Talk:Saint Timothy

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

Name[edit]

"Timothy, in Greek, means to fear or to honor God", perhaps this sentence found at the bottom of the article should be rewritten to the main paragraph, i.e. Timothy (Greek for fear or honoring God).

"He is venerated as a saint by Christians honoring that rite." What rite is that? Something has obviously been removed here. DJ Clayworth 18:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it meant "the rite of sanctification", but more clarification is probably needed... ፈቃደ 18:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saint?[edit]

There should be some clarification here: 1. Who considers Timothy to be a saint? Most Protestant denominations don't accept the practice of considering certain people as being "saints", preferring to apply that title to all believers. So it would be nice if it was clarified which denominations/sects consider him to be a saint. 2. Is he the patron saint of something? If he is, it'd be useful to add to the article. An example of what I'm looking for is quoted below from the Paul of Tarsus article.

  • "Paul is venerated as a Saint by various groups, including the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican traditions, and by some Lutherans. He is the patron saint of Malta and the City of London, and has also had several cities named in his honor (including São Paulo, Brazil, and Saint Paul, Minnesota). He is venerated as a prophet by Mormons."

--Tim4christ17 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have had a go at improving this part, and also found a contradiction of the date of his death - was it the year 80 or at age 80? Perhaps someone can check the year 80 reference; the Catholic Encyclopedia gives age 80. Any comments on style also welcome - maybe a footnote would be a better way of treating the discrepancy?

Jeremynicholas 15:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sources[edit]

Am I the only one to notice that there are zero sources for this article? If some are not added, I will speedily delete it very soon. Thanks. Gatorgalen (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going look up the citations to the "later tradition[s]" and leave them in the discussion end of the article. Those traditions do have written sources and should be noted here. In all likelihood they are in Eusebius' Church History. 96.250.83.177 (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start class[edit]

This isn't much to show for such a major figure in Christianity. This article needs work. -- Secisek (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So much more could be said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.139.134 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding "Saint" to article names[edit]

Please stop adding "Saint" to article names-- as you do here-- per this policy. Carlaude:Talk 03:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


No. Trilobright (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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 no consensus for move. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Timothy → Timothy — This is dictated by the Wikipedia naming convention on use of the honorific "Saint". Carlaude:Talk 03:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • While not as clear as some, I (myself) never hear folks say things like "so-and-so was a companion of Saint Timothy"-- and in the Bible he is always just "Timothy."
  • In contrast to this-- I would still expect people to say things like "so-and-so was a companion of Saint Patrick," (even in my faith community that does not recognises "saints" as such.) While I am expect that some faith communities do call him "Saint Timothy," I expect these to be the same that recognise and/or conistently use the honorific "saint" for many many people they consider "saints."
  • If disambiguation of a sort is still needed the article can still be renamed to Timothy (person), disambiguating it from grass, or Timothy (NT person). Take note of the other NT leader under Paul, Titus (Biblical), who is disambiguatied from the 1st-century Emperor Titus. Carlaude:Talk 03:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I lean toward "Saint Timothy". This case is more like that of Saint Patrick than Paul of Tarsus. But in general I am opposed to users renaming articles to "Saint X" without consensus. Majoreditor (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Timothy should be a disambiguation page because there are many possible claims to being the primary source. One religious figure is not the primary use of the name. Of course he is never called "Saint Timothy" in the Bible, he didn't become a saint until after the Bible was written. TJ Spyke 21:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-- Timothy was a saint at the time the Bible was written-- and the Bible calls groups of people "saints." It was only later-- after the Bible was written-- that people started using the word "saint" as an honorific for anyone. All the more reason to avoid using it anachronistically here. Carlaude:Talk 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Timothy should be a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 17:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - far from obvious that this is the clear primary topic. I don't see why this should not be a disambiguation page in the manner of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or even Thaddeus. Knepflerle (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have yet seen nothing to suggest that the most common unambiguous name for this figure is anything other than Saint Timothy. Timothy (person) is unsuitable as the vast majority of people named Timothy happen to be people, and (NT person) is hardly instantly recognisable to the average reader. (bishop) or (Christian bishop) are far more effective at pinning down which Timothy we are referring to. Knepflerle (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no other persons named "Timothy" only. Anyone else is "Timothy Smith" etc. See for example Timothy (disambiguation).
  • While Timothy (bishop) is better (thou not everyone would agree he was a bishop), calling someone a "Christian bishop" is like calling someone a "Jewish rabbi" or a "Muslim imam."Carlaude:Talk 02:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The name Timothy predates the modern tradition of family names, so I am not persuaded by the claim that this one Timothy uniquely lacks a family name. Would Timothy (Old Testament) be a more satisfactory page name for this article? I support moving Timothy (disambiguation) to Timothy. --Una Smith (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 2[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/c 00:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


