Talk:Early Christianity/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Desposyni 2 Str1977 asks "What is a Second Temple sect?" 3 Origen as a heretic 4 RfC 5 Theodosian edict 6 Gospel of Judas 7 Alleged violation of NPOV 8 Britannica quote 9 Reversion 10 Renewed plea to discuss before reverting 11 A new Page 12 dispute over Mani 13 Rising or being raised from the dead 14 reference for adding Third Epistle to the Corinthians 15 Saul's persecution 16 Paul and Stephen 17 Perspectives of Early Christianity 17.1 Source of the Good Shepherd image 17.2 “The Uses of Art in Christian Formation” 18 Perhaps this image would be better 19 term "Christian" 20 ==

Desposyni

I removed this term/link for being controversial, as the term is commonly used in relation to a number of fringe ideas (who fill up the article linked to). Can anyone give ancient sources for the term (and by ancient I mean 1st to 4th century, not Grail theorists)? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, believe it or not, I'm not trying to promote any fringe/grail theories. Perhaps Desposyni is not the correct wikilink or perhaps that article needs to be cleaned up. I'm trying to address the issue of The Brethren of the Lord. Any suggestions as to how to proceed?209.78.18.48 22:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Having just looked over Desposyni, it doesn't look all that fringe/grail to me. It cites Hegesippus of the 2nd century.209.78.18.48 22:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the upper part, with ebionites and stuff. But were exactly does Hegesipp use this term - is it the word term he uses for "relatives of the Lord" ? - if so, is that a specific term or merely a combination of actual greek words.

I myself have never heard the term in English except in the context of fringe theories and at least parts of the article reflect that.

I would suggest creating an article on the Holy Kin (or whatever the correct term in English is), which includes both the Holy Family, Brothers of the Lord, Cousins (e.g. John the Baptist), Saint Anna etc.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion. The Greek desposunos isn't cited in Bauer's Greek Lexicon of NT ... (it is in Liddell and Scott Classical Greek) so it's probably safe to assume it is not used by Hegesippus or any other early writer. Holy Kin might be a good npov version of Brethren of the Lord, I don't object and can't think of anything better. The point is to cover the various relatives of Jesus, primarily as recorded in the NT, and elsewhere that are significant. I agree that the term Desposyni and the article may not be the right link for that issue.209.78.18.48 00:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have looked up the original Greek of the HEgesipp passage and it does indeed use not Deposyni but rather "genous tou kyriou" (transcribed without accents. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that you should rather just edit and clean-up the Desposyni article. I noticed a few statements that were ridiculous and unsupported by the early writers. You could add a discussion to have the authors cite sources on those, and remove them pending verification for one thing :) Wjhonson 18:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 asks "What is a Second Temple sect?"

The Second Temple sects of Judaism make use of the Second Temple, i.e. Herod's Temple. The primary Second Temple sects are Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes. Josephus mentions a fourth sect which he calls Zealots, these are basically Pharisees who want revolution against Roman occupation. The Early Christians, as represented in Acts, also called the Nazarenes, are another Second Temple sect. Even Paul of Tarsus uses the Second Temple (Acts 21:21-26). The destruction of Herod's Temple marks a turning point - after that event there no longer is a Jewish Temple. Only the Pharisees, which evolve into Rabbinical Judaism, and the Nazarenes, which evolve into Nicene Christianity survive.

Origen as a heretic

Why should Origen not be moved to the heresy section? Wjhonson 18:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Because Origen himself was not personally condemned as a heretic. A number of his writings were condemned, centuries after Origen's death, because of how others were using or misusing them. Wesley 06:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC

In an attempt to get this article and the history section of Christianity out of dispute for the first time in months I have listed an RfC for these areas. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 18:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could explain a bit on what this means? Maybe with a link or two to where you've listed it or something? Thanks. Wjhonson 20:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - I missed this post. Since Giovanni33 expanded this article from a stub several months ago it has been in constant factual dispute. There seem to be two main camps of thought. One where a clear Church with accepted authority to deem other Christian sects heretics developed from the earliest days, and the other where several Christian sects developed side by side - each thinking they were the "true" version with one gaining dominance and taking control and then branding the others heretics. This has been the subject of an ongoing edit war between Giovanni and Str1977 as the main players with some others getting involved at various times.

It seems wrong that we seem to have settled on a "Facts disputed" state for this article (or the main section of the article) and I asked for the RfC to get outside views in an attempt to break the deadlock. For my own part I don't feel I know enough to call it either way or even balance the argument. I know Str1977's view is the generally known one (if people know anything at all which most don't) but the current research by Elaine Pagels and others based on the Nag Hammadi texts casts doubt on this simplistic view of an early, clearly defined Church body. So each view needs representing and I have suggested putting the main view first with a section on "Emerging research" or whatever title, to put the newer theories in context but nothing of this sort has happened and the deadlock seems to be continuing. I'm hoping the RfC will bring in others who know more than I do to give some fresh views on all sides.

The link to the RfC is here [1] - it's just a call to other editors that we're looking for fresh input - it in no way is supposed to reflect on the behavior or knowledge of editors currently involved. Sometimes it's just good to get some new thoughts. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 11:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Even before Nag Hammadi there were several things published to the lay audience that served to show that the early church was far more chaotic than had been stated. Read for example some of the work of G.R.S. MeadWjhonson 16:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Theodosian edict

Since Gio couldn't find my arguments on the Talk:Christianity, I will quote myself:

• Gio, "an orthodox" is a contradicton in terms - there can be only one orthodoxy - there can be debates about what this is (but that's not our job here), but there cannot be two orthodox. "An orthodox" is utterly meaningless.
  • GIO:Actually some scholars argue there were more than one "orthodoxy" among early Christianity--in the sense that they all believed they were correct and there was no clear mainline, dominant version yet, hence a heterodoxy, but this is besides the point here. Assuming you want to to idenfity only one, "an orthodox Christianity" is singular. Using "an" is just like "a" used in in front an a word that starts with a vowel--so it's singular unlike "some." Giovanni33 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That definition of "orthodox" is what I meant by making it "meaningless" - of course, they though themselves right, everyone does. To state that Theodosius made a version of Christianity that considered itself right the state religion is meaningless, as a) there is no different version not thinking that, b) why would he make establish a religion that considers itself wrong (assuming such a thing could exist).
• I restricted the Theodosius sentence back to what his edict actually did - the repercussions from this are covered further down, including a quote. Also, your wording implies (through the modern understanding of the word "religion") an inquisition which searched the minds of citizens.
• Yes, I removed the "only legal religion" bit as possibly misleading. It has been controversial for quite a while and you can blame Gio as much for putting it in as me for removing it again. Now to the content dispute: religion is a term with more than one definition and given our understanding of the term the above wording suggests a searching through the Empire and persecuting anythign not Christian (orthodox) and not Jewish. It evokes pictures of the Inquisition that are hardly in place here. Theodoisus edict made Christianity (orthodox) the state religion (instead of Roman Paganism and Sol Invictus and instead of Arianism which under Cosntantius and Valens had already effectively been the state religion and had employed much more vicious measures than their Nicene counterparts), it closed down all pagan cults and forbade private sacrifices. That meant the end for the practicing of paganism. It did not restrict or suppress more intelletual endeavours, like philosopical schools, or pagan ideas etc. Judaism retained its status as before (don't know whether Judaism was mentioned at all in the edict), Manichaeism was already persecuted since Diocletian and that didn't change. It is however misleading, as the passage seemed to suggest that, Theodosius' edict turned the Empire from a colourful side by side of all different religions to a sudden monopoly (with a Jewish exception). It wasn't like that and because of the connotations I prefer it to limit the passage on what the actual edict said and did.

(editor who calls himself) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Saying that it was made the only legal reglion is accurate, and it was a departure from the norm. I disagree it invokes the Inquisition, although the Inquistion was sure to follow along the same model of intolerance, just in a more vigorous and enforced manner replete with bookburning and people burning. Simply saying it was the "state relgion" makes it seem that it (orthodox Christianity) merely replaced the Roman pagan cult as the official religion, which it did--but it did more than that. While the Roman State and certainly did supress any groups critical of the imperial court, or seen as a threat the the harmony of the empire, as early Christians were, there is a fundamental difference between the basic toleration of different public religious beliefs that did exist (unless you refused to show respect to the empire), and the complete intolerance of any other religious beliefs by the Christians once they assumed state power, on purely religious grounds, instead of just polical concerns. This is the meaning and import, one aspect of which was the fact that other religions were made illegal. For orthodox Christians, in conjuction with State Power, believed there could be only one religion available to the public and they enforced this. The others had to be stamped out by whatever means necessary. This is what was different and notable. The account here, in this link basically accurate that illustrates this point: [2]

To quote it thesis: "This was a major change for the new religion and an important return to the Greco-Roman traditions embracing religious diversity. It was probably thought that by extending religious liberty to Christians, the empire would settle into the public order under the ancient laws as it always had in regards to philosophy and religion. It had worked for a thousand years. Why shouldn't it work now? And persecutions had not worked. But Galerius didnt seem to think it through enough to consider that the persecuted could become the persecutors. He knew not that unlike pagan religions which celebrated side by side from antiquity, this new religion had no such virtue of tolerance to extend. Indeed, Galerius was a pagan who evidently failed to fathom the extent of the intolerance of Christians who would use their power to attack Roman tradition. It was unheard of! In the next two centuries, it would be clear that the doctrine was there was no path to God but through Jesus Christ, so the counterfeits, who were really demons, not gods, had to be wiped out. But before this, another edict of tolerance was issued only two years later. "

Giovanni33 08:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The thesis, at least what you quoted, reads like an apology for Galerius' persecution. And no, it wasn't "unheard of" - the Roman Empire insisted on paganism (including the Emperor cult) and only made an exception for the Jews. In a way, the Christian Empire was more tolerant than the Pagan one (I know, in another way it wasn't), as the Christian Emperor never demanded that every inhabitant of the Empire should worship Jesus Christ - as the Pagan Emperors since Decius did. Anyway, the point is that Theodosius made Christianity state religion by his edict, which according to the Roman laws had consequences. He crushed pagan cults, that's true also. But he didn't institute prohibitions against Manichaeism (already in place). There was no inquisiting into the hearts and minds of the populace, as the medieval and early modern inquisition did on various occasions. We should report what the edict did accurately. (editor who calls himself) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you "insist on paganism" ? Setting aside for a moment the perjorative and revisionist term "pagan", how can you insist that people sacrifice to whatever god they choose, as long as they respect the Roman emperor as well ? That makes no sense. I insist that you be open-minded! I insist you be tolerant! I insist you not be a bigot! Wjhonson 16:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Review your history Str1977. To even suggest that the Christian Empire was more tolerant than the Pagan one is to show profound ignorance of the actual history. Infact, there is no comparison between the two, really. Those who did not believe were often imprisoned, tortured, and put to death. The ancient temples were defiled, sacked, and destroyed, or just stolen, robbed and taken over into Christian sites. Christianization started Constantine was a very violent process under Theodosius and his followers, who enforced and expanded on it. Oh, also the Orthodox Christian Gratian did published an edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (i.e., the Nicene faith).

