Talk:Anthony the Great
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain. |
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Symbols
Can anyone explain the symbolism/association of St Anthony with the bell, or with the rooster? I understand that his association with pigs/swine is due to the practice then of appliying pork fat to skin ailments. Since he was known for healings of various skin disease, medieval artists depicted him with pigs. Can anyone explain the rooster or the bell?
[edit] Veneration of Saint Anthony
In this article, it mentions that his body is present in Italy. In his monastery in Egypt after resorations and the use of some underground mapping devices like infrared, they have detected a body buried under his altar in the church that he built (the place where he was supposed to be buried). Now claims riste that he was buried in Egypt all this time and his body remains there to this day. They didn't want to unearth his body due to his request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirmich (talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Link
yes i agree with the one below me. he noes wat he is tlkin about. united sttes roxs. lol :P
all of this information is fake. we can all agree to that. lol. well i mean miost of it
I do not think that the second link "a strong critique of St. Anthony the Great" is worth including. It is not a strong critique, it is a silly schoolboy howl, and isn't worth reading.
I suggest removing it. I will do so myself, if there are no objections.
Nitangae
// Well, I think the strong critique is worthy and put it back. Yes it's a rant, but still has many relevant quotes and information. Someone ought to incorporate some of that into the article itself.
-yse
// I think the extent to which one should refer to the silly rant (and what information is it providing that is not in the original book?) is say that "some aspects of the 'Life of St. Anthony' might shock modern readers." People who read books (as opposed to mining them for shockers) might be aware that this is generally the case with works written before our era.
I expect that there are scholarly sources that refer to the less pleasant elements of the Desert Fathers. One might use them.
/// Also, let us remember that the phrase "strong critique" would suggest a logical, developed discussion of a work's flaws. Surely you don't consider that to be true of the nonsense on the webpage? For instance, Was the idiot who wrote it not aware that people had different attitudes concerning wet-dreams during that period? I have left the link, but changed the title to "A rant concerning the Life of St. Anthony by Athanaeus - contains some useful quotations" which is a better description of the link. Feel free to edit it, but I put my foot down against "strong critique", since, very simply, it isn't.
Nitangae
//// Yes, strong critique is wrong, but other suggestions are welcome as well. "Different attitudes"? Wikipedia is not opinion-based, the last I checked.
-yse
//// It appears that Stbalbach has removed the link with what I called the "rant." I agree with stbalbach's actions (I had done so myself once before), but perhaps yse would like an explanation?
I am glad, yse, that we have avoided so far flaming each other. I hope you understand that my objection is not to the content of the blog, but to the form of the discussion. Wikipedia is not opinion based, but neither was my objection. I simply don't think that a blog called "the Life of St. Hitler, patron of loonies and nutters" enlightens. There are plenty of critical feminist Catholic scholars, for instance, who might have an extensive knowledge of the Life of St. Anthony and be critical of the text, but who could express their difficulties in a more constructive way.
If that link is restored, it is also important to remember that the blog does not discuss (or rant against) St. Anthony. It is dealing with the "Life of St. Anthony" by Athanaios.
Nitangae
[edit] POV article
yed i agree with the one below me :P
This article is embarassingly POV and entirely against the spirit of Wikipeida.
"The Lord drove away all the wild beasts from this place, for his sake."
It's possible to write a history article about Christians that is neutral. This article is not it.
--Stbalbach 3 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)
// I suggest that much of that information is worth keeping ( or reviving, since the article reverted) but that the source of these traditions should be clearly indicated. Thus, "according to Biblious, the Lord Drove away the Wild Beasts from this place."
St. Anthony the historical figure is certainly important, but so is the tradition of St. Anthony. If we indicate the sources, we will avoid most of the POV.
/// I have, for a start, revived the link referred to below, but have given it a title "A hagiographic account of the life of St. Anthony." I think that avoids any POV problems? Again, I am working on the assumption that the tradition of St. Anthony is as important as the historical figure.
Nitangae
[edit] Copright violation
It looks like Afanous added large sections of copyrighted material in January 05 from this source. No one caught it at the time and there has since been a lot of new material added to it. The CopticChurch source material is highly POV, religious dogma. I'm not sure what else to do but revert to the version pre Afanous in order to remove the copyright material and POV problems. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)
RE: http://www.copticchurch.net/classes/synex.php?sa=1&month=5&day=22&btn=View
No, this is from the official Coptic Orthodox Synaxarium (Book of Saints). It has always been in the public domain.
