FANDOM


Interesting Fact From Wikipedia

I saw this in Wikipedia:

Roman Cilicia exported the goats-hair cloth, Cilicium, which was used to make tents.


This is interesting when you consider that Paul was a tentmaker and from Cilicia (Tarsus, Cilicia). Whether-or-not we should mention this in the article is up for discussion.

19:50, September 27, 2016 (UTC)

RE- Superdadsuper's Opinion 

Its an interesting fact, I just don't think it really has much relevance to Paul. We don't need to know, nor does it supplement it much to know that Paul used goats in making tents. Regardless of goat skins being shipped we can know that Paul was a tentmaker from Cilicia, where lots of tents came from. As per the heading this is my opinion (which I will start marking more clearly) and doesn't warrant an official Administrator comment.

In Christ,

Superdadsuper, Bible Wiki Administrator & Bureaucrat

This constitutes corroborating evidence for the Biblical fact that Paul, as a Cilician, was an artisan in a province known for the very fabric with which he worked.  Such little things add "local color" to raw facts drawn from the pages of Scripture.  Any good expositor uses these things in explaining the text.  This is a great find, Child!  Way to go!
I'd say it should be added to the article in the paragraph describing the "day job" that he used to support himself. It was no menial job to be a "tentmaker." He was an skilled artisan that was in demand. This adds dignity to his labors, and shows that he knows what he is talking about when he admonishes freeloaders to work (2 Thes 3:10).
Unfortunately, we have no mechanism to add footnotes to references outside of the Bible. This sort of information, if used, would fall outside of the "Biblical Point of View" much like details of the life of Augustus Caesar. I think it is Supe's opinion that if it is not found in the text itself, it should be left out. I don't share that opinion, but it is consistent with the guidelines for BPOV. --SouthWriter (talk) 03:46, September 28, 2016 (UTC)
I believe we ought to allow non-biblical information into this wiki only if it supports the Bible like my find above. I can try working out a way to cite non-biblical information if you two think we should attempt going that route. Perhaps one of you should add guidelines on Biblical Point of View for non-biblical information.14:52, September 28, 2016 (UTC)

Re:Superdadsuper

I don't think there is anything wrong with including this fact, long as it is only mentioned in the sentence or two in which Paul's occupation is mentioned. Overall we do need to include some extrabiblical historical facts more, but as always we must be extremely cautious. This sort of change would be something we have to do over a larger period of time and requires much discussion and planning to "get it right". While this stuff is important, right now we have a lot of content development on purely biblical information that has yet to take place before we worry about adding the historical context. The Bible's history must be given as the priority before anything else.

In Christ,

Superdadsuper, Bible Wiki Administrator & Bureaucrat

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.