The basic fact is that unlike the pluarity of the Pagan religions that tolerated diversity of religious beliefs side by side, Christianity did not. The Christians insisted on the concept of there being only one "right" belief, orthodoxy, that that was what mattered to God. So they literally demonized the other religions, as the devil, evil, etc. Along with the attempt to wipe them out there was a lot of stealing going on, where Christian mobs were encouraged to rob and take over after the Christian emperors closed down the pagan buildings. They even went after the public practice of the Greek religion and make it illegal, stigmatizing it as "paganism", as they ushered Europe into the Dark Ages. So even the followers of Greek Hellenistic gods were wildly persecuted and slain by Christians; those caught worshipping to their gods were imprisoned, tortured, and then killed in gastly ways such as public dismemberment, but were more often fist cut down by the early Christian fanatics. Hypatia is a famous example. This can not be compared with the persecution that Chritians endured which was localized and partial, and had to do with Christians being defiant to the political order, of not respecting the institutions and norms. It's important to note that, contrary to popular Christian belief, sacrifices to the Greek gods were typically in the forms of wealth (particularly currency, precious metals, crafted ornaments, and gemstones), incense, and food or drink. Some of the most famous sacrifices were in the form of statues, busts, and other works of art, some of which remain in good condition today. Human blood sacrifices were exceedingly rare and, in most Greek cities they were illegal. When there was blood sacrifice this was for food animals that were eaten by the people. Giovanni33 10:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Gio, if you read my post carefully you will notice a "in a way" and a "in another way" to make the perspective clear.

Unfortunately I see that it is you, in your last post, that is belittling, whitewashing or even justifying persecution of Christians. Disrespect of the Emperor? The Christians indeed respected the Emperor and existing institutions, more than many pagans - they would however not sacrifice to him as a God. You may not believe in freedom of religion and justify the Imperial demands (universal since Decius, hardly "localized and partial") but then you cannot turn around and complain about persecution by the now Christian Empire - ||GIOmode on|| after all, if the Emperor decides to ban pagan temples who are these pagans to object - they should respect norms and institutions ||GIOmode off||. In fact, this is what most pagans did, which is one factor in the demise of paganism - pagan religions cannot survive without being upheld by a state-like community.

And no, your characterisation of the Christian Roman Empire is inaccurate - "those that did not believe" were not sought out and killed or forced to convert - at least not commonly, I cannot vouch for whether some mob did this, but it wasn't common. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Gospel of Judas

New information here. It might be too soon to argue the effects of this discovery for early Christianity (esp. early Gnosticism), but maybe we can mention it in a sentence or two. Wouldn't it be hilarious to put a header at the top of this of all articles saying, "This article concerns a current event"??!! KHM03 (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Alleged violation of NPOV

Wjhonson has reverted on the grounds that the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) rule is violated in the 20:08, 6 June 2006 version. Let us discuss the matter one point at a time. I suggest we start with what I think is the easiest part: the final paragraphs of the main part of Wjhonson’s version of the article. Quoting authors with a different point of view from that of those selected there for quotation would ensure better balance and thus neutrality. But those paragraphs concern the situation after 325, the date indicated at the start of the article as that of the end of the period of Early Christianity. There is therefore no point in discussing their claims to be neutral in their point of view. They are out of place in an article on Early Christianity, and should be excised. Does Wjhonson agree? Lima 13:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been no objection from Wjhonson or anyone else, so I have removed the post-325 matter from Wjhonson's version of the article.

Now for another one of the many POV parts of Wjhonson's version. Take the word "sect" at the very start of the History section. In present-day English usage, "sect" is a pejorative term, and so is a POV word. Of the six quotations from Acts given as sources, the first three (Peter and John praying in the Temple; Peter and the apostles before the Jewish authorities, Paul consulting the Christian leaders in Jerusalem) show no more than that the first Christians were Jews, not that they were a "sect". Of the other three quotations, Acts 24:5 and 28:22 show that non-Christian Jews called the Christians a "sect", while Acts 24:14 shows Paul not accepting that the term was applicable to the Christians - in other words, he seems to have considered the term, even in the original language and in the context of that time, to be a POV term! The simplest solution would be to omit altogether the term "sect" (which is certainly POV in 21st-century English) and say only that the first Christians were Jews. If for some strange-to-me reason the Wikipedia community thinks that the term "sect" should be kept, there should be an accompanying comment that the underlying word in the original text, αἵρεσις, did not have the same pejorative sense that the word "sect" now has in English, and that it was in fact applied also to other parties or groups within the Jewish people, such as the Sadducees (Acts 5:17) and the Pharisees (Acts 15:5, 26:5), apparently without any pejorative overtones. Will Wjhonson now attempt to explain why he thinks that, in this context, the word "sect" (unaccompanied by any such comment) is NPOV and either necessary or useful? Lima 09:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless Wjohnson himself or someone else defends Wjhonson's version of the article, it will be best simply to return to a version free from Wjhonson's point-of-view expressions, free also from such utter nonsense as: "As an eschatological movement, it anticipated Gentile interest in the God of Abraham, as for example prophesied in Isaiah 56:6-8." Gentiles already had an interest in the God of Abraham, as indicated by the mentions in the Acts of the Apostles of Gentiles attending synagogues, so how could Christianity anticipate that interest, as if it only arose afterwards? And why should being an allegedly eschatological movement arouse/anticipate anyone's interest in the God of such an obviously not-end-of-the-world figure as Abraham? Lima 04:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Wjhonson, but I think it would be better to stop ragging on him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for giving the impression I was ragging on him. My only intention was to see if anyone, not just he, would defend as NPOV what seems to me to be a highly POV version of the article. I mentioned his name only because it was he who declared that the other version was POV without bringing forward any argument in favour of that judgement. Again, I am sorry for seeming to have it in for a person rather than just wishing to clarify a position. Lima 15:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Early Christians were more than just Jews. Acts 24:5 and Acts 28:22 use the term sect. So does Acts 24:14 where it is not clear Paul objects to the term. Also Acts 26:5. The Early Christians were a part of late second temple Judaism, evidenced by their continued use of the temple and their admitance to synagogues. Thus they are commonly refered to as a late second temple Jewish sect. If you object to sect as "politically incorrect", then you have to develop a new way to express the same facts. Just calling them Jewish doesn't do it, they were more than just Jewish. Maybe something like: "religious Jews of the late second temple period". Or your suggestion: "αἵρεσις, did not have the same pejorative sense that the word "sect" now has in English, and that it was in fact applied also to other parties or groups within the Jewish people, such as the Sadducees (Acts 5:17) and the Pharisees (Acts 15:5, 26:5), apparently without any pejorative overtones." As for: "an eschatological movement, it anticipated Gentile interest in the God of Abraham", I believe that is more or less a quote from E. P. Sanders. Jesus, the Apostles, James the Just, and Paul were all Jews and the early Christians were all Jews according to Acts, they only just began to attract Gentiles to Christianity, even though there had been Gentiles in the synagogues for some time, see also Proselyte. In fact, Jesus initially excluded non-Jews, Matt 10:5,15:24, it is the Great Commission after his death and resurrection that includes all nations. As early Christianity was eschatological, meaning they anticipated a soon Second Coming of Jesus to fulfill the rest of Messianic prophecy, that means they also anticipated that prophecy of the Prophets would soon come true; Isaiah of course is one of those prophets, and Isaiah 56:6-8 is one of his prophecies, which see for details. Put another way, eschatological means anticipation of a soon Kingdom of God which means anticipation of a soon fulfillment of Messianic prophecy which includes the Gentiles expressing an interest in the God of Abraham also known as the God of the Jews or the God of Israel. 64.169.4.210 19:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So at least one member of the Wikipedia community, whom I thank for discussing the matter, does think it useful to keep the word "sect" in the description of the first Christians, destined soon to be a small minority among Early Christians. He can easily be accommodated.

"More or less a quotation from E. P. Sanders" does not justify a statement that is apparently illogical, though, of course, if E. P. Sanders had made the illogical statement, it could be put in the article as: "E. P. Sanders has said: '...'" The statement is that Christianity anticipated Gentile interest in the God of Abraham. That would normally be taken to mean that Christianity came before the interest. But, if I understand rightly the anonymous contributor at ISP 64.169.4.210, he interprets it to mean that the Jewish Christians (not Christianity) anticipated that there would be Gentile interest. This statement does make sense. However, I doubt that it is true. Acts 11:19-22 seems to indicate instead that the Jewish Christians, who had been speaking of Jesus as the Messiah only to Jews (11:19), were surprised at the result of the initiative taken by some few from Cyprus and Cyrene who took it on themselves to speak also to Gentiles of their belief (11:20). They had to send an envoy to enquire into the novelty (11:22).