– WP:NPOV, and per MOS:SAINTS, these figures are not "only recognisable" with the inclusion of "Saint." In ictu oculi (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination originally read to (New Testament) with the comment The dab "(New Testament)" does not indicate that the individuals are a New Testament any more than John Smith (comics), John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1826), John Smith (Vermont) or John Sidney Smith (rugby union) are the articles in the　dab.
  • Oppose. Sorry, but these are ridiculous nominations. The naming entirely meets the criteria of MOS:SAINTS and WP:COMMONNAME. Nowhere is the use of "Saint" deprecated if that is the commonly seen form of the name. It is in these cases. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If MOS:SAINTS means the same thing as WP:COMMONNAME, why would it exist? "Saint" should only be used when the person is unrecognizable without it. I don't even know who "Saint Timothy" is, but I do know the one in the New Testament. --JFH (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving these away from the "Saint" titles; neutral on the proposed replacement titles, except that Saint Stephen would probably be better placed at Stephen (martyr) since martyrdom is what he's known for in every branch of Christianity. By contrast, they aren't known as "Saint" in every Christian sect. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Denomination is the polite word you are looking for. Which ones don't use "saint"? "St Stephen's Baptist" 391,000 hits, "St Stephen's Evangelical" only 56,000, "St Stephen's Methodist" 89,000, and so on. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's a good point. We shouldn't use article titles for Timothy or Titus the individuals that are ambiguous with the conventional names of the Biblical epistles. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:BDD it is now at (biblical figure) consistent with other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 17:42, 16 November 2013
  • Oppose all. Stephen's common name is definitely St. Stephen. And per BDD, moving both Timothy and Titus o the proposed new names would be ambiguous, as their are books in the NT bearing their names. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Google Books search results below. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Timothy and Titus because of their pastoral letters. Impossible to say which is the more recognisable - the man or the letter. Neutral about Stephen. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all --Jayarathina (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jayarathina on what basis? do you disagree with application of WP:5, MOS:SAINTS, WP:COMMONNAME and the other guidelines cited in support of "Timothy" "Titus" "Stephen" to these titles? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose all but without any disrespect to the proposer. These all seem like natural and acceptable disambiguators for me. I might support a move to the base title Stephen for him (though IDK if there's a primary topic there) but otherwise I don't think there's a problem. Red Slash 17:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide search evidence from Google Books that Timothy only occurs with Saint. The RM is now at (biblical figure) consistent with other articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that he is not. This man is almost always referred to as Timothy. Apparently (I think I'd disagree with it, but it's not the issue at stake) he doesn't have primary topic for Timothy, hence the disambiguator. So I prefer a natural disambiguator as opposed to a parenthetical one. My understanding of MOS:SAINTS is that we should not prefer the word "Saint" for cases where it's unambiguous either way. Unless we revisit primary topic for these articles (which is a non-starter for one or more of them) none of them can be at their most recognizable English names. My interpretation is that using Saint to naturally distinguish them will be preferable to a parenthetical disambiguator. Red Slash 18:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Red Slash where does WP:NATURAL say that? The guideline continues "Parenthetical disambiguation: If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name." Also "Saint Timothy" by definition cannot be WP:NATURAL because it is not found in WP:NPOV sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is your perspective that Saint Timothy is non-neutral. Perhaps. The policy I cited simply says "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names." I think it's pretty clear that the Saint titles satisfy this. Again, non-neutral sources have no reason whatsoever to disambiguate, naturally or otherwise, because they can simply call him Timothy. Red Slash 18:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not my perspective it is a fact according to the Wikipedia article Saint. The article states that Saint is a title used by several particular religious denominations.
As far as sources
51,300 for "Timothy" -Saint/St + Ephesus Paul, since 1980
130 for "Saint Timothy" + Ephesus Paul, since 1980
Does 51,300 to 130 indicate that Timothy is only identifiable by the term used in the 130 sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have changed the nom to (biblical figure) in line with other articles. The guideline is as follows: In ictu oculi (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SAINTS Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable through its inclusion. For example, Ulrich of Augsburg but Saint Patrick. (See also List of saints.) Make redirects from forms with "St.", "St", and "Saint".

