From ChatGPT on 6/7/2026.
Among the seven letters that the majority of critical scholars regard as authentically Pauline—Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon—there are several passages that scholars frequently cite as evidence that Paul suffered from some recurring physical ailment or weakness. None of them identify the condition with certainty.
Galatians 4:13–15
This is often considered the strongest evidence.
NRSV:
“You know that it was because of a physical infirmity that I first announced the gospel to you; though my condition put you to the test, you did not scorn or despise me, but welcomed me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. What has become of the goodwill you felt? For I testify that, had it been possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me.”
Many scholars conclude that Paul arrived in Galatia because of an illness and that the reference to giving him their eyes may hint at an eye disorder. Others caution that “giving one’s eyes” may simply have been a figure of speech for extreme devotion.
Galatians 6:11
“See what large letters I make when I am writing in my own hand!”
Some scholars have connected the “large letters” with poor eyesight. Others argue that the phrase refers to the size of the script for emphasis or to the length of the handwritten conclusion. Most scholars today regard the eye-disease theory as possible but unproven.
2 Corinthians 10:10
Paul quotes his critics:
“His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.”
This does not specify an illness, but it suggests that some opponents considered Paul physically unimpressive or weak. Many scholars see this as evidence that Paul’s appearance or health did not project the kind of strength expected of a public leader.
2 Corinthians 12:7–10
Paul speaks of:
“a thorn in the flesh”
and says that he pleaded three times for the Lord to remove it.
This is probably the most discussed passage. Critical scholars have proposed numerous possibilities:
- a chronic physical illness,
- eye disease,
- epilepsy,
- malaria,
- recurring pain,
- psychological suffering,
- persecution from opponents.
Most modern scholars conclude that the text does not provide enough information to identify the thorn. The phrase “in the flesh” could indicate a bodily affliction, but certainty is impossible.
2 Corinthians 12:5–9 and 11:23–30
Throughout these chapters Paul repeatedly emphasizes weaknesses, sufferings, beatings, imprisonments, hunger, sleeplessness, and bodily hardships.
While these passages do not necessarily describe a chronic disease, many scholars note that Paul’s self-portrait is that of a physically battered and vulnerable individual rather than a robust public speaker.
Philippians 2:25–30
This passage concerns Epaphroditus rather than Paul himself, but some scholars note that Paul’s imprisonment and difficult circumstances throughout the letter reinforce the picture of a man living under continual physical stress.
Scholarly Assessment
Most critical scholars agree on only two points:
- Paul experienced some form of physical weakness or infirmity.
- The exact nature of the condition cannot be determined from the surviving letters.
The passages most often cited as direct evidence are:
- Galatians 4:13–15 (physical infirmity),
- Galatians 6:11 (large letters),
- 2 Corinthians 10:10 (weak bodily presence),
- 2 Corinthians 12:7–10 (thorn in the flesh).
Among these, Galatians 4:13–15 and 2 Corinthians 12:7–10 are generally regarded as the strongest textual evidence that Paul was dealing with a significant recurring physical problem. Scholars such as J. Louis Martyn, James D. G. Dunn, John M. G. Barclay, and N. T. Wright all discuss these passages, though they differ on whether the evidence points to a specific medical condition.
The description of Paul as short and possibly walking with a limp does not come from any of Paul’s letters or from the New Testament. It comes from a much later Christian text called the Acts of Paul and Thecla, usually dated to the late second century CE.
The text describes Paul as:
“a man small in size, bald-headed, bow-legged, well-built, with eyebrows meeting, rather long-nosed, and full of grace…”
The Greek term often translated “bow-legged” (gonyklēs) has led some scholars and translators to suggest that Paul may have had an unusual gait or appearance. However, the text does not explicitly say that he limped. The idea that he walked with a limp is an inference drawn from the description of being bow-legged.
A common English translation reads:
“a man of small stature, bald-headed, bow-legged, sturdy, with eyebrows meeting, somewhat long-nosed, full of grace.”
How reliable is this description?
Most critical scholars do not treat this as historically reliable eyewitness testimony.
The Acts of Paul and Thecla was written roughly a century after Paul’s lifetime. According to the church father Tertullian, it was composed by a presbyter in Asia Minor who admitted writing it out of devotion to Paul.
Scholars have proposed several possibilities:
- It may preserve an early tradition about Paul’s appearance.
- It may be a literary portrait modeled on the appearance of philosophers or holy men.
- It may be symbolic rather than historical.
Relation to 2 Corinthians 10:10
Some scholars have connected this later description with Paul’s statement that his opponents said:
“His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak…” (2 Corinthians 10:10, NRSV)
The argument is that an unimpressive physical appearance might explain such criticism. However, 2 Corinthians itself does not describe Paul’s height, build, legs, or manner of walking.
Summary
There is no passage in the Bible that says Paul was short or walked with a limp.
The source for Paul being:
- short/small in stature — the second-century Acts of Paul and Thecla.
- possibly bow-legged — the same source.
- walking with a limp — a later inference by some readers from the description “bow-legged,” not a statement found in the text itself.
For critical historians, this description is interesting evidence for how some second-century Christians imagined Paul, but it is generally not considered secure historical evidence about his actual physical appearance.
