Talk:Saint Timothy

"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

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

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

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-- 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

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

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

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

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

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

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