Talk:Apocalypse of Paul

Unsigned comment

This might be the actual text?

https://books.google.com/books?id=zmpgCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA84&ots=greUD76-lr&pg=PA85#v=onepage&q=part%20vi&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.54.8 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Contested move

I wanted to apologize for the confusion caused by moving the article to Visio Pauli. In hindsight, I realize that while Visio Pauli is commonly used in academic literature, the title Apocalypse of Paul (Visio Pauli) might have been a better choice. This would have kept consistency with the disambiguation structure and made it clearer for readers who may be more familiar with the Apocalypse of Paul title.

I appreciate the feedback and understand the concerns. If there’s agreement, I’d be happy to move the article to Apocalypse of Paul (Visio Pauli) to better reflect both common usage and clarity. Thanks for your patience, and I’m open to further suggestions on how best to handle this. Skyerise (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Just a quick note to clarify: I’d also be open to moving Visio Pauli back to its previous title if that’s the consensus, but since I converted Apocalypse of Paul into a disambiguation page, I don’t have the permissions to undo that part of the edit. I’m happy to cooperate on resolving this through discussion. Skyerise (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia article titles doesn't really like "dual name" titles nor the use of an alternate name as a disambiguator. I'm actually not totally opposed to the idea myself, but it would be non-standard, so this somewhat disavors Apocalypse of Paul (Visio Pauli). If Visio Pauli really is the title to use, we should just use Visio Pauli IMO, not add it as a disambiguator to Apocalypse of Paul. SnowFire (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Article title: Apoc Paul vs. Visio Pauli

Let's go interrogate the sources. When a source uses both titles, I favor the non-parenthesized version - e.g. JK Elliot uses "Apocalypse of Paul (Visio Pauli)", but this is obviously an indicator for "Apocalypse of Paul".

• External links: 3/3 use "Apocalypse of Paul," including the 1924 M.R. James book (James was a reasonably major scholar on the early Apocalypse of Paul).
• References, in particular Chapter titles / Monograph titles / Journal article titles / Book titles: Bremmer 2022, probably the best and most recent source, uses ApocPaul. Schneemelcher (both 1965 & 2003) uses Apoc Paul. Silverstein 1935 uses Visio Pauli, but Silverstein 1997 uses ApocPaul. Bremmer's 2007 monograph collection uses "Visio Pauli", but nearly every actual monograph in it prefers "ApocPaul" - only Czachesz's article uses "Visio Pauli", but 6 of the others use ApocPaul, so we're 6/8 for ApocPaul. (I'm excluding the Bibliography, which matches the name of the monograph collection of course.) Ehrman 2022 uses ApocPaul. Casey 1935 uses ApocPaul. I don't have access to Bauckham 1998 right now, but to my recollection, it used ApocPaul, and a Google Books search backs that up. And I'm throwing out all the foreign-language references.

Conclusion: English Scholarship massively favors "Apocalypse of Paul", not "Visio Pauli." Visio Pauli is an important title to know, for sure! It was what actual medieval readers would have known it as, but names change over time. Just as we have Piers Plowman not Visio Willelmi de Petro Ploughman.

Second question: is this topic the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term "Apocalypse of Paul"? Or should it be disambiguated as Apocalypse of Paul (some disambiguator)? To me that the answer is clearly "yes, this is the primary topic". If nothing else, pageviews suggests that this article gets 3-4x the pageviews of the other one [1] . There's more and deeper scholarly sources on this one. And pertinently, it doesn't need to hit 4x; it just has to not tie. With only two topics vying for an article, just place the most popular one at the base name and use a hatnote. See WP:TWODABS. SnowFire (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to offer some additional context regarding the move to Visio Pauli. Since the original Greek manuscript of the Apocalypse of Paul is lost and the text primarily survives in its Latin form, the title Visio Pauli is not only the most common in academic literature but also the most accurate reflection of the extant version of the text. The Latin tradition had a significant influence on how this work was transmitted and received, especially in medieval Christianity, and the name Visio Pauli acknowledges that history.

Given this, the move aligns with WP:COMMONNAME, reflecting both scholarly usage and the actual linguistic heritage of the surviving manuscript. Visio Pauli is also used throughout the article, esp. in the reception section. I hope this clarifies the reasoning, and I’m open to further discussion if needed. Skyerise (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@SnowFire: you write "It was what actual medieval readers would have known it as". This is simply ahistorical. By medieval times, only the Latin translation was extent. Skyerise (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

(re the comment on medieval readers) Yes...? I don't understand your objection here, and don't think we disagree on this point. I'm saying "Visio Pauli" is the term that medieval Latin readers would know. (I'm also saying that "Apocalypse of Paul" is what 20th and 21st century English-writing scholars use.)

(re the original reply) I understand the reasoning, and I even agree that if "Visio Pauli" was the scholarly standard, we should probably move it. But that's why I put all those sources above - I've consulted the sources and they overwhelmingly use "Apocalypse of Paul." I don't doubt that some sources you've read use "Visio Pauli" but the sources currently in the article favor "Apocalypse of Paul" - while also mentioning Visio Pauli, of course. Even some of the sources that do use Visio Pauli as a title quickly switch to "Apocalypse of Paul" in the interior.

