Talk:Andrew the Apostle/Archive 1

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


St andrew is the patron saint of scotland and is the brother of st peter or simon peter


I'm curious to know how much relics he had. To my knowledge, when I was in greece last, they have most of his body, his tomb etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

they had a lot in commin they were step brothers —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Early Christians

The early Christians referred to themselves as saints, and "Saint Andrew" is this apostle's title. Trc | [msg] 05:54, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the category linkage? Trc | [msg] 06:56, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) I was able to fix it. Trc | [msg] 07:38, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Use of "Saint" in page title

This title is based on saint worship, isn't it? Title should change Andrew or Andrew, disciple of Jesus. Rantaro 02:20, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Many Christians refer to themselves as saints, not as some title to indicate "I'm better than you," but as descriptive of the transformation promised in the Scriptures after repentance. One can distinguish between "Saint Andrew" and all the other Andrews through history without engaging in saint worship. There's no need to change the title nor be overly concerned about saint worship. Kghusker 21.44 UTC, 24 Sep 2004.

There is an approx. 1200 year old convention for naming Christian Saints in English Saint So-and-so. They are also most likely to be searched for by new users utilising that convention. Fire Star 20:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just to highlight I just found this article by googling Saint Andrew, had I googled simply Andrew how many andrew's would I have had to go through to find this one.

Andrew's Aramaic name?

Since Andrew (Andreas) is a Greek name, I'm assuming that it wasn't the original name of a 1st century Jew. What was his given name, and how did he come to be known as Andrew? --Jfruh 06:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, good question. It, as far as I know, is unknown. I've never heard of an Aramic or Hebrew name for him.

He would have had the surname Bar Jonah, like his brother St. Peter (Simon Bar Jonah). But as for the given name, that's unknown. --oknazevad 20:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the Koran?

Who is paired with Peter/Simon in the Koran? Presumably Christ is in there as a minor prophet. 01:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC) (talk)

BDSM use of term

I've added a reference to the use in BDSM of the term 'St Andrews Cross' in reference to a piece of bondage furniture. (Specifically, a (usually) wooden cross in the shape of an X, with shackles or cuffs for the wrists and ankles, and often footrests as well. Djbrianuk 18:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


In in the interest of neutrality, I have added a qualifier to the beginning of the Article. The Bible is a questionable resource at best, and "Markl 11:22" doesn't mean a whole lot to a lot of people; its validity is at most debatable. Canaen 07:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Name consistency?

Throughout the article, "Andrew" and "Andreas" are used interchangably. Shouldn't we only use one for the sake of uniformity, and if so, which one should be used? OrthodoxGuy 14:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If there aren't any objections, I'm going to conform everything to "Andrew" except where it's obviously a local spelling, such as the locations in the relics section. OrthodoxGuy 06:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

St Andrew and Russia

Chatting with the wife this morning and I finally understand what she'd been saying about St Andrew and Russia. Her assertion is that St Andrew is (was) the patron saint of pre-Revolutionary Russia (as the page already says), and that the pre-Revolutionary flag was a Saltire; or a colour-swapped Saltire; she can't remember which, and we've both got to bugger off to work. And I've got a Scots ex-girlfriend to deliver a birthday present to today. Busy busy. A Karley 07:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A white St. Andrew's cross on a blue field was, and currently is the flag of the Russian navy. It also was the symbol of the anti-Communist Russian Liberation Army in WWII. --Humanophage (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


So, other than being the record keeper, what exactly did he do? I don't understand. - NemFX (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Among Hellenised Jews

The following statement from the text can be rendered accurate by the addition of "Hellenised"

"The name "Andrew" (from Greek : "ανδρεία", Andreia, manhood, or valour), like other Greek names, appears to have been common among Hellenized Jews from the second or third century B.C."

Hebrew and Aramaic equivalents are Adam and Enos.--Wetman (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Younger" brother?

This article states twice, apparently without citation, that Andrew was younger than Peter. I am curious to know the source for this claim. There does not seem to be any explicit support for it in the NT. Grover cleveland (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Grover cleveland (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Article renaming

As you already may have noticed, there is a flurry of renaming activity to get "Saint ___" articles in compliance with Wiki naming convention.

Two names that already have been applied and reverted for Saint Andrew are "Andrew Apostle of Jesus" and "Andrew the Apostle, Peter's brother."

Renaming to something without "St.", "St", or "Saint" is dictated by the Wikipedia naming convention on use of the honorific "Saint".

Saint Andrew is the only 12 Apostle article awaiting renaming. Those wishing input to the process should do so right away.

There is no Wiki standard or even recommendation for semi-standardizing article names for the 12 Apostles. Some have been changed to ____ the Apostle, but there are variations as may be seen below:

  • Saint Andrew→ ______________________

Saint Paul has become Paul of Tarsus

Please post your recommendations here promptly to minimize unnecessary rename/redirects and reverts.

Thanks, Afaprof01 (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a serious misunderstanding of the convention, induced by its poor phrasing; see discussion of the example below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Saint AndrewAndrew the Apostle — This is dictated by the Wikipedia naming convention on use of the honorific "Saint". Afaprof01 (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Rename per nom. This is an improvement and in accordance with the convention, because there are some Christians who acknowledge his apostleship but would not call him a "Saint". It's not moving it completely outside of religion, but it is making it broader. It's the same issue with popes—one can acknowledge a pope's "popehood" (papacy?) but not recognise his sainthood.Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Agree with Rename per proposal. Let's go with it. We have no real justification for treating Andrew any differently from the other apostles who also have been venerated as saints in catholicism--most of whom also have been renamed without the honorific "Saint." The sun is still rising and setting, and the world is still spinning. There can and will be a redirect from "St. Andrew" to "Andrew the Apostle" (if that's what we choose). Therefore, the article gets found as it always has. HIGHLY RECOMMEND 'YES' Oberlin (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (October 2009)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was keep at current title (per WP:COMMONNAME. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Saint AndrewAndrew the Apostle — Per Wikipedia naming convention on use of the honorific "Saint". Afaprof01 (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That naming convention is now at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy). However, I would not call the apostles clergy, and I would defer to the most common name in English. I think the purpose of this naming convention is to not have BLPs use Saint in the title, not to arbitrarily decide whether someone from 2,000 years ago was a Saint or not. It's more complicated than that, but common still applies. I would hasten to add, though, that adding Apostle after someone's name is identical to adding Saint in front of the name, and should only be done if that is how they are more commonly known. (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Very strongly oppose. This unnecessary proposal makes no difference in the implicit point of view; both terms were originally as Christian as Edward the Confessor, and are now, like King Edward, how English speakers distinguish (disambiguate in our jargon) this Andrew from all the others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom and per convention. This is an improvement and in accordance with the convention, because there are some Christians who acknowledge his apostleship but would not call him a "Saint". It's not moving it completely outside of religion, but it is making it broader. It's the same issue with popes—one can acknowledge a pope's "popehood" (papacy?) but not recognise his sainthood. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Who denies it, and how many? The sainthood of the martyrs of the early church is scriptural, from the Revelation of Saint John, and Andrew is both apostle and martyr. I am reluctant to depart from English usage because other people are disgruntled; still less if it is a small minority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - better recognised as / more commonly referred to as Saint Andrew than as Andrew the Apostle (and the same applies to most of the rest of the apostles, by the way). I agree with User:Septentrionalis on the issue of implicitness. HeartofaDog (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose much more recognisable under the current title. Pahari Sahib 15:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (January 2010)

All of the apostle article names have been changed to avoid "Saint" except Andrew and Peter. This is a new move to change Saint Andrew to Andrew the Apostle so it will be in accord with clear Wiki policy for "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the 'Saint'", and to be consistent with names of the other Apostles (Christian). ─AFA Prof01 Talk: AFA Prof01 20:00, January 29, 2010

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: keep at current title Labattblueboy (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Saint AndrewAndrew the ApostleWikipedia naming convention on use of the honorific "Saint". Posted proposal for one week on article Talk page. No objections expressed during that time. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose I don't see what has changed since the last request in October. The saint text in WP:NCWC existed when the last move was proposed, but it was nonetheless resoundingly rejected on a WP:COMMONNAME basis. Consensus can change but there is no indication that that is the case here. In this case I am placing WP:COMMONNAME before WP:NCWC.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

:COMMENT:What has changed is that Saint Andrew and Saint Peter are the only two outliers. No rationality has been presented to show that Andrew the Apostle in any way would blur his recognition uniquely in comparison to James the Apostle, Matthew the Apostle, Thomas the Apostle, etc. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose I wouldn't be able to find him if it were moved. It doesn't make sense. This is no big deal--everyone knows Saint So & So is the appropriate titling technique. I think It would be confusing to refer & title a Saint's page with some other name.
That illustrates the point. If 10 of the 12 have conformed to Wiki policy WP:NCWC (not suggestion). Re: your "wouldn't be able to find" concern, yes you would, because there would be a cross-reference (WP:Redirect). Anyone searching for St. Andrew would be automatically redirected to "Andrew the Apostle".
The Catholic Encyclopedia refers to Him as:

St. Andrew, the Apostle, son of Jonah, or John (Matthew 16:17; John 1:42), was born in Bethsaida of Galilee (John 1:44). He was brother of Simon (Peter) (Matthew 10:2; John 1:40). Both were fishermen (Matthew 4:18; Mark 1:16), and at the beginning of Our Lord's public life occupied the same house at Capharnaum (Mark 1:21, 29)....

Also St. Andrew's Day would be confusing if we had to call (or move) the Andrew the Apostle's day — this will never happen. —Avé 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
COMMENT:Please keep in mind that WP is neither Catholic nor Protestant nor Christian, for that matter. Most Protestants do not revere people as Saints as an honorary or through veneration. This might be an argument at the level of Wiki policy, not for holding out on just one article of 12 that have the very same issue.
COMMENT: I should think the exception for St. Patrick's Day would exempt it. As the policy says, it if's not known by any other name, and I'm sure that's true for the holiday. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Be Christian or not, like it or not, this person is widely known as Saint Andrew in English. The common name should be used. Flamarande (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
COMMENT:Saint Andrew is no more widely known by Saint than Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, etc. They have ALL cooperated with the Wiki policy─not suggestion.AFAprof01 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment upon the comment above: most important rule: use the most common form of the name used in English. A wikipolicy is not a law we must obey, and the most important advice is to ignore all rules in favour of common sense and common use. These ridiculous policies you're mentioning have produced awful results like Napoleon I of France (instead of the world-famous Napoleon Bonaparte) and Victoria of the United Kingdom (instead of the world-famous Queen Victoria). Let's follow the common-sense approach of Alexander the Great and Herod the Great (instead of Alexander III of Macedon and Herod I of Judea). Flamarande (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I quote the relevant policy "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion. For example, Paul of Tarsus, Ulrich of Augsburg but Saint Patrick." It is not at all clear to me why this title is in violation of any policy. It actually looks to me as if it's Saint Matthew and Saint Luke who are at odd titles, not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Presumably with the others there are several saints called James and Thomas, and it's not clear which is the primary meaning. At the very least I suggest that there is a need for further discussion at the talk page for naming conventions for clergy before making a change like this. (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The same thing happens with Saint Bartholomew (his common and recognisable name) Flamarande (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

:COMMENT: Matthew and Luke are titled "_____ the Evangelist." That does not conflict with the policy. How are they not IAW Wikipedia policy? ─AFAprof01 (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose This was decided just three months before the latest move proposal. There was no consensus for a move. This latest proposal smacks of attrition: trying to wear down those that disagree with you by continually proposing the same thing, until everyone else gives up and you manage to get it through. No new evidence has been produced, and I would suggest a speedy close. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"he" instead of "He" for Jesus on Wikipedia

I don't think "He" should be used when referring to Jesus as it would only be used by worshipers. It is an unnecessary convention that isn't even followed on the Wiki page of Jesus himself. (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Old page history

Some old page history that used to be at the title "Saint Andrew" can now be found at Talk:Saint Andrew/Old history. Graham87 09:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Badly titled section

"Conclusions" is not a suitable title for a section in this article. For one thing, encyclopedia articles, unlike essays, are not supposed to draw any conclusions but "conclusions" isn't even used in the essay sense here. It just means "stuff at the end of the page". The content of the section is deecent enough but I can't think of a better title that more accuately describes it. --Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

How about "Legacy"?Marauder40 (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
"Legacy" is certainly more appropriate than "Conclusions". I'll change it to that now.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)