- The Coptic Church is not a neutral historical source, it's modern hagiography, it's very POV. This is a NPOV Encyclopedia, not a religious encyclopedia. Stbalbach 19:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Catholic Encyclopedia
I have added a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Some of the information there (and the sources provided by the link) might be useful when it comes to revising the article. Of course, it is not sufficient in and of itself.
Nitangae
[edit] Mergeing
As part of the maintance collaboration I merged Antony the Abbot into this page. But all the info was already here so. . .I just put a redirect. --Banana04131 17:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] First christian monastery
The first christian monastery is founded by Pachomios, ca. in 320/25 at Tabennisi, Egypt - see my article "Pachomios" in german wikipedia. Anthony was not a founder of monasteries. He was a solitary dweller in the desert! Sincerely, Claus Peter
- Agreed! Have been reversing edits to the contrary for a long time, its epidemic across many articles that Anthopny is called the founder of monasticism, he is not. Anthony was the inspiration for Pachomios, but Anthony never lived in one, never founded one. Monasticism is by definition living in community, Anthony lived alone. --Stbalbach 19:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Did Anthony really lived for 105 years (anon).
- 105 is within range for humans and there are fairly good records of his life so there is no factual reason to doubt it. --Stbalbach 06:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted external links
The editor who deleted external links at this article has made similar deletions at many other articles, including links to on-line text of many Early Christian writers. Discussion of this behavior, which would have been routinely reverted as vandalism if it were from an anonymous IP, may be found at Talk:Papias. --Wetman 18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
NO! Monasticism is not by definition a communial practice. It is just simply a religious form of ascetism. Cenobites (sp) are monks that take moasticism to a communal level, living in monistaries such as the four major ones found at Scetis (Wadi al-Natrun). It is correct that Anthony was not the founder of monasticism though, only the first monastic to venture out into the desert as clearly evildent within both the Life of Anthony (not a crediable historical biography) and the Sayings of the Desert Fathers.
Monasticism is indeed not exclusively a communal pursuit. The foundations of monasticism were in fact decidedly centered on anchorite hermits. Though there is some biographical information to be gleaned from the Life. As it was written by someone apparently close and intimate with Antony and is the sole source of information on him outside his own seven letters and a few references in later writings and letters. This whole article looks like a sloppy book report.--Johnrox 04:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] High amount of misinformation
There are in fact writings of Antony that survive to this day. Jerome in 392 “the monk Antony…sent seven letters, apostolic in sense and style, in the Egyptian language (Coptic) to various monasteries, which have been translated into Greek and among which the letter to Arsinoites is outstanding (Jerome De. Viris Illustribus Chapter 88). These extant letters survive in Latin, Greek, Arabic, Georgian and Syriac as well as several Coptic fragments. The entire article is simply a book report on The Life of Antony, and Hagiography is not the best historical source. They are a mix of mythology and hero building, with occasional bits of history. This may be a religious topic, but there is no reason not to approach it in a scholarly fashion. There is also a fair bit of disagreement on the actual authorship of the Life of Antony, presented in Bernadette McNary-Zak in The Letters of Asceticism in Fourth Century Egypt and more notably S. Rubenson in The Letters of St. Antony : monasticism and the making of a saint. I can’t believe the latter is referred to in the further reading and the article states “He himself left no writings.”--Johnrox 04:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I will edit this into something more closely resembling scholarship as soon as my real work is done.--Johnrox 04:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- That would be fantastic. This article a year or so ago was almost entirely a cut and paste hagiography from a Coptic website. I re-wrote his life history but some hagiography bits remain, since it's based on The Life. A scholarly/historian approach is greatly needed, discussion of sources, historiography etc.. hope you can find the time anything would help. -- Stbalbach 05:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is there really a problem?
This is another of those articles where no clean-up is required, and is much better than many you will find at random in wikipedia.
I rather doubt if it possible to write an entirely npov article about something like a saint. If like me you do not believe in miracles, then go to an article that discusses the issue by itself. It would be extranaeous to introduce such an argument in an article like this. Chasnor15 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the article is fine. I provided one of the only two requested references, and did a small bit of cleaning, so I have taken the tag down. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