Put things another way: if you're right, what are these sources that favor "Visio Pauli" (i.e. use in preference to Apoc Paul, not merely acknowledge Visio Pauli / Visio Sancti Pauli as important titles to know)? Maybe these are unconsulted sources that could improve the article, and also inform the best article title naming. SnowFire (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that they may be used about equally, and I'm not sure how we should title the article with that being the case. Skyerise (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Can we be more concrete than "seems to me"? I've done the work here of investigating the sources currently in use and posting them above. You're saying that maybe the sources are equal. What are these sources that favor "Visio Pauli", then, given that the sources I investigated above currently favor Apocalypse of Paul? Are these sources on this topic specifically, or just passing mentions? Are they in a modern context, or referring to what medieval people would use (which is noncontroversially Visio)? I've given a few sources above that favor Visio (e.g. Silverstein 1935... although somewhat contraindicated by his 1997 book using "Apocalypse of Paul"), but it's going to require more to sell the case that it's really an equal split. (And as I said above, if you have some cool sources that aren't in the current article, great, I'm happy to consult them and use them to expand the article.) SnowFire (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

You yourself said that most sources give both and also implied that even in the sources you cite Visio Pauli is given in parentheses. In fact, if one searches Google Books for simply "Apocalypse of Paul", the first four of the sources refer to the Nag Hammadi text, while searching for "Apocalypse of Paul (Visio Pauli)" returns primarily sources referring to the apocryphal book. I think that argues that even the sources you cite actually present it as Apocalypse of Paul (Visio Pauli), not simply as the "Apocalypse of Paul". Skyerise (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

You are once again misreading me in a rather frustrating way. I'm allowing that Visio Pauli exists and is significant. That's why it was in the lede. Showing it should be the title requires a stronger claim though - that it's the majority term, the term casually used, the term in titles, the term in running text. That's precisely what I say is NOT being met here, and I say this as someone who has read the sources. Please consult these sources for yourself if you don't trust me. For example, I've gone to my ebook version of Ehrman 2022 and searched for "Visio Pauli". All that comes up are bibliographical references to articles that have "Visio Pauli" in the title. But the section is called "The Apocalypse of Paul" and all of the text refers to the "Apocalypse of Paul", not calling it the Visio ever. (See p. 84-98.) A Google Books search on Bauckham 1998 showed much the same. I'm afraid my interlibrary loan on Bremmer's 2007 collection has expired (and would require a trip to the library regardless), but to my recollection, the vast majority of the monographs called the work "Apocalypse of Paul" in running text.

I don't think the Google Books search proves much (of course "Visio Pauli" will only show stuff related to this article, and the Gnostic work is irrelevant for deciding what this work is called), but if you have modern sources that have a section largely on this work and that call it the "Visio Pauli", ideally both in a title and in running text, please provide them. Not a GBooks search, but actual sources you've examined by name. I will give them a look. And you are free to double-check my above claims yourself of the sources I examined. SnowFire (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so. Let's let the rabble decide. Skyerise (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

How is it that you are so sure of this matter when you can't name a single source you've read that supports your version? (Barring the ones I've already introduced above like Elliot, of course.) SnowFire (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 10 February 2025

Apocalypse of Paul → Apocalypse of Paul (Visio Pauli) – There are two different books titled "Apocalypse of Paul". In the literature for this one, it is nearly always introduced with the Latin in parens to distinguish it from the Nag Hammadi text (When the disambiguation is left off, the first four sources returned refer to the Nag Hammadi text). We should follow this way of presenting the title as it is introduced in the literature. The Latin version of the text has been the basis of every translation, as the Greek text has been lost since before the Middle Ages. While the Apoc. Paul. title may be slightly more common in recent literature, the Latin title was more frequently used prior to the 20th century, which is why the sources almost universally introduce the text with both the English and Latin title. Skyerise (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. See above section. There is no need for double-disambiguation here. It is certainly true that some (but not "nearly always") works introduce the work as "Apocalypse of Paul (Visio Pauli)", but that isn't because the title is that full string including parentheses, but rather because "Visio Pauli" is a significant alternate title for the text, specifically the contemporary title it was known by in medieval Western Europe. That's cool, but Wikipedia style isn't really to do double titles - we don't have Sega Genesis (Mega Drive). SnowFire (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Side note: I am not trying to invoke "ownership" here, but I will say that as someone who consulted the sources currently in the article, the nominator's claim isn't accurate about how the sources present the topic. The work is often introduced as simply "Apocalypse of Paul" without mention of "Visio Pauli" in parentheses (for an old but publicly accessible example). I've given some examples of this in the section above. Nominator's own evidence is a Google test that doesn't seem to prove much. Again, the title "Visio Pauli" shows up, it's a good redirect, it's an important alternate name for the lede, but it doesn't need to be in the article title. SnowFire (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Additional side note: It's also not true that "The Latin version of the text has been the basis of every translation", something the nominator would know if she read the article. See Apocalypse_of_Paul#Translations, people have indeed made translations of the Coptic, Syriac, etc. (And the pre-modern Coptic / Georgian / etc. versions are believed to have come directly from the Greek, too, not via some intermediate Latin step.) SnowFire (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose the double title. Srnec (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)