Where does the guideline say it's better to add a parenthetical disambiguator than to use natural disambiguation? Because I'm buggered if I can see it. Please enlighten. Yes, if there's obvious natural disambiguation without using the "Saint" then we use that, but here there isn't. Under both the guideline you quote above and under WP:NATURAL it is therefore better to use the honorific as a disambiguator. Parenthetical disambiguation is quite clearly considered to be the next best choice after natural disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Necrothesp. The guideline which says it is is sometimes better to add a parenthetical disambiguator than to use natural disambiguation is in WP:DAB, see also WP:COMMONNAME. Here the issue again is the WP:Five Pillars and the concept of a neutral encyclopedia. The concept of WP:NPOV takes precedent over minor issues like avoiding brackets, especially when WP:COMMONNAME for these individuals is "Timothy" "Titus" "Stephen".
Are you claiming there is no WP:Five Pillars issue with these titles?
Or that "Saint Timothy" "Saint Titus" "Saint Stephen" are more common in WP:NPOV WP:RS than plain "Timothy" "Titus" "Stephen"? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely claiming that there is no NPOV issue here. It's an utterly spurious claim. And I have no religious belief of any kind, incidentally, so I am not playing advocate for any religious position whatsoever. I simply think these are the normal names for these figures. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is an "utterly spurious claim" then the en.wp article on Saint needs editing to remove the claim that the term is limited to certain religious groups. Protestant "word Saint" will give you a selection of WP:RS supporting what is in the Saint article. You do not need a religious belief to click these Google Book sources and see that secular and Protestant sources do not use "Saint Timothy" "Saint Titus" "Saint Stephen" except in referring to buildings. Therefore "Saint Timothy" "Saint Titus" "Saint Stephen" are not WP:COMMONNAME in WP:RS. Please click on the links to Google Book searches that have already been given or do your own search. Again this RM is not about buildings. Church building articles will retain "Saint..." In ictu oculi (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have no opinion on Timothy and Titus but definitely oppose moving St Stephen to Stephen (biblical figure). I do think "St Stephen" is the only way this figure is commonly referred to and the only way in which he is likely to be recognised.Smeat75 (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Smeat75, please, do the following Google Book results support the view that "St Stephen" is the only way this figure is commonly referred to?
"St Stephen" + "Acts" "Apostles" 3,760 results since 1980
"Stephen" - St + "Acts" "Apostles" 58,500 results since 1980
58,500 results for "Stephen" is more than 3,760 results for "St Stephen" correct, so how can "St Stephen" be the only way this figure is commonly referred to? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all, per several above. MOS:SAINTS should be amplified and clarified so some stop thinking (wrongly, imo) that noms like this are necessary to meet it where some disambiguation is needed and there is no natural alternative. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Johnbod is right - the MOS:SAINTS should be amended. "Unless" is there to cover the minority of cases. However, it seems likely to me that "Ulrich of Augsburg" type cases are more likely to be in the minority. The MOS should therefore be reversed and acknowledge that most saints will not be recognisable without a saint prefix or a parenthetical suffix. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly wouldn't say "most", but there are a relatively small number, some very well known early figures like Saint Peter and Saint Joseph where the plain name doesn't work (though personally I would be happy to see Paul go straight to the saint), others misty later martyrs like Saint George and Saint Lucy. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Johnbod, if "the plain name doesn't work" how do you explain that Google Books uses the plain name not Saint? Why do not just secular but Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian writers, and academic Catholic writers not refer to Timothy as "Saint Timothy" (same for Titus, Stephen, Joseph, Peter) in books. What is wrong with the WP:COMMONNAME in WP:RS which doesn't use "saint" for any of these individuals. Why should church names be taken over mentions of the individual? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "plain name doesn't work" as an article title, because it is not considered primary in WP terms. Church names I suppose have similar issues, and are good evidence of WP:COMMONNAME usage. You don't see "Peter's Lutheran Church". Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the dab "(biblical figure)" is there, the same as 50 other articles. You haven't explained why the name used in Google Books by Anglicans, Lutherans etc "doesn't work" with (biblical figure).
Correct, a church is a building. compare Estádio Rei Pelé which is the name of a building, a football stadium named after "King Pelé", but our bio on the footballer himself is not at "Rei Pelé" but drops the honorific Rei "king" just for Pelé. So how does your citing the names of buildings which have "saint" justify changing the name of an individual who is not known commonly as "saint" When I say commonly I mean as shown by hard Google Books search evidence overwhelmingly contradicting your feeling of what should be common. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bad Faith edits and reverts regarding a source that proves how much Paul trusted Timothy[edit]