I have not proposed eliminating the reference to Is 56:6-8 or to the fact that Christians saw this and other prophecies as fulfilled in the conversion of Gentiles to Christianity.

How does 64.169.4.210 justify his putting back into the article the post-325 material that by definition is outside the article's scope?

And now, would the anonymous contributor or someone else say what is thought to be POV in the version that, unlike the Wjhonson/64.169.4.210 version, tries to present more understandings than just one. Lima 06:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted because you made large deletions. Your replacemnts were simplistic and one-sided in my opinion. A better method would be to *add* your disputed sections, not delete other sections to do it. Then we can discuss making the article smaller by consolidating, but not at the expense of minority viewpoints, and not at the expense of non-cited *opinions* that you "view" are the majority viewpoint. Wjhonson 22:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wjohnson reverted because, he says, my replacements were, in his opinion, simplistic and one-sided. Scarcely a sufficient reason. Why does he not at least try to answer the objections raised against his version? Why not start by at least answering the question: What is post-325 material doing in an article about pre-325 Christians?

Why does he now qualify the statement that the Bauer hypothesis is opposed to the majority view as "non-cited"? That "*opinion*" is that of Bauer himself, at least as the Wjhonson/64.169 version (and consequently also the Npov version, which preserves untouched the Wjhonson/64.169 text) cites him: "Bauer reassessed as a historian the overwhelmingly dominant view that for the period of Christian origins, ecclesiastical doctrine already represented what is primary, while heresies, on the other hand somehow are a deviation from the genuine (Bauer, Introduction)." On what authority does Wjohnson deny what Bauer himself admitted? The Npov version faithfully reports the Bauer view, but does not limit itself to quoting, like the Wjhonson/64.169 (pov-pushing) version, only secondary sources; it also quotes primary sources such as the New Testament and Ignatius of Antioch, which the Wjhonson/64.169 version censors out of existence. Does Wjhonson honestly believe that the Bauer hypothesis is the only opinion worth mentioning, as in his version?

If Wjohnson thinks pertinent (i.e., inter alia, not post-325) sections have been omitted, why not add them to the Npov version, instead of insisting on a version that does omit the highly pertinent information that there are more views than one?

As for 64.169, unless this is an alias for Wjhonson, why does he still refuse to "Discuss first, revert after"? Lima 13:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Reach consensus on talk BEFORE major rewrites. 64.169.0.5 21:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

An idea: Maybe a section should be added for the Roman Catholic interpretation of Early Christianity, which appears to be what Lima is pushing. Namely that Roman Catholicism today is identical to Early Christianity? 64.169.0.5 22:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The article in the Catholic Encyclopedia might be a starting point: The Church: "In the course of the nineteenth century many theories were propounded to account for the transformation of the so-called "Apostolic Christianity" into the Christianity of the commencement of the third century, when beyond all dispute the Catholic system was firmly established from one end of the Roman Empire to the other. At the present day (1908) the theories advocated by the critics are of a less extravagant nature than those of F.C. Baur (1853) and the Tübingen School, which had so great a vogue in the middle of the nineteenth century. Greater regard is shown for the claims of historical possibility and for the value of early Christian evidences. At the same time it is to be observed that the reconstruction's suggested involve the rejection of the Pastoral Epistles as being documents of the second century. It will be sufficient here to notice one or two salient points in the views which now find favour with the best known among non-Catholic writers." 64.169.0.5 22:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, a lot has been published on Early or Apostolic Christianity since 1908, I merely suggest the Catholic Encyclopedia quote as a starting point to understanding Lima's POV. 64.169.0.5 22:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How reach consensus, if 64.169/Jhonson refuses to discuss concrete questions? So, 64.169/Jhonson, please explain why you put post-325 matter in the article, and the grounds for your claim that, in spite of what Bauer himself says, his hypothesis must be presented as established fact. And say what, according to you, is omitted in the non-one-sided version of the article, so that on that version also we have something concrete to discuss, as well as the concrete matters long raised, but not yet discussed, about the 64.169/Jhonson version. Please discuss. Lima 04:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Reach consensus on talk BEFORE major rewrites. 64.169.3.66 07:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Discuss, so as to reach consensus. Lima 12:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, 64.169. I will now remove the POV tag from the article. I will also correct a mistake that seems to be mine: Acts 21:18-26 has nothing to do with the description of the earliest Jewish Christians as a sect, and Acts 24:5 (which I must have cancelled by oversight instead of 21:18-26) most certainly is of relevance. Your additions to "See also" are also very good. Thanks. Lima 04:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to the drop of Acts 21:18-26, it does not mention "sect", however it clearly shows the Early Christians, Paul included, acting as Second Temple Jews. 64.169.0.226 07:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Lima I don't know if you're new or just unaware of how reversion works. I did not "put in" the post-325 material. I have no idea what that material you're speakin about even is. I reverted the entire article to a prior version because you removed large sections of the article, and replaced some sections with simple statements that did not, in my view, represent what we know about early christianity. They represent historical-revisionist's opinions. This article is not about the *orthodox* view of what occurred. Cleaning it up in that fashion isn't acceptable, in my opinion. Wjhonson 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

When I said Wjhonson had put in the post-325 material, I meant, and mean, that he chose to revert to a version that contained that material rather than to a more recent version that had omitted it. Lima 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your editing was too major, which is why I reverted it. And it was religio-centric, which is pov. You're speaking from your religious center instead of your "historically correct" center. The Marcions, the "Marians", the monks in the Egyptian desert, the Montanists, all stated, themselves, that they were Christians. Any other viewpoint is revisionistic. The Pope today, and even the Pope in the 5th century, does not and do not, decide who, in the 2nd century was a Christian. Those people deserve the respect of admitting their belief system. The simple issue that one sect won out over the others, does not mean we suppress any knowledge that those others existed. Wjhonson 05:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

On another note, it's quite intellectually dishonest to quote Ignatius and then turn around and ignore Thomas, or the Gospel of Mary or any other work which isn't on your approved list. The early Christians didn't have approved lists and would have read all sorts of things as is evident by all sorts of works turning up all over the mid-East and the ancient Roman-empire area. Any person who can read these, and turn around and claim that the early Christians had some sort of consolidated belief-system is simply ignoring the evidence. Wjhonson 05:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Then quote primary sources yourself. Lima 05:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Britannica quote

Someone included a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Valentinus. I removed a part of that quote, the bit saying "e.g. Marcion". I don't doubt that the EB says that but it is quite wrong on this fact, since Marcion did not "break with the Church from the very beginning" either, but rather was an important and wealthy member first in Asia and later in Rome before he was excommunicated. I understand that interference with quotes is a delicate matter and I took care to replace the removed bit with dots, indicating that something is left out. However, we should mirror the errors even of respectable publications like the EB. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I presume you mean "should not mirror the errors"? AnnH ♫ 02:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I did. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The sense in which the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica described Marcion as breaking with the Church from the very beginning is explained n its article on Marcion, which says:

What we know for certain is that after the death of Hyginus, bishop of Rome (or c. 139 A.D.), he arrived, in the course of his travels, at Rome, and made a handsome donation of money to the local church. Even then, however, the leading features of his peculiar system must have been already thought out. At Rome he tried to gain acceptance for them in the college of presbyters and in the church. Indeed he had previously made similar attempts in Asia Minor. But he now encountered such determined opposition from the majority of the congregation that he found it necessary to withdraw from the great church and establish in Rome a community of his own. This was about the year 144.

In other words, though Marcion set up his separate group only about 144, this text says he had long before broken intellectually with the Church and found his ideas rejected by the Church both in Asia Minor and, more robustly, in Rome.

The interpretation of the evidence by the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica differs from Str1977's interpretation. Can it be proved to be an error, as Str1977 claims? Is Str1977 justified in censoring the other opinion out of existence?

Lima 12:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Lima, for approaching that issue with sensibility and the assumption of good faith.

Now, irony aside, where is this "censoring the other opinion" - there is not even an opinion involved - it's just a misplaced example.

The article doesn't speak about "intellectual breaking with the Church" (of which you could accuse Valentinian of), but about an open break and starting his own sect.

So, should we really include a misplaced example just because the EB says so?

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for using a word, "censoring", that Str1977 seems to find offensive. Even now I have difficulty in thinking of a more suitable word. The best I can think of is "excluding from the article", a more cumbrous expression.

I am sorry, I do not understand why the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica's mention of Marcion - he too is dealt with in this paragraph of the Wikipedia article - is a "misplaced example". A misplaced example of what? I think the Wikipedia article does speak about intellectual breaking with or dissent from the Church, especially in connection with Gnosticism. So I see no reason why the fact that the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica "accused" Marcion of an early "intellectual breaking with the Church" should be excluded from the article. It was out of consideration for Str1977 that I called the statement in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica an "opinion", a word that to me seems to play down the authority of the work.

Lima 14:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically, Str1977 is correct, however, I'd like to see the issue addressed in a manner other than censoring a part of the EB quote. EB is clearly contrasting Valentinus with Marcion, redacting the mention of Marcion is thus a significant alteration of the quote. Better to leave the quote intact and mention something like: that although Marcion did break with the church early upon his entrance into Rome, he did begin his career inside the church and according to the Catholic Encyclopedia was probably a fully consecrated bishop himself. Remember, we are supposed to be reporting on Wikipedia: Reliable Sources, not providing Original Research critic of them. Encyclopedia Britannica is certainly one of the reliable sources. 209.78.18.160 18:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Though I cannot say that Str1977 is technically correct, since I do not understand him as well as I would like to before making such a statement, I agree fully with the practical conclusion of anonymous 209.78.18.160. Lima 19:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, the way I'd like to see this addressed, is to quote the full quote, and then add the counter-argument as well showing how it's false. Otherwise, you give the impression that you are censoring what you don't like without comment. I have absolutely no problem in seeing three or ten page wiki articles, as long as they're interesting. I think anyone who takes the time to drill-down to find details about Marcion is obviously interested. So I say, give them more not less. Wjhonson 20:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Another way of doing it would be to leave out the disputed statement, and to open the quotation marks immediately after. I personally think the word "censor" is used too liberally. If something is inaccurate or misleading, it should be possible to take it out. Encylopaedia Britannica is certainly a respectable source, but not an infallible one. The current EB article on Robert Southwell, for example, gives his execution date as 4 March 1595. In fact, as the 1911 article and the Wikipedia article (and numerous other sources) say, he was executed on 21 February. So I think we shouldn't hesitate to remove claims that are disputed, even when they come from a respected source. AnnH ♫ 02:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hallo guys and gal,

Lima, apology accepted. And thanks for treating the vastly superior version in a vastly superior manner, putting it where it belongs.

