Talk:Priscilla and Aquila

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Saints Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Bible Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Ancient Near East Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Priscilla and Aquila be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

A fact from Priscilla and Aquila appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 April 2004. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that a woman named Priscilla, wife of Aquila, was one of the first Christian evangelists? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/April.

I dispute that most "scholars believe" please provide references that show that most scholars believe that she was more important than her husband. [This is only minor]

The major point of dispute: References for some authors who view paul as being misogynistic and provide a balanced view point of the subject by adding the views of those who disagree with the said view i.e. Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner

Misogyny is a strong word, "an exaggerated aversion toward women" it is hard to believe that the few texts concerning the role of women in the church would merit the strength of such characterization. The passages often cited are concerning the role of the elder, pastor, overseer, and bishop -all various references for the same position- as being limited to males. Older women are given responsibility to teach the younger women and various other positions.

Suggestion: Create a separate article for the role of women in the New Testament, being fair to the whole thing, this way you can include information about Lydia, the seller of purple cloth/dye, and Mary and Martha Anna, Agabus and the various other women

expletives deleted We need sources for claims like "Priscilla is a diminutive nickname for Prisca." Arbusto 01:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a basic understanding of Greek. Artemisvela 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin, not Greek, surely? Prisca = ancient, old-fashioned; Priscilla then is a diminutive.Scottwh (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time posting anything on Wikipedia, so I am not sure if I am doing this correctly. I noticed a reference missing in the section, Priscilla and Aquila teach an Apostle. It said, "According to the account in "Acts", Priscilla and Aquila explained a 'more accurate' Christian point to Apollos, an apostle[1Cor 4:6,9-13] and important preacher of the period." It would be more accurate to say, "According to the account in Acts 18:26, Priscilla and Aquila privately explained to Apollos a 'more accurate' Christian presentation. Apollos, an important preacher of the period was identified by Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:6, 9-13 as an apostle who had shared the privations of the traveling apostolic life." Ronallenus (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Because I didn't see any comments on my suggested edit, I made the above change. I am a novice user, so please check what I have done and correct and comment. RonAllenUS (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Aquila article is so miniscule and Priscilla and Aquila are always mentioned together, would anyone have and particular disagreement with merging the two articles into a single one which bears both of thier names?

This seems like a reasonable thing to do, especially given the lack of information about Aquila. Paul Haymon 08:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Priscilla is the stronger evangelistic character according to tradition- I have no academic references for this- although a recent Papal audience references this tradition along [1] however being that the two are always mentioned in tandem I feel it would be more accurate to merge the two. Artemisvela 19:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a move to Priscilla and Aquila, as that is how Paul speaks of them. -- Pastordavid 19:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would support such a move as well, given the dearth of info on Aquila. John Carter 00:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed references to Priscilla of Corinth being the same Priscilla of Rome who was married to Quintus Cornelius Pudens. Priscilla of Rome was a member of the Roman Glabrio family (referencing Edmundson, Church of Rome in the First Century), not a Jew, and would not have been expelled by Claudius' edict of AD 49 (referencing Suetonius). It is a legend and tradition that the Pudens family hosted St. Peter around 42 AD for eight or nine years.[2]

I would like to start a new page for Priscilla of Rome. Artemisvela 19:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but see a synonymy between Sicily (sukov <sigma, ipsilon, kappa, omicron, ni> = date, the fruit, in Greek and is the root for sycophant), Scylla (Gk.), prism (Gk.), & Priscilla? Could Priscilla have its roots more entwined with Greek rather than Roman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.161.93 (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per conversations at Talk:Priscilla (Christian), which has been moved here, the articles on Priscilla and Aquila were merged. I undid this cut and paste merge/move, and re-did it with the move tool so that we have a page history. The longer page history of Priscilla (Christian) is preserved in the history of this article, the shorter history of Saint Aquila is preserved at that page (see here). Pastordavid 16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)==ἐκτίθημι...plural...==[reply]

If ἐκτίθημι is plural, wouldnt that mean both Priscilla and Aquila had a private conversation with Apollos regarding what he was teaching? Neither Priscilla nor Aquila "ἐκτίθημι"(expounded..explained...) independantly of each other. The conclusion that "Priscilla taught an apostle" would have to be based on evidence of a discussion...At no point do we know what either of them said, nor do we know who said what. The statement that Priscilla taught an apostle seems highly speculative and selective in interpretation, and leaves out the possibility that only one may have carried the conversation, or that both were essential in ἐκτίθημι. To say that Priscilla taught an apostle, leaving out Aquila would be as abhorant as leaving out Priscilla, which would be an injustice to the passage and the author. "They" increased Apollos knowledge..."They" is how it is written. Not "She" The entire section that has been added by Apollos123 is ultimately focused on Priscilla and the implications of a private conversation between the three of them.

This is a selective interpretation that elevates a partial truth by using selective and speculative interpretations instead of simply using the text. If an Egalitarian or Feminist position on the relevant scripture needs to be indicated, the question is how best to approach it and where does it make sense to place it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwberean (talk • contribs) 07:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This entire section has been copied without attribution from this article. The article itself is not a WP:RS. It contains no citations, and the final paragraph has been plagiarized from this book. I am therefore removing this entire section.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An entire section of Talk page discussion was deleted without explanation by user Apollos123(diff). Apollos123, please do not delete Talk page discussions, especially without explanation. Editing the comments of others on a Talk page is unacceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines; see 'Behavior that is unacceptable', 'Generally, do not alter others' comments, including signatures.', and 'Others' comments', 'Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection.'.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apollos123, you have repeated reverted an edit without explanation and without discussion. You are attempting to insert into a citation to a source which is not a WP:RS. Please understand that you cannot use a non-WP:RS in this way. If you want to make your edit, please find a WP:RS which supports it. This is a matter of Wikipedia policy. It is also courteous to discuss your edit with others, and in this case you have been asked to do so.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could these be called as "traditionally interpreted as such"? Because deeper exegesis of the passages regarding the role of women in the church may show otherwise. For an example, see the analysis made here, about Paul's teaching (Epistles) regarding women: http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html which concludes that: the passage in 1 Corinthians 14 ("women silent in the churches") is a quote of a false solution made BY the corinthians to the problem of church disorder, which he proceeds to rebuke. The one in 1 Timothy ("I don't allow her to exercise authority or teach") has both verbs going TOGETHER like in the rest of the Pastoral epistles (i.e. "I don't allow her to: exercise authority & teach") AND the greek word for "authority" is not the usual one, but one usually interpreted as a harder word, more like "usurping authority" -- which was related to the problems in the ephesian church where Timothy was, which from the rest of the epistle shows had a very "feminist" and anti-biblical teaching that specifically clashed against the church order already established by the apostles. Please check the link, it is a thorough study and it definitely deserves a mention. See also a "defense" of that article, against a more traditional interpretation, here http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ohshutup.html God bless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.9.128.144 (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=769#comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7708:C9B0:2C25:AE61:AE88:6F8A (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what is being objected to here, but the text of the articles seem different. Clarify? Scottwh (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the article to say that only Aquila was traditionally held to be one of the seventy disciples. This is based on the reference already included. This is not intended to be some sort of anti-feminist stance - I simply couldn't find any support for Priscilla being on the list. Glad to see this reverted if someone can find a source for Priscilla's inclusion. Scottwh (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]