Some people have not good faith, and they keep deleting the source of Philippians 2:19-20 which shows how much Paul trusted Timothy .

" Ἐλπίζω δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Τιμόθεον ταχέως πέμψαι ὑμῖν, ἵνα κἀγὼ εὐψυχῶ, γνοὺς τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν. 20 οὐδένα γὰρ ἔχω ἰσόψυχον, ὅστις γνησίως τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν μεριμνήσει. Philippians 2:19-20"

https://bibliaparalela.com/greek/2473.htm 2473 isópsyxos (an adjective, derived from 2470 /ísos, "equivalent, equal" and 5590/psyxē, "soul") – properly, of equal-soul; having similar identity (values) because like-minded, i.e. equally (similarly) motivated. ἰσόψυχος, ἰσόψυχον (ἴσος and ψυχή), equal in soul (A. V. like-minded) (Vulg. unanimus): Philippians 2:20. (Psalm 54:14 (); Aeschylus Ag. 1470.) Dervenagas (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their bad faith can easily be proven because they dare to say that "That text in Greek says nothing."[1]. For God's sake,everybody knows that the prototype of the Bible is written in greek!!!!! Dervenagas (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to assume good faith and refrain from accusing other editors of acting in bad faith – "Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia." – see WP:AGF, WP:5P4 and WP:CIVIL – accusing others of acting in bad faith is covered in WP:AOBF & WP:NPA – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this is your own translation it counts as WP:OR – check accepted translations of Philippians 2:19-20:

"19 Now I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon so that I can be encouraged when I learn of your condition. 20 I do not have anyone else like him who takes a genuine interest in your welfare."

This is the International Standard Version, but many similar translations can be found at BibleGateway – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Bible is not acceptable as a source for analysis. See WP:RSP. Please use reliable secondary sources from credentialed scholars. Elizium23 (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And another translation of ισοψυχος. [2] Ask whoever scholar you want about its original meaning. The above are clearly acting in bad faith. Dervenagas (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever understands the meaning of soul in Christianity, also understands how severe is to claim that someone else has equal soul to you. Dervenagas (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dervenagas, your Bible verses are unacceptable as sources. Elizium23 (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are investigating the trust Paul had to Timothy. What other sources can we accept in order to judge this trust, other than the original text of the Bible? Dervenagas (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was Timothy from Derbe, from Lystra, or from both?[edit]

Κατήντησε δὲ εἰς Δέρβην καὶ Λύστραν. καὶ ἰδοὺ μαθητής τις ἦν ἐκεῖ ὀνόματι Τιμόθεος, υἱὸς γυναικός τινος Ἰουδαίας πιστῆς, πατρὸς δὲ Ἕλληνος. ὃς ἐμαρτυρεῖτο ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν Λύστροις καὶ Ἰκονίῳ ἀδελφῶν.  Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. Acts 16:1