209, I'd like to deal with it without "censoring" either. I know that this is dangerous territory. Because of this I wrote above: "I understand that interference with quotes is a delicate matter and I took care to replace the removed bit with dots, indicating that something is left out."

Lima, the misplaced example is the mentioning of Marcion in the quote that is included in the article (and not anything in the 1911 quote you provided). It uses Marcion as an example of someone who broke with the Church from the beginning - as opposed to what Valentinian did. Fact of the matter is that both broke with the church after they got rejected in some way: M. was excommunicated, while Valentian did not get elected as bishop.

I must disagree with 209 when he says that leaving out the example would alter the entire quote. As I said, there surely are fitting examples for someone acting differently from Valentinian - only Marcion does not fit. Also juxtaposing the entire quote with a correction of the error look silly in my book and of courses will attract wisecracks asking for a reference (and that for info not actually relevant to the issue at hand, which is Valentinian).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Valentinus and Marcion were the two great theologians of the second century in Rome, thus they are both highly relevant. Marcion broke with the Roman church early upon his arrival in Rome, Valentinus apparently never did but worked from within, see Hypostasis (religion). Yes, both were later declared heretical by the Church of Rome, but so was Luther. 06:47, 1 July 2006 User:64.169.3.115

And how does that concern the article? Apart from the fact that you are wrong: Marcion was a young man with a big ego and big money, Valentinian one without a grasp of Christianity. If you are looking for a great theologian, try Justin the Martyr (died in Rome around 150). What does the "later" mean in later declared - Luther was declared heretical, frankly, because he was heretical. Not as bad as many others, Marcion, Valentinian or today's modernists but still. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll try rewording it, with Marcion left out, and quotation marks just before the bit that comes after, as suggested above. AnnH ♫ 11:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My attempt can be seen here. You'll see I changed "Encyclopaedia Britannica notes" to "Encyclopaedia Britannica suggests". That's not a sneaky attempt to discredit the authority of the statement (I don't actually have any opinion on it), but because part of the text I removed was "on the whole it seems to be clear", which itself places the statement about Valentinus in lower modality. AnnH ♫ 11:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

I was being bold and make a major change before Lima's various edits. I think that mention of the events of 325 are important for context. We can touch on them as part of early Christianity, as long as the focus is on the development and leading up to that point in time. Also, we should avoid using the Bible as a reference. Its not a suitable reference source for historical questions. Its a religious text which is not that reliable as a historical source. This was the main reason I reverted to the version before these changes. I apologize if this also undid some good edits not related but it was easier to revert back to a much better version and then work to restore the valid parts.Professor33 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Professor will need more than his assumed personal authority to win a consensus for his radical alteration of the text of the article, for his classification as early Christians of those whom the definition at the start of the article excludes, and for his rejection, as of no historical value whatever, of first-century texts such as the Acts of the Apostles and letters that Paul of Tarsus wrote in the 50s of that century, when Jesus himself and the main characters among the earliest Christians were either still alive or had been personally known by thousands who were. Lima 18:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[3] Reverting what appears to be two weeks of edits requires more explanation. In particular, the older version has a lot of jargon, little structure, and less history. There ought to be more to early christianity than a thesis on orthopraxy. The "new" version largely references Acts, as did the "old" version. The main addition of bible refs involves one assertion about orthodoxy referenced to 5 different bible texts. The flow could perhaps be better, but it makes the point that orthodoxy was an aspect of at least those communities where these texts were used, and that when the canon formed, Christianity accepted multiple texts mentioning orthodoxy. Gimmetrow 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I have now simply reinserted the relevant material regarding the origins of Christian ideas (more to come later), into the body of your version while making some adjustments to remove theological points and fixed flow of language. As to the proper use of the bible, there is a scope of applicablility as a a historical source but as a source it is foremost a religious text whose historical reliablity is highly questionable to say that least. If we must, we can review the arguments surrounding this question but my view is representative of the general consensus on the question. Professor33 21:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the changes you made, Prof. I didn't know that these sections were removed, which I originally wrote. It would be good if we could expand with more references of scholars who focus on the history of early Christainity, instead of going by the bible. We should avoid using the Bible as scholarly source becaues it isn't, along with other story books that are mention miracles and other things that simply don't and can't happen. :)Giovanni33 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Professor, please try to gain consensus on the talk page before making massive changes and reverts. I think people on this page should be made aware that this is yet another example of a new user confidently reverting to the version of a known sockpuppeteer. See here for details. Also, Professor has put in Giovanni's favourite word (in the context of Christianity) — "stories". AnnH ♫ 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The "massive changes" were actually not that massive but a restorationg of the long standing material AFTER massive changes a week ago removing valid material which I had included long ago. The article is now restored to a more balanced and fuller picture as it should be. AnnH, your constant attempt to poison the well anytime you find an edit dispute is getting very old. And, btw, "stories" its not my favorite word, its the word used by New Testimant Scholars. But where did the professor use that word, "stories?" I don't see it. Is this a case of you only seeing what you want to see? Giovanni33 02:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly a POV, but a peculiar one, given the effort apparent scholars spend on issues of authenticity, authorship and textual recension. Seems to me wasted effort if they can't use the results. Gimmetrow 03:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Renewed plea to discuss before reverting

"Restoring valid material," is what Giovanni calls putting in one-sided observations about a time outside the "early Christian" period, claiming, without evidence, that the Edict of Milan ("a proclamation that permanently established religious toleration for Christianity within the Roman Empire. It was the outcome of a political agreement concluded in Milan between the Roman emperors Constantine I and Licinius in February 313. The proclamation, made for the East by Licinius in June 313, granted all persons freedom to worship whatever deity they pleased, assured Christians of legal rights (including the right to organize churches), and directed the prompt return to Christians of confiscated property. Previous edicts of toleration had been as short-lived as the regimes that sanctioned them, but this time the edict effectively established religious toleration" - 1998 Encyclopaedia Britannica) "gave the Church a privileged position" etc. etc. In early June, I left the unbalanced text in the article for as long as there was hope that someone would try seriously to defend it; only afterwards did I return it to a more neutral and truthful text. This time, the latter text has been in possession for a couple of weeks, and should not be banished without previous discussion. Shall we start with the question of the post-325 material? Lima 07:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your text is not being bannished. Im just removing some excess biblical references as that is not an appropriate source as a historical reference. What I am doing is restoring a lot of material that you've removed without any explanation. I see no dicussion above. Now that I know of it, and Im the one who added this a long time ago, I'm restoring it until such mass changes are first discussed. Why remove the Greek influence? Why removed the various possible influences of pagan religions? Christianity did not come out of nothing it developed from pre-Christian ideas. These need to be mentioned. This is not outside "early Christianity." And, as others have said the period leading up to 325CE is important as are events at that date and immeadiately afterwards. I am unclear what your objection to the Edit of Milan is above. The granting of the Church a privleaged possition by Constantine is accurate and immideately followed the legalizing of Chrstianity by the Edict of Milan. Here is a quote from Encarta Encylopedia:

Christianity developed slowly as a distinctive movement. As a Jewish splinter group, it existed uneasily within the Roman Empire. When its independence from Judaism was established, its claim to be the only means of salvation brought it into sporadic conflict with imperial authority. For several centuries, as the Christian movement grew throughout the empire, regional churches were periodically persecuted, and individual Christians suffered martyrdom. Finally, about 313, with the Edict of Milan, Christians gained full rights of religion under the empire. During the reign of Constantine the Great, a decade later, the church gained privileged status. Accordingly, in its first three centuries, the Christian movement was preoccupied with retaining religious identity and securing social integrity. Thereafter, the church, which had suffered at the hands of the state, was united with it. At this point the relationship between church and state developed differently in the chief branches of the empire." http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573998/Church_and_State.htmlGiovanni33 15:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Gio,

first of all, you should address the points raised by Lima.

secondly, your repeated introduction of your POV pushing term "stories" is enough to revert your edit on the spot. (This also shows that any reasoning Lima could provide would be futile with you)

thirdly, "biblical references" not being "an appropriate source as a historical reference" may be your POV but it's not scholarship at all. The Bible is a historical source just like any other ancient document. Flawed? Maybe! Biased? Probably (but what isn't)! In need of analysis and interpretation? Certainly! But nonetheless historical!

And take the hinnt, Shio. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Points of Lima addressed above. Im waiting for him to respond and clarify. I see no attempt made to justify the suppression of sourced material that was the long standing version. Discuss before reverting. As to "stories,' where is that? I don't see it! As for using the Bible, I won't repeat myself except to say that most historian agree with me about its being unreliable, mostly fictional stories which no rational person should take seriously. Although its usefl in that there may be mixed in some historial information, overall its its very unreliable and should never be used as a historical reference when there are other sources that can be referenced.Giovanni33 15:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your version is both stylistically substandard ("cemented Christianity") and factually wrong:

• "It was not until the Council of Nicaea in 325 (convened during the reign of the Emperor Constantine; 272–337) and the 3rd Synod of Carthage in 397, which progressively cemented Christianity as the officially sanctioned religion of the Roman Empire"

neither of these synods had anything to do with "cementing" Christianity as state religion.

