Talk:Paul the Apostle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Death

Lactantius

I think we need secondary sources on Paul's death. The church father accounts are not reliable, inconsistent, and don't say what this article claims they say. E.g. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.iii.v.ii.html versus https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07/Page_120.html; where does it say that Lactantius said Paul was beheaded? NLeeuw (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lactantius does not say how Nero killed Paul, he only says that Nero slew him. However, many other Church Fathers do mention how Paul died. --Rafaelosornio (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. It is only
WP:SYNTH. I'm gonna check the them all and write out what they say exactly. Preferably I'll get a secondary source to summarise things. NLeeuw (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Jerome and Eusebius

Especially with Jerome, whose chronology is all over the place, I need to be selective about what he says, but I'm edging towards intepretation, which we shouldn't do with
WP:PRIMARY sources if we can prevent it. I've cross-checked the English translation of Ernest Cushing Richardson (1892) at New Advent with this Latin edition by Ruslan Khazarzar that I happened to find online, which seems identical to the one at Latin Wikisource
.
Nero's emperorship lasted from 13 October 54 – 9 June 68 CE. Jerome says in the twenty-fifth year after our Lord's passion, that is the second [year] of Nero (Oct 55 – Oct 56 CE), at the time when Festus Procurator of Judea (Porcius Festus, 59–62 CE) succeeded Felix (Antonius Felix, 52–60 CE), he [Paul] was sent bound to Rome, and remaining for two years in free custody, disputed daily with the Jews concerning the advent of Christ. Festus became procurator of Judea in 59, but Nero's second year ended on 13 October 56; that's a 3-year gap (or at least 2 years, 2 months and a bit). We don't know exactly when the crucifixion of Jesus took place, but it must have been when Pontius Pilate was Prefect of Judea from 26–36 CE. What's more important is that Jerome equates the 25th year after the passio with the 2nd year of Nero (Oct 55 – Oct 56 CE), and later on the 37th year after the passio with the 14th year of Nero (13 October 67 – 9 June 68, he never completed his 14th year of reign because he died on 9 June 68).
The most significant difference is that the year Paul was executed, the fourteenth year of Nero, is equated with the twenty-seventh year after our Lord's passion in Richardson, but equated with anno post passionem Domini tricesimo septimo [in the thirty-seventh year after (the) Lord's passion] in the Latin editions. Either Richardson mistranslated 'tricesimo' as "twentieth" instead of "thirtieth", or he translated a textual variant which did say 'vicesimo', as mentioned earlier in the text. I'll try to compare more textual variants and see if any of them say 'vicesimo' here. It could be that two words were changed, and that Nero's 'fourteenth' year was actually his 'fourth' year, and that thus the 37th year after the passio was actually the 27th, so that the execution of Paul would line up either with the succession of Felix by Festus, or with the fire of Rome and Neronian persecution of Christians. But from the perspective of textual criticism, I don't find that likely: lectio difficilior potior. It's more likely that Jerome simply messed up his chronology and is an unreliable source.
While other sources seem to indicate Paul spent 2 years in prison and was then executed, Jerome seems to suggest Nero released ("dismissed"?) Paul after two years: It ought to be said that at the first defense, the power of Nero having not yet been confirmed, nor his wickedness broken forth to such a degree as the histories relate concerning him, Paul was dismissed by Nero, that the gospel of Christ might be preached also in the West. And for some reason, it wasn't until 10 years later in Nero's 14th year, near the end of Nero's reign, that Paul was somehow arrested again and executed. Jerome based himself a lot on conjectures in the Second Epistle to Timothy, especially the phrase "in/out of the mouth of the lion" (ἐκ στόματος λέοντος, 2 Tim 4:17). Those seem highly speculative, especially since nowadays scholars consider the pastoral epistles not to have been written by Paul, so these statements in the Second Epistle to Timothy are not autobiographical and cannot be taken to describe Paul's life as he himself narrates it.
It also seems completely implausible that Nero would somehow "dismiss" (release?) Paul [so] that the gospel of Christ might be preached also in the West. Why would Nero do that? If this is the same Nero who also persecuted Christians, why would he release Paul with the express intent that the gospel of Christ might be preached in the Western half of the Roman Empire? (I'll leave it up to others whether that means Italy, Spain, Gaul or some combination). It could only cause more trouble for emperors like him, as the monotheistic Christians were known to reject the worship of the Roman emperors as deities, which they regarded as blasphemous because there was only 1 god in their eyes, thus undermining imperial authority in the eyes of the Roman state. It makes no sense from Nero's perspective to release Paul and have him preach. NLeeuw (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled upon a good footnote by Philip Schaff who elaborates on some of these issues in Book II Chapter 22 of Eusebius' Church History:
Eusebius is the first writer to record the release of Paul from a first, and his martyrdom during a second Roman imprisonment. He introduces the statement with the formula λόγος žχει ("word has it"? Schaff translates it as "it is said"), which indicates probably that he has only an oral tradition as his authority, and his efforts to establish the fact by exegetical arguments show how weak the tradition was. Many maintain that Eusebius follows no tradition here, but records simply his own conclusion formed from a study of the Pastoral Epistles, which apparently necessitate a second imprisonment. But were this the case, he would hardly have used the formula λόγος žχει. The report may have arisen solely upon exegetical grounds, but it can hardly have originated with Eusebius himself. In accordance with this tradition, Eusebius, in his Chron., gives the date of Paul’s death as 67 a.d. Jerome (de vir. ill. 5) and other later writers follow Eusebius (though Jerome gives the date as 68 instead of 67), and the tradition soon became firmly established (see below, chap. 25, note 5). Scholars are greatly divided as to the fact of a second imprisonment. Nearly all that defend the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles assume a second imprisonment, though some (e.g. Wieseler, Ebrard, Reuss and others) defend the epistles while assuming only one imprisonment; but this is very difficult. On the other hand, most opponents of the epistles (e.g. the Tübingen critics and the majority of the new critical school) deny the second imprisonment. As to the place where Paul spent the interval—supposing him to have been released—there is again a difference of opinion. The Pastoral Epistles, if assumed to be genuine, seem to necessitate another visit to the Orient.
So at the time Schaff published this English edition of Eusebius' Church History in 1885, opinions were still divided on whether the pastoral epistles were genuine or not; these days, the consensus is they are not. That seems to undermine the whole idea that there was a release and then a second imprisonment as first claimed by Eusebius (c. 313–326) and then by Jerome (De Viris Illustribus (Jerome), c. 392–393), which none of the earlier sources report. There's no reason for Nero to release Paul, and no indication that he did prior to Eusebius 2.5 centuries later making that assertion. Schaff goes on to reason that there would have been enough time for Paul to make two journeys to Spain before being imprisoned again and executed, but this assumes the pastoral epistles to be authentic, which they aren't, so we need not speculate about that. The summer of 64 seems the likely date of death of Paul, not 67 or 68. We can't make it much later because of the governorship of Festus ending in 62, and Paul spending 2 years in prison / house arrest in Rome before being executed. NLeeuw (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tertullian

The article claims Tertullian writes that Paul was beheaded like John the Baptist. Not really. In De praescriptione haereticorum XXXVI [3], Tertullian wrote: Ista quam felix ecclesia cui totam doctrinam apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt, ubi Petrus passioni dominicae adaequatur, ubi Paulus Ioannis exitu coronatur, ubi apostolus Ioannes posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur;.
This has been translated by Peter Holmes (1885) at New Advent as: How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! NLeeuw (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Which John is which? There are lots of New Testament people named John.
  2. There is no verb describing "beheading" in Latin there. Literally, the passage reads where Paul is crowned with the exit of John. That can mean all sorts of things, especially as long as we don't know which John.
  3. There is no indication that the first Ioannis is in fact John the Baptist. Although the Synoptics all report this John was beheaded (see Beheading of John the Baptist), he was not a Christian, because he preceded Jesus. So why would we think he was part of this happy 'church', and count him as an 'apostle'?
  4. Holmes does not add a comma here as in the Latin text on Wikisource, and seems to suggest Ioannis and Ioannes are the same person: John the Apostle. That may be right or wrong, we don't know. If we assume they are the same and 'the exit of John' means beheading, however, why does it end with an island-exile instead?
  5. An island-exile seems to be Tertullian mixing up John the Apostle with John of Patmos, the author of the Book of Revelation who was exiled to the island of Patmos. There's no indication John of Patmos was ever tortured or beheaded, and scholars are pretty sure he is not John the Apostle, John the Baptist or the author of the Fourth Gospel (traditionally called "the Gospel according to John"). One thing we can say is John the Baptist was probably never exiled to an island though (according to Josephus, he was imprisoned in Machaerus).
  6. These mixups of Johns happened all the time in early Christianity. Wikipedians shouldn't be asserting this passage to refer two one and the same John, or two different Johns, nor to conclude which ones they were based on conjectures or extrapolation of information known from other sources. (The only link I see between Paul of Tarsus and John of Patmos is that Paul's imprisonment in Rome is kinda like John of Patmos' island-exile, but that's it.)
Therefore, this is just
WP:FAILs upon verification. NLeeuw (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
This is what happens with bad translations from Latin to English and they are taken as a reliable source since one thinks that is what the original source in Latin says.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. To be fair, this Wikipedia article cited the Latin original, but without linking to it. I just compared the English translation I could find on New Advent with the Latin Wikisource version. At any rate, it's
WP:SYNTH
to claim Tertullian said anything about beheading, and to claim the "Johns" he is referring to is or includes John the Baptist.
The tradition that Paul was "beheaded" appears quite late in our sources. It may well be a later invention, rather than going back to the historical Paul. I've always heard it said Paul was beheaded "because he was a Roman citizen", and therefore had the "right" to be beheaded rather that crucified (like Jesus and Peter reportedly were), the assumption being that the latter is a more painful and humiliating death (which seems plausible). But none of the Church Fathers seems to be particularly concerned about that distinction, unless I missed something? (Schaff has a lot to say about it in the footnotes to Lactantius, who himself doesn't mention it). NLeeuw (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mistranslation of Galatians 1:16