As far as I understand it, the quote implies that Timothy's mother was from Derbe, and Timothy's father was from Lystra (or vice versa). More sources are needed to clarify this. Dervenagas (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By reading the passage, it is not clear that Timothy's town was Lystra. So I wonder why only Lystra is mentioned in the article. Dervenagas (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand "He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium." This quote implies that people from other towns had a good opinion for Timothy, so maybe was he only from Derbe? Dervenagas (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe, does this implies that Derbe was nearby Iconium, so the brothers at Lystra knew his father, and the brothers of Iconium knew his mother (or vice versa)? Dervenagas (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable published secondary sources are required per WP:PSTS. Secondary sources, what biblical scholars say about the subject, are required to "avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." What you or I or anyone else thinks the passage means is irrelevant, all that matters is what the reliable sources say, WP:RS, WP:VERIFY. Individual interpretations or conclusions are original research, WP:NOR – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to a reliable source that states that Timothy was from Lystra? Dervenagas (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:PSTS "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Dervenagas (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you question the notability of Timothy's hometown? Only if you do , we need secondary or tertiary sources. Otherwise primary sources are always better, as long as there no novel interpretation on them. Dervenagas (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When you say things like, "As far as I understand it, the quote implies", "This quote implies", "Or maybe, does this implies", it sounds as if you are attempting to interpret the text yourself. If you are not, then primary sources can be used to confirm what the primary source says, but any interpretation or analysis of the text must be supported by citations to reliable secondary sources. As you noted, "More sources are needed to clarify this" – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the translation "Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium." is almost accurate. The question is, how do we interpret it, and why do we interpret it as "Lystra" and not as "Derbe", or as both. Dervenagas (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because of sources - Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Saint Timothy, (born, Lystra, Lycaonia [now Lusna, Tur.]..." 1; Catholic Online: "Born at Lystra, Lycaenia, Timothy..." 2; Othodox Church of America: "The Holy Apostle Timothy was from the Lycaonian city of Lystra in Asia Minor." 3. These are online sources, but they indicate that the consensus is that Timothy was from Lystra. – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are a reliable source that states that Timothy may was also from Derbe. [3]. It is from the Holy Metropolis of Symi - Tilos - Halki and Kastellorizo. Obvioulsy most of the reliable sources mention Lystra, but some reliable sources also mention Derbe. Dervenagas (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And another reliable source, a quote from Albert Barnes (theologian) . "Timothy was a native of either Derbe or Lystra, cities near to each other" [4] Dervenagas (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines aren’t entirely clear on how to handle conflicting sources, it seems to be left up to the discretion of editors through WP:CONSENSUS. Of the two sources you provided, one says, “Timothy was probably born in Lystra of Lycaonia”. The website says, “probably”, so it doesn’t say definitely where Timothy was from. The other source, from Albert Barnes, is from 1834. WP:AGE MATTERS says, “newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts”. However, WP:AADP#Inaction by sources says, “Inclusion of content is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources already exist, not on subjective judgments of why there aren't more or newer sources” seems to say that if newer sources are not available, older sources are acceptable. WP:CONFLICTING says, “In the case of a conflict stemming from the fact that the general or academic consensus about the subject has changed, the current consensus should be given preference. Older works, if referenced at all, should then be clearly distinguished as such and be used primarily to show the historical development of the subject.”

I don’t want to get into a game of “my sources are better than yours,” but Britannica is a reliable source and says Timothy was born in Lystra. If consensus can be gained with other editors about Barnes, then he can be considered a reliable source. Until then, we should stay with the accepted version of the article. The writer of Acts either didn’t know or didn’t care exactly where Timothy came from so it’s not a point of significant theological importance. It's possible, although this is a surmise on my part, that when writing, "Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy", the "there" was meant to refer to the last city named at which Paul arrived, Lystra. If I wrote, "Bob went to Buffalo and New York. There he met Joey." I think it is obvious that he met Joey in New York and not Buffalo. But this is original thought on my part. – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read the whole passage: "Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium." .If he was was well spoken by brothers at Lystra and Iconium, does this means that he was from Lystra or from Iconium? It is possible he was he from Derbe, and the author of Acts points that he was well spoken of by brothers of nearby towns, in order to emphasize how respectful he was. Dervenagas (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also in your example, your logic stands because Buffalo and New York are not nearby. The passage of Acts implies that Iconium and Derbe are nearby towns, so close that almost cannot be distinguished. This can be proven easily by another passage. When Paul almost died after being stoned in Lystra, he managed to escape to Derbe. So Derbe should be nearby Iconium and Lystra. Dervenagas (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to us to decide, it's what reliable sources say. - cheers, Epinoia (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your personal opinion, your example "Bob went to Buffalo and New York. There he met Joey." is not similar to what the author of Acts wrote: "Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there.". You said "he went", the author of Acts said "he came". Obvioulsy is not the same, isnt it?
The author of Acts implies that Derbe and Lystra are so nearby, that can be considered almost as the same town. He also points that Iconium and Lystra are nearby, and this has been proved. The city identified as Lystra, the modern Kilistra or Hatunsaray is only 8 hours distance by foot from Konya. So Derbe's site should be in a nearby less equal than 8 hours walk distance from Kilistra / Hatunsaray too. Dervenagas (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the flaws in my example, I have redacted that part of my comment. – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Dervenagas (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated edits[edit]

An editor has repeatedly changed the page to their preferred version (WP:EDITWAR). The reasons these edits are reverted are:

  1. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Timothy was born in Lystra. Both WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:CONFLICTING indicate that newer sources are preferred over older sources. The Britannica article is dated 1 January 2021, and so is our most up to date reliable source.
  2. The editor claims that “Paul entrusted Timothy with important assignments” and cites as a source a Greek text of Philippians 2:19-20. Philippians 2:19-20 says, “19 I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, that I also may be cheered when I receive news about you. 20 I have no one else like him, who will show genuine concern for your welfare.” (Bible Gateway New International Version). The passage mentions only one assignment, not plural assignments, and we don't know if Paul actually sent Timothy. The passage does not state that Paul entrusted Timothy with important assignments – this is an interpretation of a primary source and WP:PRIMARY says, “Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.” The cited primary source is in Greek and WP:NOENG says, “English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available.” There are many English bible translations available.

Therefore, these edits cannot stand. – Epinoia (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1 Tim and 2 Tim[edit]

An editor deletes quotations from these two epistles. He says that they are pseudoepigraphical. Maybe they are. Maybe the whole New Testament is. That do not mean that we cannot quote what it says. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from primary sources cannot be interpreted. This is Wikipedia policy for all primary sources:
  • WP:PRIMARYCARE – “primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that…are directly supported by the source.”
  • WP:SCHOLARSHIP – “Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves” – “Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible”
  • WP:NOR – “This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.”
The added content interprets the primary source, which is against Wikipedia policy. The added content states, “Paul charged Timothy to guard the teaching of the church”, but the quoted passage does not mention the church and does not say to guard anything, it says, “Charge certain persons that they must not teach differing doctrines”
As 1 Timothy is pseudepigraphal (see the last sentence of the lead of the Saint Timothy article for scholarly citations to support this), it cannot be used as evidence of what Paul or Timothy said or did. According to scholars, someone, we don’t know who, made it up and put Paul’s name to it. It’s as if you read a quote that said, “Don’t believe what you read on the internet – Abraham Lincoln” and then repeated it as fact, “Abraham Lincoln warned people about false information on the internet when he said, ‘Don’t believe what you read on the internet.’” It’s not a true quote, it’s made up by someone using Lincoln’s name. We can’t repeat what 1 Timothy says as fact because we do not know the source, it’s words put into Paul’s mouth.
See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Original research
  1. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. WP:RS
  2. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the WP:NOR policy.
  3. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy. WP:PSTS
So what is needed here is a citation to a reliable secondary source. A questionable primary source is not enough. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: How about this then: "In the epistle 1 Timothy, it is written that the purported author of the epistle — Paul — charged the purported recipient of the epistle — Timothy — to guard the teachings [of the church]". Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- very funny - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Epinoia: I'd welcome your suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest that you find a reliable secondary source that does not rely on Tim 1 or 2 (WP:ATT) to confirm that Paul charged Timothy to guard the teaching of the church - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Epinoia: But I don't want to confirm that Paul charged Timothy to guard the teaching of the church. Who could do that? Were there other witnesses to the act? Who knows? No, I merely wish to record that the epistles themselves make that claim. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- perhaps it belongs in the articles on 1 Timothy and/or 2 Timothy where the contents of the epistles are described - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- or you could write a short section on the contents of 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy and add it to the Saint Timothy article - that would define that the content comes from the epistles and not from independent sources - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, I went ahead and added a section on the Timothy epistles with content copied from other articles - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice thank you. You went even further than i would have gone myself. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name change to "Timothy of Ephesus" not discussed.[edit]