• ", that a structurally coherent and crystallized form of Christian orthodoxy began to emerge."

this is a complete misprepresentation of the facts, given that there was orthodoxy and doctrinal disputes at least as early as the 2nd century.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC) (posted in edit conflict)

Str1977, please back up your assertions with by referencing reputable sources. I have given sources which support these statments. If you say they are not true, sorry but I do not take your word alone. Provide evidence that they are not accurate and that what you say is the truth, then make THOSE changes--not revert everything.Giovanni33 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Gio, you obviously don't know much about historiography our you couldn't talk such trash. If historians followed your principles, Ancient history could abdicate.

The historian's view is the opposite of yours: historical books of the bible are historical accounts with supernatural and maybe fiction mixed in.

As for rational. you obviously don't understand the meaning of the word. Or you do and think everyone else stupid. Or both.

As for introducing "stories": Do you actually read what you post? It is right there in the first line differing from the previous version.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) (posted in edit conflict)

Gio, you have provided nothing supporting your position in this dispute. The Encarta bit definitely doesn't. And BTW, it again shows what a **** encyclopedia Encarta is (is WP the Linux of Digital Encyclopedias), blaming the persecutions on the Christians by issues that were non-issues during that day. Christians were persectuted because they refused to worship the Emperor as God. But I know, Gio, that you have a tendency to be drawn to people thinking themselves God-like, whether in China or in California. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Gio said: "Im waiting for him to respond and clarify." Hardly so. You are not waiting for him to clarify, you are instead reverting to your preferred "vastly superior" version. 4 times. Enough is enough. I have reported you this time. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets focus on the arguments contents instead of editors, shall we? You disagree with Encarta. Fine. However your not an aurhority, Str1977. If you think Giovanni and his references he uses to support his claims are false, then please do what he asks: provide your own references to support your claims. I have no doubt you sincerely believe you are correct but luckily we do not base our arguments, for puposes of editing here, on what we believe. Rather it is properly based on what we can show with proper refereces. I am waiting for you to provide them. I note that removing sourced referenced materia is considered vandalism and as such is not limited by the 3RR rule.Professor33 16:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As an administrator, Professor33, I can inform you that the reverts that you and Giovanni (if indeed you are two separate people) are carrying out most certainly do count towards the 3RR rule. The definition of vandalism is extremely strict. Unless you could justify reporting the edits that you revert at WP:AIV, you are very much at risk of being blocked if you continue. Believe me, I am very experienced with this policy, so don't claim afterwards that you didn't know it counted. It does count. AnnH ♫ 16:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I am glad you have, even if covertly, accepted that the Edict of Milan did not give the Church a privileged status. Curious, however, that while you now say this status was gained "within a decade" of the Edict, you still want to say some of the gains were reverted in 320, only seven years after the Edict! But let us leave that aside for now. What about my proposal for the first topic of discussion: Why should space be devoted to Julian the Apostate and Theodosius I and events of 343 in an article that is supposed to deal only with matters up to 325? Lima 20:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I will be away for several days. I have had patience waiting for others to respond. Please have patience waiting for a response from me. Lima 06:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A new Page

I think we need a new page linked to this one. Starting say around 250 to 350, that would focus more on things revolving principally around Constantine, etc. But what do we call it? Wjhonson 07:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Constantine I and Christianity?

dispute over Mani

Mani (prophet) 210-276 was certainly a significant Early Christian. He considered himself Christian, in particular the Paraclete of the Gospel of John, just as Montanus had. He had a large following, particularly in the East. Most importantly, the Church Father Augustine of Hippo was a follower. To delete him from this page is not in the spirit or letter of Wikipedia:NPOV. XXX

Dear Anon, Mani did not consider himself a Christian but a successor to Christ as a prophet. For this he used the term Paraclet. Both actions were later copied by Muhammad. Manichaeism is generally considered a different religion from Christianity, clearly because it doesn't hold Jesus Christ as the central figure, as he has supposedly been succeded by Mani. Note also, that Christians and Manichaeist were persecuted by the Roman Empire side by side but separately, under separate legal justifications. That Mani had a large following or that Augustinus once belonged to his group is of no consequence to the issue (unless you want to use Augustin's inside experience. If you asked him you'd get the answer that Manichaeism is not part of Christianity). It is clear that the same can be said about Islam: it had and has a large following and there are probably also famous converts from Islam to Christianity. So delete Mani is perfectly in accordance with NPOV and factual accuracy. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

From a Catholic perspective, Manichaeism is non-Christian, as this Catholic Encyclopedia article states. However, from a neutral perspective, it's not so hard to read between the lines:

"It is well known how St. Augustine (383) found a home at Rome in the Manichæan community, which must have been considerable. According to the "Liber Pontificalis" Pope Miltiades (311-314) had already discovered adherents to the sect in the city. Valentinian's edict (372), addressed to the city prefect, was clearly launched mainly against Roman Manichæans. The so called "Ambrosiaster" combated Manichæism in a great many of his writings (370-380). In the years 384-388 a special sect of Manichæans arose in Rome called Martari, or Mat-squatters, who, supported by a rich man called Constantius, tried to start a sort of monastic life for the Elect in contravention of Mani's command that the Elect should wander about the world preaching the Manichæan Gospel. The new sect found the bitterest opposition amongst their co-religionists. In Rome they seem to have made extraordinary endeavors to conceal themselves by almost complete conformity with Christian customs. From the middle of the sixth century onward Manichæism apparently died out in the West. Though a number of secret societies and dualistic sects may have existed here and there in obscurity, there is apparently no direct and conscious connection with the Prophet of Babylon and his doctrine. Yet when the Paulicians and Bogomili from Bulgaria came in contact with the West in the eleventh century, and eastern missionaries driven out by the Byzantine emperors taught dualist doctrines in the North of Italy and the South of France they found the leaven of Manichæism still so deeply pervading the minds of the many that they could make it ferment and rise into the formidable Catharist heresies."

New Catholic Dictionary:

"Manichaeism: A heresy instituted in the 3rd century by a Persian dreamer variously named Mani, Manes, Manichaeus, who visioned himself a legate from God to introduce a religious and moral reformation. In the 4th and 5th centuries this heresy took a westward course and became dangerous to Christianity, finding a home especially in Proconsular Africa, where many of the educated classes embraced its teachings. Briefly these teachings are a dual principle of creation, the one good and from God, the other evil and from an antagonistic power, namely Satan and the bad angels who seek to destroy the work of God. Man's spirit is from God and therefore good, his body from Satan and therefore evil. There is a constant struggle between these two opposite forces. The spirit triumphs over the powers of darkness only in so far as it rises superior to the body. Furthermore, this heresy boasted to have an answer to every question and to explain the deepest mysteries of the Christian religion. It was this boast that blinded Saint Augustine for nine years, setting him thinking that Manichaeism "would free us from all error, and bring us to God by pure reason alone." Association with the leaders of this heresy opened his eyes and he saw that, despite the boast of their lips, "their hearts were void of truth." Pen in hand, at intervals between 394-420 A.D;, he wrote forty books of refutation, among which the thirty-three against Faustus are worthy of special note."

I have to agree that Mani was not a Christian. His religion was a synchristic one or one that became so, but probably had its roots in the Cult of Angels or possibly in Zoroastrianism, combined with Christianity. There are other religions that attempt to merge various religions into one, see for example Baha'i which claims to be the ultimate such. Also Unitarianism. I would not consider either one to be Christian per se. Wjhonson 00:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Again someone uses the NPOV policy for faulty reaasoning. The fact of the matter is that, according to the Catholic POV Manichaeism is wrong ... and evil. But the question of whether a religion which doesn't even claim Christ as its central figure and doesn't even call itself Christian is a form of Christianity is not a matter of POV. To push matters further, Mani wasn't even a member of Christianity before he started his own thang, but an adherant to Mandaeism (a sect that considers John the Baptist the Messiah and Jesus a false prophet). So, this whole issue is a non-issue, as there is no basis for calling Mani a Christian. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Rising or being raised from the dead

I think this has come up before, though it was probably at the Christianity article. There is a difference in meaning between the active "rose from the dead" and the passive (with agent) "was raised from the dead by God". As a Catholic, I find them both acceptable, but find "rose" preferable and much more normal. Linguistically, the English "was raised from the dead by God" has a slight implication that because he was dead, he was powerless, and therefore the Father had to "come to the rescue", in a sense. Obviously, it doesn't have to mean that, but it can make the sentence lean in that direction. In St Ignatius's letter to the Smmyrneaens (about the year 108) there's a reference to heretics abstaining from the Eucharist "because they do not believe that is is the Flesh of Our Saviour Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins, and whom the Father, in his goodness, raised up." On the other hand, in the Nicene Creed, we say, "On the third day, He rose again". As far as I know, Biblical Greek, in referring to the resurrection of Jesus, uses a middle voice, which doesn't exist in English. So, linguistically, it's something between active and passive, sort of including both meanings. We can't reproduce it in English. I've changed to "rose", because that's what we nearly always say, but if anyone disagrees, I'm open to being reverted. AnnH ♫ 10:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Biblical Greek is passive, and specific:

Acts 2:24, 2:32, 3:15, 3:26, 4:10, 5:30, 10:40, 13:30, 13:34, 13:37 ...