The Greek word ‘en’ translated as ‘to’ is an error. ‘En’ has the meaning of ‘in’ or ‘by means of’. This error has important implications for the understanding of Paul’s story and the reason for his relaying it. 72.131.111.189 (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with Crossway, I suppose?
(Come to think of it, a Wikipedia-native Bible translation project would be something else. Remsense留 04:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Origins

This source says: "However, Paul himself indicates that he was from the area of Damascus which was in Syria (see the letter to the Galatians)."

https://www.worldhistory.org/Paul_the_Apostle/#google_vignette


Does anyone have access to that letter? Or does anyone know more about his supposed claim of Damascene origin ? Whatsupkarren (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it's in the Bible, & therefore (ahem) quite widely available - see here. The statement he makes re Damascus is not that clear however. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Saint Paul (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 65 - Incorrectly states that Greek was Paul's native language

The work cited to support the claim that Paul spoke Greek as his first language, rather than Aramaic, actually says just the opposite to what is claimed. On page 43 in Bruce, Frederick Fyvie (2000). Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-4778-2. - that author states "Aramaic, and not Greek, was the language spoken in his (Paul's) home." Also stating - "it is a fair inference that it (Aramaic) was his mother tongue." The work cited says just the opposite of the claim it is cited to support. 176.88.102.25 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I have looked at the source and changed the wording in order to reflect what was actually written. Vyselink (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_the_Apostle&oldid=1217250895"