This is a major name change. It ought to have been discussed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I hear a good reason to the contrary, I will revert this change tomorrow. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- see MOS:SAINTS, "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint"" – also see WP:RNPOV, as Timothy is not regarded as a saint by everyone, removing the honorific "Saint" is consistent with a neutral point of view - moving the article to Timothy of Ephesus is consistent with naming conventions of Wikipedia articles of other Christian saints, such as Matthew the Apostle, Paul the Apostle, John the Evangelist, etc. - please do not revert without a good reason supported by Wikipedia guidelines - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main MOS:SAINTS rule doesn't apply as there is a disambiguation page for the name "Timothy". It says that "Saint" may be used if it is generally accepted that he is a saint. When mainline Christian denomination does not accept Timothy as a saint? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy is a saint only for Christians, not for Buddhists or other non-Christian denominations - so we have to follow WP:NPOV and not use a term applied by only one group - neutral point of view is "a fundamental principle of Wikipedia" and is "is non-negotiable, and...cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." - most of the Christian saint articles have been moved to neutral titles, Jerome, Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Ávila, John of the Cross, Æthelberht of Kent, etc. - there are still some articles with saint in the title, such as Saint Peter and Saint Dominic, but these are old articles that have not yet been changed - I am sure they will be moved to conform to neutral point of view when someone gets around to it - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So an article can only be called "Saint Foo" if Foo is revered as a saint by Christians and by Buddhists and by other non-Christian denominations. Is that your point? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't make the change, I am just pointing out that the move is in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and follows the neutral naming conventions of other Christian saint articles - Epinoia (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the move. Considering there have been two unsuccessful move requests in the past, WP:RM should have been employed. StAnselm (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- this move imposes a Christian point of view and completely overrides WP:NPOV - neutral point of view is "a fundamental principle of Wikipedia" and is "is non-negotiable, and...cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." - Epinoia (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 April 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 11:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Timothy → Timothy of Ephesus – Per the clergy guideline WP:NCWC that discourages the use of 'Saint' unless it is necessary and the only viable option for disambiguation. ~ Iskandar323 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 19:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum The specifically relevant section of the guideline is MOS:SAINTS and I encourage all those voting to take the time to familiarize themselves with this if they are not already familiar, as well as to look at Category:Christian saints from the New Testament and see how consistently this guideline is applied. WP:COMMONNAME is not the overriding policy function for biographies of religious figures. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed title is not recognizable. Srnec (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above - fails WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per MOS:SAINTS - this would bring the article title inline with those of other Christian saints such as Francis of Assisi, Benedict of Nursia, Paul the Apostle, John the Apostle, Simon the Zealot, etc. - while devout Christians may feel that the honorific Saint should be retained, not everyone is a Christian - Timothy is not a Saint to Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Taoists, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, etc. - so the term Saint is not universal - it is WP:COMMONNAME only to Christians and in accordance with maintaining a Neutral Point of View, we need to move to a neutral article title and remove the honorific Saint - Epinoia (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose fails WP:COMMONNAME. He's not just any old saint. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Christianity has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 19:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Catholicism has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 19:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as mentioned, very heavily failed common name, with even academic sourcing seemingly never referring to him as "Timothy of Ephesus" at first reference. Seems to be a fairly standard case of MOS:SAINT supporting retention the disambiguating epithet "Saint." ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Has the nominator read the clear instructions to read the many previous RM discussions, from which the current name resulted? I expect not. Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, as above and all the previous discussions. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: he is never called this.StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy[edit]

The paragraph on the letters Timothy received from Paul states that many scholars think it was not written by Paul without having any references. The paragraph should at least point to First Epistle to Timothy’s article or remove it completely as it doesn’t really belong here 47.229.91.79 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- the article section "Pastoral Epistles" says that the Timothy letters "are considered pseudepigraphic by many modern scholars, including Bart Ehrman, Raymond Collins, and David E. Aune." with 3 citations. There is no citation in the lead because citations are not required in the lead if citations are provided in the body of the article per MOS:LEADCITE - Epinoia (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Timothy&oldid=1211946719"