Acts 2:24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

1 Cor 6:14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.

2 Cor 4:14 because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence.

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

Eph 1:20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms,

Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

1 Thess 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

1 Pet 1:21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God. [UNSIGNED]

A bit more detail on the Greek: from [4], look up 1 Cor 15:4, and find the verb: ἐγήγερται e)gh/gertai v- 3xpi-s-- 1453 ; decoded it means: verb, 3rd person, prefect tense, passive, indicative, singular. This is from what is probably the first Christian creed, 1 Cor 15. Another reference: [5]. καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, ... ὅτι ἐμαρτυρήσαμεν κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ὅτι ἤγειρεν τὸν Χριστόν, ὃν οὐκ ἤγειρεν εἴπερ ἄρα νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται. that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ... for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. [UNSIGNED]

The passive form of the verb ἐγείρω is in fact normally used of getting up, rising, not of being raised by someone else. To take just the first book of the New Testament, see Matthew 1:24; 2:13-14, 20-21; 8:15, 26; 9:6-7, 19, 25; 17:7; 24:7, 11, 24; 25:7. Musical Linguist is correct in essentials, though not about the middle voice. The examples from Matthew are grammatically aorist or future passive, not middle. (Other tenses have the same form for both passive and middle voice.) Refusing to translate the passive of ἐγείρω by the English verb that corresponds to it in meaning, though it is active in form, is like refusing to translate φαβοῦμαι as "I fear", "I am afraid", on the grounds that the Greek verb is passive in form. 194.165.175.40 21:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

reference for adding Third Epistle to the Corinthians

[6]

Third Corinthians Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy Series: Studies in Biblical Literature Vol. 18 Year of Publication: 2000 New York, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt/M., Oxford, Wien, 2000. XV, 202 pp. ISBN 0-8204-4527-4 hardback

This work is an extensive twentieth-century examination of Third Corinthians, a pseudepigraphon attributed to the apostle Paul. It includes a comprehensive overview of the various manuscripts of Third Corinthians and the textual variations among them. This study carefully examines these variations, securely establishes the original text, and provides a new English translation. Referencing early manuscripts, canon lists, patristic commentaries, and lectionaries, the volume establishes the history of the use of Third Corinthians in the early Church. The study contains an in-depth exploration of the theological implications of early Church controversies, focusing on the resurrection of the dead. The work is a portrayal of the surprisingly diverse Christianity of the second century.

«Father Hovhanessian's work explores an apocryphon to which relatively few scholarly studies have been devoted, particularly in the English language during the past half century. It is also a work that vividly illustrates the second-century struggles between Christian orthodoxy and very powerful heterodox voices over the legacy of St. Paul. Father Hovhanessian engages first in the indispensable reconstruction of the original text, then explores the crucial theological issues at stake in the pseudepigrapher's combat with Paul's 'kidnappers'.» (Richard J. Dillon, Professor of Biblical Studies, Fordham University, New York) «Father Hovhanessian has broached one of the New Testament Apocrypha. In many Armenian manuscript Bibles, Third Corinthians appears alongside the two canonical epistles. What is it? How did it become so closely associated with the New Testament Canon? Why was it written and what was the occasion of its composition? Father Hovhanessian has given clear and insightful answers to these questions, recovering for us another aspect of early Christianity.» (Michael E. Stone, Professor of Armenian Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem) «Utilizing rare important documents from the second century, Father Hovhanessian unfolds a remarkable chapter in the development of the Pauline tradition, one that is seldom addressed in early Christian studies.» (Abraham Terian, Academic Dean and Professor of Patristics, St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, New York)

The Author: Vahan Hovhanessian holds a doctorate in biblical studies from Fordham University, New York. He has offered papers and published articles in the fields of biblical studies, New Testament pseudepigrapha, and Armenian Church studies. An ordained priest of the Armenian Orthodox Church, Father Hovhanessian is currently Dean of St. Nersess Armenian Seminary in New Rochelle, New York.

Saul's persecution

I think you're adding too much overlay to what the verses actually say. They only say that he was there. They don't say that he was involved in the stoning or not. Wjhonson 07:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him; and the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul." Acts 7:58 NRSV

"From that time it is absolutely impossible to follow him until he takes an active part in the martyrdom of St. Stephen (Acts 7:58-60; 22:20). He was then qualified as a young man (neanias), but this was very elastic appellation and might be applied to a man between twenty and forty." [7]

"‘After I had returned to Jerusalem and while I was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance and saw Jesus saying to me, “Hurry and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.” And I said, “Lord, they themselves know that in every synagogue I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you. And while the blood of your witness Stephen was shed, I myself was standing by, approving and keeping the coats of those who killed him.”" Acts 22:17-20 NRSV ---

Yes, the texts (Ac 7:58, as well as the now added 22:20) do say Saul was not directly involved in the stoning. The witnesses who testified against Stephen were obliged by law to participate actively, but how could Saul have joined them while at the same time guarding their outer garments? Lima 08:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

he takes an active part in the martyrdom of St. Stephen (Acts 7:58-60; 22:20) Catholic Encyclopedia A further unsigned comment by 209.78.18.31. Why not sign by typing a four tildes (~)?

A further proof of the need to consult primary, rather than secondary, sources. Lima 08:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia: Reliable Sources, Wikipedia:No original research. A further unsigned comment by 209.78.18.31. Why not sign by typing four tildes (~)?

Sorry, 209.78.18.31, it was not I who did the original research that produced the Acts of the Apostles. I am not that old! I am not old enough even to have done the original research that produced the Catholic Encyclopedia. Lima 08:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, 209.78.18.31, are you perhaps Wjhonson? Lima 08:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul and Stephen

If people take the responsibility to edit in Wiki, they should be confident that they have expertise.

This comment, that "Paul was not an active participant" in Stepehen's stoning sounds like someone trying to whitewash the pre-conversion Paul. In fact, as anyone with expertise in Scripture will point out, the Acts states that the participants were placing their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul : that's not casual, he wasn't just looking after the coat-check room that day. It's a symbolic action calling on Paul to be the official witness and presider over Stepehen's execution for the "crime" of "blasphemy." Paul was an expert in the law, a disciple of Gamaliel (a member of the Sanhedrin), a "rabbi" in that sense of the word, and someone close to the Sanhedrin (he was delegated by them with a warrant to act in their name against the "heretic" folowers of Christ after all -- this is no mere bystander, but a sort of delegated official of the judiciary). To say he didn't take an active part is like saying the judge who signs the death warrant takes no part in a modern execution because he is neither a member of the jury who finds a man guilty nor is he the guy who actually sticks the needle in the condemned man's arm. Hardly. Which is, after all, the whole point of the story of Paul in Acts.

Never forget, in dealing with Scripture, that you are trying to interpret a story written in Greek or Hebrew about 1st Century Jews (and others) -- don't assume that because some detail seems to be meaningless to you, or that you know the meaning already "in plain English," in your RSV or NAB or NIV or KJV, based in your experience in 21st Century New York or California or London or Nottingham or Auckland, that it in fact is quite so plain. That's why people spend four years in college and five in graduate school getting degrees in this stuff. It isn't as simple as it looksHarvardOxon 21:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ac 7:58 clearly distinguishes Saul from the witnesses: [[:Template:Polytonic: οἱ μάρτυρες ̓πέθεντο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν παρὰ τοὺς πόδας (αὐτοῦ)]] (the "witnesses" - not the "participants" - placed their outer garments at his feet. ) He was not a witness in the trial. If he were, he would be obliged to take an active part in the stoning. Making a young man who later became an agent of persecution an "official witness of the execution" sounds like transferring present-day United States of America custom to first-century Jerusalem. Making the young man a "presider" is even less warranted: this is not the Book of Daniel. Never forget ... - 194.125.47.212 07:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Thanks for proving my point. Please read your Mishnah again on court procedures for stoning for blasphemy (Sanhedrinn 6:1-4) -- these are Jewish people after all, and Luke, who was not a Jew, was writing in Greek (which has no separate term for "accusing-witness-participant-executioner) and confer Deuteronomy 17:2-7. The condemning witnesses, by Jewish law, not the witnesses of the execution, had to be the first ones to cast the stones at the condemned man. Please confer with Joseph Fitzmyer's work on this and on the Synagogue of Freedmen (Acts of the Apostles, a New Translation and Commentary). Saul would have been approximately in his 30s (why "young man?") and you will find a wealth of standard commentaries indicating that this. Please also note Acts 8:1, and the use of συνευδωκων from συνευδωκειν, to allow, to assent to, (yes, to think well of in common with, but with a deeper force), the αναιρεσει. The text is sparse, sure, but there is this tendency in Calvinist interpretation to want to see this as some young kid of an innocent bystander, Saul, who happened to be hanging around when all this happened. NO -- the force of the text and the historical context of how these sorts of events worked clearly puts Saul/Paul in a position of involvement, "instigation" according to some commentators (although that may be true, that is a bit to far to be proven by the text), and the whole cloak business seems to be a gesture of acknowledgment of leadership or deference to Saul. I'll live with the "approved of" in the current revision, as it is ambiguous enough to keep the Paul-was-a-bystander group happy, but also is interpretable as "gave permission for," and is close to the literal sense of Acts 8:1.HarvardOxon 08:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

HarvardOxon asks: Why "young man"? Surely someone who appears to boast of spending four years in college and five in graduate school getting degrees in this stuff knows the answer himself: Acts 7:58 calls Saul a young man at the time of Stephen's killing (παρὰ τοὺς πόδας νεανίου καλουμένου Σαύλου) Saul was indeed συνευδοκῶν (note spelling) with Stephen's ἀναίρεσις. We can presume that he went along to see Stephen condemned and done away with, and may well have booed and cheered as he thought appropriate. But it is quite a leap to assume that he was in a position of authority at the trial and subsequent stoning. After all, the prefix συν- suggests a non-central position in the matter. If Saul really held such a position, surely a stronger expression would have been used both in Acts 8:1 and elsewhere. Wikipedia needs verifiable content, not imaginative interpretations. 194.165.172.151 22:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Perspectives of Early Christianity

Having intently studied Judaic history, early Christian history, and Canonical (Biblical) history (including Hebrew and Greek) for the past five years; after authoring five books on the topic; and as a Christian who has become an Apostolic Christian (some would say I’m a practicing conservative or Karaite Jew); I can say that I am somewhat of an expert on this topic.

First and foremost, the perspective of the so-called “minority” is not necessarily “wrong” just because the so-called “majority” has disputed with the minority and assigned them a disparaging label. Case in point: The majority does not keep the Sabbath and anyone who does is labeled a “Judaizer” by ignorant (simply uneducated, not implying stupidity) Christians in the so-called mainstream. The historical facts are that Jesus kept the Sabbath (the seventh-day Sabbath, not the first-day one). Yet no one criticizes Jesus or his disciples as being Judaizers. This is hypocritical behavior on the part of the mainstream majority who are clearly in error. Yet, the minority are the ones assigned the disparaging label.

