Talk:Early Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Christianity in India. See also the Christianity in India Portal. (rated as Top importance)
Assessment comments

Archives of older discussions may be found here: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

Contents

[edit] Intentionally offensive interpretation

Under the section on Angels and Satan, I find this sentence: Christian writers commonly saw Satan as the author of heresies, and he is indicated in John 8:44 as the father of those whom that Gospel refers to as "the Jews".[25]

First of all, it seems sort of 'tacked on' and doesn't seem to be the work of the original writer of the section. Secondly, it sounds like an exaggerated attempt to paint Christianity as being fundamentally anti-semitic.

I looked up the original passage in John, and I think it is quite clear from the context (I encourage you to look for yourself) that Jesus is only referring to the people that he is immediately addressing when he calls them sons of Satan. Moreover, he makes it clear that his reason for saying it is that they do not believe in him, not that they are of the Jewish nation.

The above sentence, on the other hand, seems to imply that Jesus' teaching was that all Jews are the sons of Satan whereas in the very passage cited he equates true Jews and sons of Abraham. Milez 05:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The page now says that it refers to the Jews who rejected Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] prayer for the dead

I deleted this sentence: "And Joseph Hilgers depicted the early church as "one grand purgatorial society. The clearest evidence for this is supplied by the prayers for the dead in the oldest liturgies and breviary prayers, and by the earliest Christian inscriptions."[1]" Really, do we credit what this guy said 100 years ago in a reference by Catholics and for Catholics? Really? He's worth quoting verbatim? No. This is pro-RCC POV. What does Brown say about prayer for the dead in the early Christian church, or Ratzinger? Leadwind (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revelation

Lima, thanks for catching me. I wrote that Jesus slays those who took the beast's mark, but really it's the armies of nations that he slays with the sword issuing from his mouth. It's a tricky book, Revelation. Anyway, you deleted the 1,000 year reign business, which was a big deal particularly in early Christianity (not any more), so it deserves a mention. It's sort of the capstone of Jesus' biblical divinity. I put it back in. Leadwind (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Judging the living and the dead

Early Christianity sees an expansion of Jesus' perceived divinity and role. For example, at the beginning of the early Christian period, Jesus is to judge the nations (Matthew) and his coming brings the first resurrection of believers only (Paul, Revelation). After his 1,000 year reign comes the general resurrection. By the end of early Christianity, Jesus is said to judge the living and the dead, and the idea is apparently that his second coming occurs in synch with judgment day. Anyone know where we find the first reference to Jesus judging the living and the dead? Or to the figure on the white throne being Jesus and not God the Father? Leadwind (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Would CCC 678-679 and similar commentaries on that article of the Nicene Creed be helpful? Lima (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for historical information. If those comments are about history and not faith, then sure. Leadwind (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I found an early reference to Jesus judging the living and the dead, the Old Roman Creed. Looks like it's from around 350 or so, but it's based on 2nd and 3rd century sources. Does anyone know whether the 2nd century rule of faith or the 3rd century baptismal formulas had Jesus judging the dead? My sources are thin at this point. Leadwind (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caesar and Christ

I'm reading Will Durant's historical material on Jesus' life, the apostolic period, and early Christianity. I plan on porting in key information, either adding things that are missing or confirming material already here. When I start adding information to a Christianity page from a secular source, Lima sometimes follows my edits with various conditions, qualifications, original research, and sometimes just plain deletions. If my fellow editors could help me keep an eye on this page, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. FTR, Durant is highly sympathetic to Jesus and to early Christianity, if not to the supernatural and historical claims of Lima's church and others. Leadwind (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brown on gnostic John

Can someone explain what this sentence means: "According to Raymond E. Brown, it was contrary to the author's intention that some elements were interpreted in more or less Gnostic ways that the Johannine epistles (1-3 John) felt it necessary to correct"? Did the epistles feel it necessary to correct something? Does this mean "The author of John didn't intend for the gospel to be interpreted in a gnostic light, and he corrected this misinterpretation in the epistles 1, 2, and 3 John"? Leadwind (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the topic is somewhat complex, perhaps too complex for wikipedia, but I'll take a shot at it. First off, it's been awhile since I've read Brown's Commentary on the Gospel of John, the current scholarly reference on the topic by the way, but my guess is that Brown doesn't necessarily conclude that the same person who wrote the Gospel also wrote the Epistles. The Gospel was the favorite of the Gnostics, in particular Valentinius. And it has long been noted that the Epistles seem to argue against Gnostic interpretation of the Gospel. I suspect that Browns' position (as a Catholic) is that Gnostic interpretation of the Gospel is against the wishes of the original author. Other authors would have different opinions, I'm guessing for example Elaine Pagels. 75.14.213.241 (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
So is Brown saying, "Even though John has some gnostic elements, the author didn't intend to promote gnosticism. The epistles attributed to John represent Christians in John's tradition emphasizing the original author's intent not to promote gnosticism"? Something like that? Leadwind (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. More like, even though gnostics interpreted John to support their doctrines, the author didn't intend that. The epistles were written (whether by the author of the Gospel or someone in his circle) to argue against gnostic doctrines. Tb (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. Leadwind (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Section: Contemporary Christian views

Roman Catholics and the Eastern Christians see the early Christian church as continuous in fundamental doctrine and apostolic authority with the present-day Church. They regard the Church Fathers not as canonical but as authoritative. Their Old Testament is the same as the Septuagint, taken as scripture by early Christians. Protestants emphasize the Bible over church tradition, granting no particular authority to early Church Fathers or bishops. Like Jews, Protestants disavow the newer books of the Septuagint. Baptists portray themselves as restoring the adult baptism of the early church. Anabaptists and Restorationists portray themselves as restoring the primitive, authentic Christianity, which had been replaced by a false religion corrupted by Rome. Some denominations eschew liturgical elements adopted from pagan practice by the early church, such as candles and vestments.

The above paragraph summarizes how EC figures into contemporary Christianity. We should have a section like this on this page. The above is off the top of my head to get the conversation going, and also to see if there really is enough information here for a paragraph. EC means different things to different Christians. The differences bear mention. Leadwind (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Lima, and everyone else, if you've got a problem with the above paragraph, please speak up. Leadwind (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am worried about this for a couple reasons. First, once we start down that road, the article quickly becomes bloated as it starts to give every individual group's understanding; it becomes an advertisement for every group's partisans to chime in with their distinctive understanding. But second, and more to the point, this page is for historically verifiable information about early Christianity. If someone has verifiable evidence that early Christians practiced exclusively adult baptism, then that would be one thing, but there isn't such--quite to the contrary--we have reports from early years of both adult and infant baptism. Any remaining dispute is about interpretation of the NT record, which doesn't belong here of course. So this article is not a compendium of every group's beliefs about early christianity, it is a NPOV treatment of what is verifiable about the topic. It is irrelevant, for example, whether some groups "eschew...candles and vestments"; this is not about what 16th century Christians, or modern Christians, do. Tb (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
To take up the particular questions you identify. If you can find verifiable evidence of early Christians who did not take earlier church fathers as authoritative, that's worth mentioning here, in the section on church fathers. Contemporary attitudes are not relevant. A discussion of early (pre-Nicene) opposition to the additional books in the Septuagint would be appropriate, in the section "Defining Scripture." If there is verifiable evidence of groups doing what Anabaptists and Restorationists say was going on, then it would be appropriate to mention that, under the appropriate existing headings. Tb (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Tb, "Contemporary attitudes are not relevant." Of course they are. Leadwind (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
And here I wrote about 250 words and you didn't bother to address much of anything I said. Contemporary attitudes are relevant, when they are NPOV verifiable statements of the reality of early Christianity. Other contemporary attitudes are not relevant, no. This is an article about early christianity, and as such, is still held to all the normal Wikipedia standards about articles about historical subjects. Tb (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Contemporary Christian interpretations of Jesus are addressed on the Jesus page. Contemporary Christian interpretations of the early Church should be addressed on the early Church page. Could you please cite a guideline or policy that supports your assertion that this article shouldn't address how contemporary Christians view the early Church? Leadwind (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's my guideline: The perfect article "acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject." Too often, the reflex to suppress information comes from people defending a POV, so I've gotten in the habit of pushing back when someone tries to get information out of a lead or article. Tb, I assume you're editing in good faith, but I've developed a habitual aversion to excluding information. Leadwind (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you're not going to bother to read what I wrote before, so I'll try again. Contemporary Christian views are relevant when they are NPOV verifiable statements about early Christianity. Tb (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but I didn't ask you to restate your position. I asked you to support it with a WP guideline or policy. If there's no guideline or policy backing up your interpretation of what's on topic, then how about we go with my guideline: explore all aspects of the topic? Leadwind (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Policy: WP:V. And, that whatever addition is about the topic, which here is Early Christianity, not Modern Views of Eearly Christianity whether Verifiable or Not. If we have verified evidence that, for example, early christians did not practice infant baptism, then that's good to include in the relevant paragraph. But the mere assertion "Contemporary Baptists claim, without a shred of evidence, that there was no infant baptism in AD 150" tells us a lot about contemporary baptisms, and tells us nothing about early christianity. Maybe it would help to see the particular additions you would like to see. My statement is simply that they must be verified and that they belong under the relevant headings already in the article, not as a separate "list of contemporary views" section. Tb (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, I can do WP:V. Thanks for referring to a policy. We editors can disagree, but as long as we stick to guidelines and policies, we can get along. I figured some people would object to the section because they don't like their current church practices (infant baptism, candles, etc.) to be compared to early church practices. But if the issue is WP:V, I'm confident I can follow that policy. Leadwind (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I referred to that policy from the beginning, which makes me all the more confident that you didn't read what I said, which bodes poorly. In any case, I do still object to making a "new section"; contemporary views about early christianity may be relevant, but they belong under the particular headings. This is not an article to compare the current practice of this or that group with the reconstructed practices of early Christianity. I also object to your implication that any edit is good for the article provided there is no obvious wikipedia policy objecting to it. It is essential that you engage in discussion, and if you look at the thread here, you'll see a steadfast refusal on your part to actually discuss anything that I have said. If you start making individual changes, please understand that discussion may be necessary, and "cite a policy that says I'm wrong" is not an adequate replacement for discussion. Tb (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I cited a guideline that says we should explore all aspects of a topic. "[C]ontemporary views about early christianity may be relevant, but they belong under the particular headings." They should be in their own section because they have a common theme. Leadwind (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to see. I can't imagine that, for example, current views about the church fathers belong anywhere other than in the church fathers section. Likewise for the other example you cite, baptism. If we are documenting contemporary baptismal practices, that doesn't belong here at all; if we are documenting the relation between those practices and early christian ones, then I can't imagine that it belongs anywhere other than in the section on baptism. And, keep in mind, Wikipedia doesn't much care for "documentation" along the lines of "some think that X" or "group A believes B, without any reason". Tb (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I think I have added the topics you cited as the ones you thought were missing from the article. Tb (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tb, I don't know what to make of you. Most editors I argue with just get in the way, don't contribute much, or contribute junk. But you added a ton of cogent, on-topic material. I still think that the contemporary views material should be in its own section, but if you're going to do a bunch of good work, I'm not going to sweat it. Leadwind (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thanks :) Tb (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sees called "patriarchal" in early Christian times?

The First Council of Nicaea decreed: "The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church's canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail. Since there prevails a custom and ancient tradition to the effect that the bishop of Aelia is to be honoured, let him be granted everything consequent upon this honour, saving the dignity proper to the metropolitan."

The word "patriarch" does not appear. Is it possible that, when speaking of the 325 situation, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, which I presume has no gift of divine inerrancy, applied a later term, in other words, an anachronism?

Note also the words "and the other provinces". It appears that at the time of the First Council of Nicaea nobody thought of dividing Christendom up into just four (or five) "patriarchates". Lima (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the ODCC is perfect, but it's pretty good. Please suggest an alternative. Leadwind (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
To judge by past experience, what Leadwind means by "an alternative" is some book published within at most the last fifty years. Any reference book as old as a century he tends to call outdated. To avoid a quarrel with him, I prefer not to alter in any way the new text he has put in the article. So I leave it to others to answer the question I raise here, whether what Leadwind has added is compatible with the decree of the First Council of Nicaea, the Council that marks the close of the Early Christian period. Can we not suppose that the Council knew what it was talking about? It called no see "patriarchal". It treated Antioch, in spite of the importance of that city, as in principle only on the level of the chief sees of other provinces. According to the Council, the bishop of Jerusalem, though given honour, was not even the metropolitan of that province. Is it perhaps an anachronism to speak of any Early Christian bishops as "patriarchs"? Lima (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The decree of the First Council of Nicaea does not say that the bishop of Antioch had authority over other metropolitans. Perhaps instead the Council has each province under its own metropolitan, except for the provinces mentioned by name as all under the authority of the bishop of Alexandria, and the undefined provinces over which the bishop of Rome held authority, with the Roman situation cited as justifying the approval given for the (traditional but perhaps unusual?) extra-provincial authority held by the bishop of Alexandria. Antioch had jurisdiction later over other metropolitans, but did it have this authority during the Early Christian period? Even if some modern work says that this situation predated 325, and even if it does use the word "metropolitans", is it reliable enough for its opinion to be presented as a fact? Lima (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Oxford definitely meets wikipedia's requirement for a reliable source. Therefore, your personal interpretation of a primary source does not trump Oxford, and the idea of trying to prove Oxford wrong through selective interpretation of primary sources runs afoul with "no original research". (That's a bit blunt, so I apologize if it sounds harsh). I'll have to agree with Leadwind's call for a conflicting reliable source. But perhaps since this topic is at least controversial here, we could preface the controversial content gathered from the Oxford source with some sort of attribution clause like "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states..." Therefore we wouldn't simply be presenting one view as a written in stone fact. If we do come up with another source, then we'd definitely need to present both POVs and not take sides.-23:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew c (talk • contribs)
Thanks. I agree fully. Lima (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There should be sources. In case it's not obvious, the terms Patriarch (Greek for father) and Pope (Latin for father) are both loaded. Patriarch assumes the position of the Orthodox Church, Pope assumes the position of the Catholic Church. Protestants have historically tried to play these two churches against each other. 75.14.213.241 (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Lima, if you agree fully with Andrew, it's OK with me, too.
"Patriarch" doesn't assume the position of the Orthodox. The Pope was known as a Patriarch until recently. And the patriarch of Alexandria was the first to name himself Pope. Leadwind (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It is especially good to know that Leadwind now approves the idea that the controversial content gathered from the Oxford source should perhaps be prefaced with some sort of attribution clause like "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states ..."
Editor 75.14.213.241 was right in saying that projecting back to before 325 either the Eastern Orthodox view of patriarchates or the Roman Catholic view of the papacy assumes one or other of these two positions. He was not talking about other less specific uses of the words "patriarch" and "pope".
Just by the way, the Bishop of Rome is still known as a patriarch by Eastern Orthodox; and see the communiqué on the dropping of the title from the Annuario Pontificio - English translation at, for instance, ZENIT. Lima (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Lima, it doesn't make much sense to say "according to X, Y is true," unless we can also say, "On the other hand, according to P, Q is true." If the ODCC's use of the term "patriarchal" is controversial, please state what the other side says. In my experience with you, you have been more eager to reduce the information in a lead or on a page than to provide information yourself. What's the other viewpoint? "According to the RCC, the bishop of Rome has held exclusive and pre-eminent authority since the time of Saint Peter, and has never been a patriarch equivalent to Eastern patriarchs"? Leadwind (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Schaff's Seven Ecumenical Councils: First Nice: Canon VI: "Many, probably most, commentators have considered this the most important and most interesting of all the Nicene canons, and a whole library of works has been written upon it, some of the works asserting and some denying what are commonly called the Papal claims. If any one wishes to see a list of the most famous of these works he will find it in Phillips’s Kirchenrecht (Bd. ii. S. 35)." -Schaff "Nobody can maintain that the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria were called patriarchs then, or that the jurisdiction they had then was co-extensive with what they had afterward, when they were so called" -Ffoulkes Dict. Christ. Antiq. voce Council of Nicæa 68.126.20.120 (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baptism

It should not be hard to be NPOV here, if people put down their axes and stop grinding. The following seems clear:

  • The New Testament material is controversial;
  • In the second century, Irenaeus made some comments which
    • might have had nothing to do with baptism at all;
    • or might have been saying that infants could/should be baptized;
    • or might have been saying the opposite
  • By the third century, infant baptism was common, and was remarked on as traditional.

Some seem to be editing on the theory that anything they can find a secondary source is fair game. This is incorrect. Verifiability and NPOV are both independently expected. Merely providing a source is not grounds for failing NPOV. Tb (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions about a recent edit:

  • I said that "Irenaeus may have spoken of it approvingly, but some interpret him as arguing against the practice"; the editor changed this to "Irenaeus may have referred to it," with the comment, "the irenaeus reference is disputed." Well, yes, that's exactly what I wrote. Why is it better to say "Irenaeus may have referred to it" and not actually say something about the dispute?
  • We should say something here about more recent interpretations of early Christianity; the same editor has said, "this is primarily about the early Church, not later interpretations of it". Actually, everything in the article is a "later interpretation" of the early church. The reference to the Great Apostasy, deleted, is not POV, given that the groups in question do use that term, and I used it only as part of the description of their views. If this is POV, please say more than just a one-line edit summary. Tb (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You said, 'extremely'. I thought that was a bit strong. There are way bigger controversies, as far as I am aware.
Your phrasing was ambiguous - it could be understood as implying that Irenaeus definitely said something, and the doubt was over whether he said something positive or negative; whereas (as the cited source says) there is dispute about whether he was referring to baptism or not. The source does not discuss whether he was saying something positive or negative, as far as I know that's not an issue.
The POV concern is not the reference to the Great Apostasy but the phrasing 'some sort of' which sounds dismissive. The article is predominantly about what happened, not (predominantly) about why some people think what happened is important.
--Rbreen (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I agree about dropping "extremely". Now I see that my phrasing was ambiguous. How about this: "One remark by Irenaeus is sometimes thought to refer to baptism; among those who think it does, it is disputed whether Irenaeus is speaking approvingly or disapprovingly of infant baptism." The reason I think this is important is that it's a (rare) second century source, and it is good to say something about the second century here. Tb (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This wikilink is POV???

Aelia Capitolina??? POV??? Care to explain? 68.126.21.95 (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As the footnote explains, it is not uncontroversial to identify the Aelia of the Nicene canon with the city of Aelia Capitolina built on the site of Jerusalem. Some think that the "Aelia" referred to may be Antioch, or some other city. I think it was Jerusalem (Aelia Capitolina); but the point is controversial, and the point of that particular footnote is especially to highlight the controversy. Tb (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand. It's the Metropolis that is controversial. There is no particular historical controversy about the term Aelia. 68.126.21.95 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, you're clearly right. Thanks for the correction. Tb (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What the article should be

This article should be about facts as best as can be presented. This is an aritcle that I would assume is displaying facts about who the early Christians were and what they believed. As such, I do not see how it is point of view at all to state these facts. This is not supposed to be an aritcle about what we moderns want the early Christians to be or what we want them to have believed. It should simply state what they really did believe back in history and who they actually were. Nothing more and nothing less. Yes, random "no longer Christian" protestant group number 5876 may want to say that the early Christians believed this or that but if they are wrong then they are just wrong and the fact are all that should be here.

Just a side note, there is some evidence that I have seen that supports the idea that several of the first Bishops of Rome spoke and performed the liturgies in Aramaic and not Greek. I know of some priest who believe that Aramaic was the common language of the liturgy in Rome before Latin and that Greek was only an auxillary. Now, the evidence for this weak at best but is better supported them some of the protestant things presented here. Please think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.27.244.245 (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone here disagrees with you. Is there something specific you have in mind? Tb (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length of article

The article is probably a little long as is. It might do with a split, if it could be agreed what 2 articles to split it into. Fremte (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The best way to do a split is to split off a long, well-referenced section. My off-the-cuff suggestion would be to first improve the referencing and information in Early Christianity#Beliefs, and then split it off to Early Christian beliefs. Vassyana (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been wanting to do an Early Christian beliefs page for a good long time. Leadwind (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Durant on why Christianity prevailed

While I'm suspicious of claims that the Church makes of itself, Durant's a historian, and he makes a good case that early Christianity prevailed because it offered an attractive belief system, a moderate, reasonable set of expectations on Christians, and an effective church administration. Perhaps he's too generous, but if this isn't why orthodoxy succeeded, I don't know why it did. If there's an alternate explanation in an RS, I'm eager to compare notes.

But really the topic deserves more than a sentence. I put that sentence in the lead sort of as a placeholder. The body could use a paragraph like this one:

Prominent historian Will Durant wrote that the orthodox early Church prevailed over paganism and over competing beliefs because its doctrine was more attractive and its leaders accommodated human needs better. Pagan religion had lost its vitality, and skepticism about the gods and the afterlife were common. The Christian message led to renewed spiritual enthusiasm. Church leaders, furthermore, avoided the extreme virtue expected of more rigorous religious movements. The Montanists and Manicheans demanded asceticism. Schism broke out over whether those who had violated their faith under persecution could be readmitted, with the orthodox Church practicing leniency. The Church also offered the certainty of sacred scripture and apostolic succession.

Now maybe Durant is full of it, but I can go back into the text and get more examples and details if you like. Leadwind (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Durant reference is interesting, but it's a complex topic and really needs a more thorough treatment (and ideally more recent - Durant's book is over 30 years old); more importantly, it lends itself to highly speculative approaches - there's little direct evidence to work with, as far as I am aware. However, one writer, more recent than Durant, who has attempted to take a systematic sociological approach is Rodney Stark; his book The Rise of Christianity is a substantial contribution to the subject. Here's a review:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_23/ai_55208060
There seems to be a degree of overlap, but Stark's view of the importance of women, for instance, is well worth considering. --Rbreen (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Stark's work looks like it's worth adding. I believe that Durant mentioned the plague angle, too. The pro-woman angle figures in pretty well with other stuff I've heard about the early church. Leadwind (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] request for footnotes

A bunch of sections have footnotes tags, but they contain basic information that isn't controversial. Do we really have to hunt down citations for all this stuff? Leadwind (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] messing with cited information

Someone inserted the term "(Trinitarian)" into a cited sentence about tripartite baptismal formulas. The source does not use the term Trinitarian. One might say it intentionally avoids the term. This change gave readers the idea that the source affirmed that these formulas were Trinitarian. Please do not alter cited information. It's tantamount to lying. Leadwind (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Restorationism section

This has nothing to do with early Christianity. It is about an idea that some recent religious groups resemble the early church. It is off-topic for this article and should be deleted. Fremte (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be appropriate to have a short section on Restorationism in this article. The Restorationist sects make very prominent claims about being a restoration of early Christian faith and structure. It's a topic and claim very widely written about, so I do not see the harm in including a paragraph or two about the matter. I would recommend that it focus on what high quality sources have to say about the matter and stay relatively brief. Vassyana (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Restorationism (and other movements with similar claims) is a particular POV about the early church. It makes claims substantially different from those in the body of the article, and which are not well-supported by the historical record. But they are views about the early church, and it would be remiss to omit them from the article. (And, of course, it would be equally wrong to give them too much prominence, since they are "fringe theories" in Wikipedia-speak.) Tb (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The section should, I think, perhaps be moved to Apostolic Age. Restorationists claim that their ideas fit that period only, not the whole of early Christianity as understood in this article. Lima (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section does not belong in this article. All the facts are about events that did not take place in the time period that the article is about. The section is also poorly cited. --Carlaude (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. Restorationists make claims about early christianity. To ignore those claims would be to express a POV. If anything, we should document the claims they make, but I think it's sufficient to say "there are some claims made which do not have good historical evidence; this is why people make those claims." Tb (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Restorationists most often place their beliefs in what is termed the Apostolic Age as mentioned above, but they aslo point to Early Christianity as an example of the/an apostasy. I also agree that a brief description is all that is necessary.
Curious, that one would call the Restorationists a POV; aren't all groups concerned offering a POV. The topic is one of faith, which is inherently POV. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Geez, I just read the section; who wrote that crap? Can anyone say POV? When discussing topics of faith, is there anyone that can point unequivically to "truth"; that is not our objective. Our objective is to report facts as stated by experts. We don't write religious tracts or write from a strictly pigheaded position (get that I am a little ticked). Almost each of you have have written here are editors which I highly respect. You each know when something stinks and is POV; this reeks. I will edit it and then search for the requested references. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The rules for dealing with a fringe opinion are pretty well-understood. Don't give it too much space, describe the existence of the fringe opinion, if necessary give it its own article (which is the case here). We aren't talking about "matters of faith", we are talking about what is historically determinable about the first centuries of the Christian movement. If an opinion is the mainstream historical opinion, it gets top billing; if it is a fringe opinion, it gets way down below the fold--just as the current section. I'm sure it could well be improved; feel free; I'm just objecting to deleting it outright. Tb (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
For some of the largest churches in the US, it is not appropriate or acceptable to describe Restorationism as "fringe"; that is your POV. I suggest if you can't back it up with a reputable reference you drop it from your proposition.
You seem to think that spiritual history, read orthodox history, is fully supported by history. That is what is called belief, not historical fact. The moment you introduce dogma or doctrine, history flies out the window and beliefs walk in. If your objective is to make this article strictly a historical approach to religion, I can support that, but then we are talking about another article because this one is rife with beliefs. I don't' care; you pick, but then you will live by the standard you set up.
My deletions were only for opinions; Wikipedia never states an opinion, but rather repeat the opinion of reputable experts. Please do so or your edits then delete them. You may need to review what NPOV is; I am seeing consist position that takes your edits outside of neutrality and puts them squarely in personal opinion. That is easy to do particularly on topics of faith. We all do it at some time. I am not seeking to offend, but read the article and I suspect you will gain a better understanding of what I am saying. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Most Americans, according to some surveys, think some form of creationism is more likely that evolution. Yet, creationism is a fringe theory, and evolution is not, and Wikipedia treats them accordingly. This article is not about "orthodox history" or "spiritual history"--which it would not be appropriate for Wikipedia to simply present as fact. This article documents what modern historians think Christians believed at various times, but does not assert that those beliefs were correct. That said, I don't object to your changes to the section--they are in the right direction, it seems to me. