a few thoughts to mention, and I seem to be a sort of side player in this, since I have really made a few minor changes only. I think that the claim that Acts and Paul's letters are difficult or impossible to reconcile needs to be sourced. It seems controversial to me, and I think the supposed conflicts are a bit forced — I as a reader would at least like to know who makes such arguments when I read the passage. For example, after reading the section on the Council of Jerusalem I still do no understand what the great difficulty is. Why would anyone think that Galatians 2 necessarily refers to the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts? Why cannot it just be another meeting not otherwise mentioned? As a reader I am at a real loss here.

Second point, I find the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia to be a really great source; it is much better than the 1960s one, not least of which because it is 33% larger, and so much material was not rendered obsolete. Sure, the text is old — so are lots of good sources. It still seems to present a relevant point of view in this instance. Lostcaesar 10:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

So long as we conduct this discussion on the basis of WP rules and familiarity with 'great sources' rather than on the actual texts, including Galatians and Philippians, and on recent commentaries, including the works of Raymond Brown, Ed. Sanders, N.T. Wright, J. Dunn and others we shall make no progress. Frankly, that 'Paul did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law' is not a fair reflection of conflicting texts. If WP is to have the status of an encyclopaedia, it requires a much higher standard than we at present have. I fear that Lostcaesar's difficulty with the council of Jerusalem indicates that he has not read the literature. It was precisely to present a NPOV that caused me to raise the issues. As for the three revert rule, which of us is liable to be in breach? I confess that I am more interested in the quality of the material. Roger Arguile 12:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I hoped that I was clear, but I will try and be moreso here: I am indeed ignorant to a good deal of the literature. That is partially why, as a reader, I am at a bit of a loss with this section's handling of the material, and would greatly benefit from some references. Of course, I am not totally ignorant to the material, but I in no way am an expert. My point about the CE was simply as follows: that it is old is no reason to toss it. The work of the Mommsen family, for example, is old, but still invaluable. Also, personally, I have found the older CE to be superior to the newer one, and I gave a reason why (more content). I will also say, lastly, that the view that Paul did not object to the observance is a significant and relevant view, and I see no problem in mentioning it along side others. Like I said, I am no expert, but I have not been given any reason to think that one must absolutely accept the contrary - indeed, I have been given nothing close to it; and that's simply what I have to make my decisions on, after all. If the article has info to give, give it, and source it — I won't object to that. Lostcaesar 12:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

to 75.0.15.92

I shall try again. The CE 1907 is an out of date work. It was also written during hte papcy the Pius X whose decrees against 'modernistic' biblical exegesis were part of his campaign against Catholic Modernism. Scholarship during this period was very much regulated by the Magisterium. Raymond Brown, as well-established catholic writer will have none of the thesis contained in the quoted article. As he wrote about a related matter, 'when that thesis is challenged by twentieth century scholarship, it is an academic, not a religious question'. There has been a huge amount of work done on Luke/Acts since then, notably by Cadbury and Conzelmann. I should be happy to hear of any modern scholar who takes the CE as a creditable source on this matter. As for my using so-called original research I am merely using modern scholarhip. As for the insertion of the citation needed mark against my latest attempt to compromise, this shows that the editor has not read the insertion from CE which is the source of the reference to 1 Cor 9:20! I was attempting to compromise by quoting not the speculation of CE as to what Paul's mind was on the matter but his actual words. It is the departure from the words of Scripture and the attempt to assert that there is not a problem which makes CE so objectionable. The fact that it is available on line is not a reason for not reading the modern literature. This is a hopeless procedure in an encyclopaedia and poor scholarship. Finally, one has a right to expect that non registered editors might make some attempt to make themselves available for discussion. It is a courtesy to argue the case as to why CE is to be taken as having authority over more modern works. Roger Arguile 22:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia does not have authority over more modern works. However, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. If Raymond E. Brown disagrees, as you claim, cite a reference and add it to the article, without deleting the few lines quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The same goes for other references. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia reports on notable published research, it does not select only the research that matches a particular pov, this is what is meant by NPOV policy, not that one pov is selected, but that the major and significant POV's are reported without bias toward one or the other. 75.0.13.26 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of how to get started:

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:

"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 (1 Cor 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.)"

However, the modern scholar Raymond E. Brown disputes this claim of the Catholic Encyclopedia, for example in his <<<ADD REFERENCE AND CLAIM HERE, WITHOUT DELETING THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA>>>

It doesn't work like that. Outdated articles which include dogmatic assertions which are not supported by the widely available text - the bible - are not appropriate in a modern encyclopaedia. It is not apparent to me that any of my fellow editors are knowledgeable in this matter. Some knowledge of the available scholarlship is necessary if one is to write a balanced article. In science this would not be a difficulty. Out of date articles would not be cited. In theological articles it seems that unsubstantiated assertions can be retained if they come from an authoritative source of a hundred years ago. I am not sure whether I am dealing with one person who keeps on changing his or her computer or whether I am dealing with many, but either way it would be better to consider the merits rather than the WP guidelines. My disposition is to leave you to it, sadly. Roger Arguile 10:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia should be thought to be obsolete just because it is a century old, nor do I think the fact that some scholars after it (as well as before it) disagreed necessarily in and of itself makes the text poor. For example, Edward Gibbon's work on the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, though much older than the Catholic Encyclopedia, and in many ways rendered obsolete by modern scholarship, is still in some respects seen as a worthy source and manages to appear in a history textbook written a couple years ago (and that I have sitting next to me) as an authority, not yet surpassed, on the reasons for the spread of Christianity in antiquity.

Besides this, I think the Catholic position itself deserves to be mentioned somewhere in an article about St. Paul's teachings, and I would expect Roger to be wholly in support of that. The position is simply that the teachings of St. Paul and those of the Apostles do not conflict, and this seems both reasonable and, more importantly, quite relevant. To say that the assertions of the Church are outdated and not supported by the Bible is a relevant point of view but obviously not the only one and, more obviously, not the Catholic one.

So I think we have two issues. One, can we use the Catholic Encyclopedia as a scholarly source, and I think the answer is yes, though we should be cautious. And the second one, which is independent of the first, is, does it present a relevant point of view? As it presents the Catholic view I think the answer here is clearly yes. Even if we don't uphold its scholarship it is certainly relevant in this respect somewhere in the article.

Lastly, and Roger I can guarantee you this, if the Catholic Church teaches that Paul and the Apostles' teachings are not a variance, then there are scholars today who think this is true and that they can show it via scholarship. So it will always remain a relevant and scholarly point of view. Scholars like Raymond E. Brown are no less controversial than the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Lostcaesar 10:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

'If the Catholic church teaches that Paul and the Apostle's teaching are not at variance...' If this is a matter of authority which some accept and others do not, that is one argument. In an article about the Catholic church it is fine to include this.

'...there are scholars today who think this is true and that they can show it via scholarship': that is a different kind of argument which depends not on authority but on the cogency of argument. If ther are scholars who say this, tell us who they are.

Supposing the Catholic church were to teach something that could be shown to be untrue, it would be fine to put it in WP as a teaching of the Catholic church, because it would be a fact that the Catholic church teaches that; but it would not be right to include it in an article on something over which the Catholic church does not have authority eg. the Bible. I think that the assertions in CE about St. Paul's attitudes lack scholarly argument. There lies behind them an assumption about Biblical internal consistency which would have to be demonstrated.

But I give up. I may return to it on another occasion, but I repeat that it is frustrating to argue with people who are a) anonymous and b) simply repeat themselves without demonstrating having compared the texts or or having cited any scholars. Roger Arguile 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul's Writings

I have responded to a comment earlier that the article was too long by rewriting the above section. I have done so on the basis that the article should be about Paul and what he wrote and only secondarily about what other people have made of him, what disputes there have been and what the Jewish background is. I have also noted that particular doctrines are expounded in relation to particular churches. This jdoes not relativise the doctrines but it is helpful in my view to note that Paul is writing as part of a dialogue not delivering a thesis. I expect what I have done will not satisfy many people who may feel that what I have done is vandalism. My response is that much of the excellent material that appeared before properly belongs in related articles. If I hasve not offered enough references to justify what I have written I can add to them but the authority for much of what I have done is simply the text of the letters! Roger Arguile 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the 1 Cor. 15:29 verse - your addition to the article seems to imply that other people were being baptised for those already dead? Please correct me if I am wrong on this. SparrowsWing 22:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, as I have written on your user page, this is what the text seems to mean and John Rueff, who wrote the Penguin commentary on 1 Corinthians thinks so, which is why I included it. (Incidentally, though this may not encourage you, this is why Mormons baptise on behalf of the dead relatives of Mormons) Clearly it was a practice which died out but it is referred to also In Hans Lietzmann's work on the early church. Roger Arguile 22:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As per our discussion - until convinving proof provided otherwise - your reference stands as the definitive one. SparrowsWing 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and Judaism

The reference to the aricle on Judaism and Christianity has been deleted I am afraid. I did so because, while the claim of Christianity to be inclusive needed to be qualified, the article J & C sets out to argue a case - for the distance between the two faiths. This is not what an encyclopaedia is for but it seems that, since the case is argued all the way through and no Christian sources are cited in the Reference section, the article is unimprovable. I am very suprised that it has been allowed to stand at all. I am not arguing against the quality of its arguments. I have seen other scholarly contributions which argue the same case. The argument for balance is sometimes overplayed but in this case I cannot see that the article can be sustained at all. I have not touched it; I have insufficient expertise to improve it. I would prefer that it were merged with an article on Judaeo-Christian relations but this would require a huge amount of work and a rather less coloured attitude. Roger Arguile 09:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

to 75.0.3.230

I think one of the dangers of editting is always that one may not have read the whole article. The point made about the relationship between Christianity and Judaism is that there are many views. I have already questioned the article on that subject, but the reference to the Noahide laws had already been made, as I have made clear. I am trying to edit this article in acccordance with WP guidelines to reduce its length. Duplication does not help this process. I think the point is made under the "Council of Jerusalem", not at the length that some would prefer, no doubt. Finally, can I say that encyclopaedias do not normally refere to other encyclopaedias but to primary sources. This is, I believe a good habit. Those who are not experts in the field may tend to prefer the former as obviating the need to be widely read, but if WP is to achieve credibility, it must refine its articles so that they depend on the best sources. I have had this argument over the Catholic Encyclopaedai (1910!!) and appear to have lost it due to the presistence of those whose mantra is that 'old can be as good as new' which, while true, is not evidence in a particular case. I would urge contributors not to use secondary sources in making their contributions but to rely on the material in hand and the views of reputable scholars. I fear I may lose this argument too. but as with the design of aeroplanes, those qualified are sometimes to be relied on! Roger Arguile 15:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Social views

I have rewritten the article in an initial attempt further to save space but also because the section on the attitude to the State goes way beyond the texts and fails the mention the key text which undermines the thesis formerly stated. As before I have attempted to avoid conclusions that go much beyond the actual words. I have thought it worthwhile once again to tie Paul's views to particular letters because it is generally agreed that his social views are not loosely added to his doctrinal teaching but arise out of it. The context is very important. I have also dealt in particular, with three issues, slavery, women and homosexuality which are of considerable contemporary importance. I have not written discursively on the modern context partly on the grounds of space but also because the modern context is sometimes different and raises wider questions. There are articles which deal with these issues and links will, I am sure, be inserted by those who know about these things.

Finally I have tried not to be too clever, on the grounds that not every reader wants to become familiar with, eg. antinomianism, and references to the detail of contemporary Jewish teaching etc. go beyond the remit of an encyclopaedia article of restricted length. I have not doubt that when I come to look at it again, it will have been 'improved' perhaps beyond all recognition. I have as always been guided by the awful warning at the top that this is a 'former good article'. I trust that the new beginning may enable it to head gently in the direction of its former status.Roger Arguile 21:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Passive tense

I made some grammatical changes throughout the opening historical section, which hopefully have not changed the original intent of the sentances. My central focus was to change passive tenses, like "Paul was brought before the counsel" to active, like "the counsel summoned Paul". Passive tense is much easier to remain NPOV, but active is much easier to read. Following the wiki principle of "be bold", I made the changes. I tried to be as NPOV as possible and to keep to the original meaning of the sentances. However, I'm not a historian, so if I misunderstood anything in your original sentances, please feel free to rewrite (in NPOV and active tense, if possible).

I also made some changes which hopefully are more NPOV. For example, I changed a reference to "heretics" to "unorthodox groups (called by orthodox Christians 'heretics')", and "idols" to "statues (which Paul called idols)". Hopefully the sentances still convey the views of orthodox Christianty, but from more of a NPOV. Thanks everyone! JKB 12/02/06