I am removing the picture that ostensibly shows an “Early Christian image of Christ as the Good Shepherd. Second century.” To my knowledge, the earliest pictorial representation of the Messiah is third century. Until we see some hard evidence of this “second century” dating, it should be removed as purely speculative. I would also dispute the Coptic bust displaying the “cross” from the third century. There’s something not quite right abut this, but I’m leaving that one alone—for now. --Solascriptura 10:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Followup: This image of Jesus is *NOT* from the second century. No way. Look at the way "Jesus" is dressed! In period Middle-ages. This image is at best c. 800-1200.--Solascriptura 12:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are other images we could use. There is that one piece of first century graffiti. Also, there are the catacomb images. Lostcaesar 12:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I was searching google for "earliest images of jesus" and couldn't find any page that mentions or shows this image. If anything, we need a citation. But I'm skeptical of the claims regarding that image. Maybe it is a new find, or maybe the web isn't a good resource, but pages like this don't have a single 2nd century image. I'd say remove the image until we have more information about it.--Andrew c 13:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The site also dates the Shroud of Turin to 30 a.D. with a "??", but still. Kleuske 06:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Source of the Good Shepherd image

The image was taken in the Museo Epigrafico in Rome, right opposite Roma Termini, third floor, near the door, so it's rather easy to check, just go to the italian wiki and ask someone to find out. The image is part of my private epigraphic collection and my notes (made on the spot and copied from the museums charts for documentation purposes) state it's second century. It is part a series of five comparable images. I picked the best and uploaded it. I distincly remember being impressed by it and (basically) that's the reason i uploaded it in the first place. If Solascriptura says it's much later, let him/her take it up with the museum. The same museum sports the original bronze cast speeches of Tiberius, Claudius and later emperors, the inscriptions of the tomb of P. Cornelius Tacitus and the oldest known latin inscriptions (not yet in our familiar script, but a more ancient version). I took 980 pictures on two days spent in that museum, including the one you'll find on Gladiator and you can imagine i'm nowhere without notes. Transcribing these pictures is still a work in progess. If you want to reach me more directly (i don't check in on enwiki on a daily basis) try nl:Gebruiker:Kleuske Kleuske 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Kleuske, thanks for attending my invitation to comment here. Your input was really helpful. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'm just sorry i did not see your invitation earlier. Kleuske 18:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ive put up a query in the italian wiki and asked to report back here, so i hope for a speedy reply. Kleuske 06:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Update:It seems a Roman may be willing to investigate. I hope for news soon. you'll find the discussion here 85.113.252.185 22:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Kleuske 22:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Outcome: My Italian friend came through and asked an archeologist, who dated it to fourth century and gave the Catacombs as original source for the picture. It seems my notes are not as reliable as i would wish. Youll find his complete answer on my talkpage nl:Gebruiker:Kleuske Kleuske 23:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[reset indent]I am honestly in awe of this whole international effort. Thanks so much for getting that info. I'm still a little skeptical that something another person claimed an archaeologist friend said meets WP:V or WP:RS. But then again, this new date meets what Solascriptura was claiming since the beginning. Who knows, I'm just glad we are no longer publishing the earliest example of Christian art (found no where else). Enough of my skepticism, thanks again!--Andrew c 23:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you *really* want to resolve it, you could write the Museo Nazionale Romano, Terme di Diocletiano, Epigraphic dept. (Museo Epigrafico). I'm sure they have an e-mail address, but i leave it to the skeptical to actually write the e-mail. After all, the international community (ahem) can't just claim all the credit? Wouldn't be fair, now, would it? ;-). The archeology in Rome is on a scale big enough to employ a whole army of very competent archeologists, so the chances of actually knowing one, if you live there, are substantially higher than in (say) Downtown Manhattan. Besides, i know him from the Ciuna affair and he's a good wikipedian. But if you *really* want to know, write the e-mail and claim the credit. We ferriners don't BITE, y'know...;-) These are the guys you need to write: archivio.storico@archeorm.arti.beniculturali.it and this is their site.

Vale Kleuske 00:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work by Kleuske. If the fourth-century dating holds, how about using the third-century San Callisto image instead? Lima 04:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

“The Uses of Art in Christian Formation”

Summary of Professor Robin Jensen’s talk at the Parish Arts Festival, May 4

Professor Jensen drew on her current studies of Christian portraiture to ask how visual images of Jesus shape the ways we think about and experience him. As a historian of the early Church, she focused on the emergence of such images in the third and fourth centuries. The earliest of these were metaphorical: a fish, loaves of bread, the Good Shepherd. Depictions of the human Jesus first appeared in narrative scenes of miracle working and teaching. They borrowed (as we do today) from imagery available in the culture, as if the artists had thought, “That’s what we want to say about him!” Thus, Jesus often looked like a Greek or Roman divinity—young and beautiful, like Roman savior gods, or bearded and authoritative, like Jupiter. Portraits of Jesus did not appear until the late fourth century.

A portrait is not necessarily a literal representation of a face, but a work in which the image of a face tells us something about the person portrayed. It also helps to make that person present to us. Perhaps devotional interest in Jesus as an individual corresponded to 4th-century theological interest in his person and nature. On the other hand, perhaps Christians felt free to paint portraits only when the establishment of Christianity (ie. Roman Catholicism) had alleviated the danger (ie. changed the Second Commandment) of worshipping other gods through their images.

Cyril of Jerusalem said that the Savior comes to us in many forms, according to our need.

How does an image help our devotion—and how does it limit us? How have various Christian traditions used images? What does the Bible say about the inadequacy of visual images—and about seeing the face of God?

From "Grace Notes", June 2002 Issue, Grace Episcopal Church, Amherst, MA

--Solascriptura 14:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not read Images of Jesus? By the way, "image" need not mean "portrait". And further by the way, Professor What's-Her-Name isn't infallible. Lima 14:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What is going on here? There is an edit war over an unsourced statement? Look at wikipedia policy: The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. I'm fact tagging the image. Please come up with a source, or it may be removed.--Andrew c 17:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See above. Kleuske 13:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But this seems to be a problem over which version to post, so the burden of proof lies on both sides. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm all for removing the whole image if it cannot be sourced. The only information given on the image description page is "Museo Epigrafico". I'm trying to exhaust my resources to verify anything else about this image. Once again, it seems very strange that something so early (2nd century) isn't mention anywhere I have looked. The only early images of Jesus I have been able to find information about only go back to the 4th century. Something so rare should be written about somewhere, no? --Andrew c 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this image would be better

This is first or second century Roman graffiti, I have seen it dated c. A.D. 90 - 200; lots of internet info on this under Alexamenos Graffiti (or Graffito) or "Alexamenos worships God" if you want to have a look. Lostcaesar 09:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is an image of "Jesus", why the horse or animal head? Looks more like an idol to me ... Did early Christians really engage in idolatry ... ? How can such an image be associated with Christianty, a religion that was borne from Judaism's absolute disdain for imagery and idolatry?? --Solascriptura 09:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sola, it was made by a pagan mocking Christianity; its a donkey's head. Lostcaesar 10:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that this is an important image and should be included in this article, but maybe, due to the fact it is graffiti aimed negatively towards the topic, it shouldn't be the top image. Maybe an image of an early manuscript, like P52 could be used for the top, and the "good shephard" image removed if never sourced/verified.--Andrew c 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Andrew on this issue. Annales XV, 44 comes to mind. The bit about Nero, the fire of Rome and the early christians. There might be some mention of Plinius Epistulae X, 97, which after all, quotes Trajan saying not to search for them, but if reported, they should be set free if they renounce their god and make offerings to roman gods, or else.... Anonymous reports should, however, not be investigated and should not play a role in any case of Law. Tertullian has some bitter remarks about this chapter... Kleuske 23:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If the current top image may be considered unacceptable because of doubts regarding the picture's age, I happen to fancy the picture on the right left as a substitute in the top of the article. What do you think? (There are other options in: commons:Category:Christian catacombs.) --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 00:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I presume Leinad-Z means the picture on the left. Has anybody other than the self-proclaimed expert who started this debate questioned the second-century dating of the current top image, which must be the dating attributed to it in the Epigraphic Museum in the Terme di Diocleziano in Rome, whose arrangement was completed only in 2000? The self-proclaimed expert displays his lack of expertise by claiming that the clothing of the figure is medieval: the third-century image Leinad-Z has placed here should be enough to show how false that idea is. Since the "expert" claims that there are no images of Jesus earlier than the late fourth century, he would object just as strongly to Leinad-Z's third-century image. A distinction should be made between a portrait and imagery: a fish (ΙΧΘΥΣ in Greek: ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΘΕΟΥ ΥΙΟΣ ΣΩΤΗΡ) can be used to image Christ; so can a shepherd. Lima 04:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I question the second-century dating of the current top image. I have been trying to verify this info, and can not. If you have a link, or offline citation, or anything besides the text on the image page, it would be really helpful. If the claims are correct, this would make it the earliest image of Jesus. For such a great claim, I'm shocked that I have yet been able to find any information outside of wikipedia on this magnificent find. As you can imagine, my skeptical sensors have been going off. There has to be a reason why no one on the web knows of the earliest image of Jesus in existance, right? It sounds like you know a bit about this image, do you have any more information or a citation/link, anything at all? (I don't object at all to the image on the left because I have found multiple bits of information on the web to verify that image)--Andrew c 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

See Kleuske 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC), above Lima 14:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A random suggestion: an image of the Septuagint since that was the Bible of Early Christianity. 75.15.201.174 17:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

term "Christian"

As much as some people seethe with rage whenever Jews are mentioned in the same sentence as Christians in the "origins" section of the article, please don't fiddle around with this based on something you read by somebody. Wiki is not meant for people with half-knowledge to insert their points of view, and just because it is an open process doesn't mean people shouldn't have the good sense to avoid amateurishness. In Antioch, there were Jews -- Aramaic-speaking and Greek-speaking ("Hellenistic Jews"). There were also Gentiles who were "hearers," interested in Jewish faith who attended synagogue services and who might be considered associate members of Jewry, not in fact converts but "righteous" and sympathetic to Jewish ethics and even theology. When Jesus-believing Jews appeared among them, these Jesus-believers openly welcomed these Gentiles, even shared meals with them and started baptizing them and accepting them as converts. The other, pagan, Antiochenes looked at this, and as outsiders observing this distinguished "these Jews" whom they had always known (a bit stand-offish, a bit insular, due to halakhic law) from "those Jews," whom they called "Christians" to distinguish them as a new party, and who welcomed Gentiles at table. Acts, etc., clearly indicates everybody still thought of all of these as Jews - the whole point of the Council of Jerusalem (50 AD or thereabouts) was whether converts to Christian-style Jewishness were still bound by kosher rules and the like. The finding that they were not was the first step toward the notion that they were no longer Jews who had found the Mesiah, but that Christianity was something else, more, in continuity with the Jewish past perhaps (in their minds) but so radically tyransforming it that they were no longer Jewish in that strict, civil sense. This was still not hashed out by Jerusalem, but it was the start, note though that Paul continues to go to the synagogue, Peter and John etc. to the Temple, not as interlopers, but as fellow practicing Jews. It was the rabbis at Yavneh, later, who dropped the ax: with the 18th Benediction in the Shemoneh Esreh, now a Christ-believer had to choose -- you cannot be both a Jew if you are a Christian. It is therefore a mistake to retroject some people's modern uncomfortableness with being identified with the Jewish people back to the 1st half of the 1st Century. The term Christian did not arise from, "Thank God we aren't Jews anymore." HarvardOxon 16:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

...something you read by somebody - The only thing I have read on this matter was written by a certain Luke: Οἱ μὲν οὖν διασπαρέντες ἀπὸ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς γενομένης ἐπὶ Στεφάνῳ διῆλθον ἕως Φοινίκης καὶ Κύπρου καὶ Ἀντιοχείας, μηδενὶ λαλοῦντες τὸν λόγον εἰ μὴ μόνον Ἰουδαίοις. ἦσαν δέ τινες ἐξ αὐτῶν ἄνδρες Κύπριοι καὶ Κυρηναῖοι, οἵτινες ἐλθόντες εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν ἐλάλουν πρὸς τοὺς Ἑλληνιστάς, εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν. (Ac 11:19-20). Luke contrasts the previous policy of preaching only to Jews with the novelty in Antioch of preaching to others. "Others than Jews" can only mean non-Jews. Unlike HarvardOxon, who makes them all "honorary Jews", Luke saw them as non-Jews. (Luke couldn't claim to have attended either Harvard or Oxford, but he had first-hand knowledge and is a primary source.) Only later in Acts (11:26) does Luke say that the name "Christian" began to be used, in Antioch before anywhere else. Accordingly, the sentence "On the other hand, the term 'Christian' began to be applied to them precisely after ..." is thus verifiable information that HarvardOxon has neither authority nor reason to exclude from Wikipedia. The sentence does not say that, when the term began to come into use, Jewish Christians ceased to think of themselves as Jewish ("Thank God we aren't Jews anymore") Of course they didn't. Why should they? As we know, there did begin to be Christians who did not consider themselves Jews. It was because an attempt was made to persuade them they must become part of the Jewish people and adopt the Jewish way of life that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to settle the matter (Ac 14:1-2). But the sentence in question makes no statement about those people. So what's Harvard-Oxford's problem with the sentence? Lima 18:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What is with Lima? First of all, I'm sorry I have an education -- will we now get a Bill O'reilly screed about the dangers of them-thar-pointy-headed-college-boys-with-thar-fancy-book-learnin'? This pathological hatred for Judaism and demand to interpret scripture (in ways most scholars don't) that all the early Christians were happy to wash themselves of the stigma of Judaism? Does Lima want us to replace "Jew" with "perfidious Jew" all through the4se pieces, as Lima also seems to regard any but Tridentine Latin Mass practitioners as slightly less than complete Catholics (see Lima's demands on terminology in the Eastern catholics article). The distinction between Jew and non-Jew that Lima is creating is more complex: Gentile "hearers" were in fact not Jews under halakha, as Jews would have been reluctant to accept conversion and instead urged them to act as "God-Fearers" under Noahide law. That these Jesus-following-Jews were more welcoming was what set them apart. The question of kosher obligation, of circumcision, was started but not finally settled at Jerusalem. The problem with the sentence is Lima's insistence on this triumphalist aspect, that somehow there should be a constant reminder that early Christians washed themselves of their Jewish origins, which is not historical, and is as troubling as the Judaizer reinterpretation of history found in some modern Messianic-Jewish sects. And by the way, it also fosters the kind of thing like the unsigned comment below, which uses texts from the 300s about Constantine to retroject anti-Semitism against "the perjury of the Jews."HarvardOxon 20:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Would HO please speak to the matter in hand, and indicate what falsehood in the following sentence (which is based simply on what Luke wrote and which I do not claim to be perfectly phrased) justifies his excision of it:

On the other hand, the term "Christian" began to be applied to them precisely after they had begun at Antioch to preach Jesus to "Greek-speakers" (Ἑλληνισταί),^[1] which, in view of the presence of Greek-speaking Jews among them earlier,^[2] and the contrast, in this context, with the Jews mentioned in the preceding verse, clearly means non-Jews. Lima 04:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A good case of over-interpretation. Acts only says "it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called ‘Christians’.", it doesn't say when it happened or how it happened. One can guess that the writer heard about Ignatius of Antioch or read one of his letters. But that would be only a guess, Acts 11:26 gives *no* other information on the subject, other than that the term originated in Antioch. Now, Western Acts on the other hand tells a bit different story: "And having heard that Saul was at Tarsus, he went out to seek him; and when he had met him, he entreated him to come to Antioch. When they had come, for a whole year a large company of people were stirred up, and then for the first time the disciples in Antioch were called Christians." -Metzger. Acts 26:28 uses the term with Paul, perhaps implying that Paul invented it.75.14.214.67 18:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

==

According to Ignatius of Antioch, that ["Thank God we aren't Jews anymore"] was pretty much its origin:

Therefore, having become his disciples, let us learn to live in accordance with Christianity. For whoever is called by any other name than this one does not belong to God. Throw out, therefore, the bad leaven, which has become stale and sour, and reach for the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted with him, so that none of you become rotten, for by your odor you will be examined. It is utterly absurd to profess Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, in which "every tongue" believed and "was brought together" to God. -Letter to Magnesians 10

In Magnesians 9, Ignatius appears to reject the Sabbath, and other "antiquated practices".

Regarding the Council of Jamnia:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/wrestling.html

So, obviously they are recognized as a distinctive group. How did this happen? What is involved in their separation? The one thing I think we have to recognize is that it doesn't happen all at once. It does not happen in the same way in different places, nor does it happen at the same time. For example, as late as the 4th and 5th century, we have evidence of Christians still existing within Jewish communities, and we have evidence of members of Christian communities participating in Jewish festivals. The preacher of Antioch and later of Constantinople, John Chrysostom, complains in a series of eight sermons to his congregation, that "you must stop going to the Synagogue, you must not think that the Synagogue is a holier place than our churches are." This clearly indicates that the break between Judaism and Christianity, even as late as the 4th century ... still is not absolute, is not permanent. Yet, on the other hand, we can see even in Paul's letters, which are the earliest literature we have from the early Christians, that the social separation in the communities he founded has already taken place. They're not meeting with the Jews. They're meeting in various households. So it's a varied change. It doesn't happen all at once and it doesn't happen in the same way, everywhere.

From Constantine I and Christianity:

Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History 1.9 records the Epistle of the Emperor Constantine addressed to those Bishops who were not present at the Council: "It was, in the first place, declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival [ Easter v. Quartodecimanism ], because, their hands having been stained with crime, the minds of these wretched men are necessarily blinded. ... Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. ... avoiding all contact with that evil way. ... who, after having compassed the death of the Lord, being out of their minds, are guided not by sound reason, but by an unrestrained passion, wherever their innate madness carries them. ... a people so utterly depraved. ... Therefore, this irregularity must be corrected, in order that we may no more have any thing in common with those parricides and the murderers of our Lord. ... no single point in common with the perjury of the Jews." -The Epistle of the Emperor Constantine, concerning the matters transacted at the Council, addressed to those Bishops who were not present

Why would Christians want to "act like Jews"? No doubt it has something to do with wanting to be a follower of Jesus, who not only "acted like a Jew" but was a Jew.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/bornliveddied.html

"He was born, lived, and died as a Jew"

Was Jesus a Jew? Of course, Jesus was a Jew. He was born of a Jewish mother, in Galilee, a Jewish part of the world. All of his friends, associates, colleagues, disciples, all of them were Jews. He regularly worshipped in Jewish communal worship, what we call synagogues. He preached from Jewish text, from the Bible. He celebrated the Jewish festivals. He went on pilgrimage to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem where he was under the authority of priests.... He lived, was born, lived, died, taught as a Jew. This is obvious to any casual reader of the gospel text. What's striking is not so much that he was a Jew but that the gospels make no pretense that he wasn't. The gospels have no sense yet that Jesus was anything other than a Jew. The gospels don't even have a sense that he came to found a new religion, an idea completely foreign to all the gospel text, and completely foreign to Paul. That is an idea which comes about only later. So, to say that he was a Jew is saying a truism, is simply stating an idea that is so obvious on the face of it, one wonders it even needs to be said. But, of course, it does need to be said because we all know what happens later in the story, where it turns out that Christianity becomes something other than Judaism and as a result, Jesus in retrospect is seen not as a Jew, but as something else, as a founder of Christianity. But, of course, he was a Jew.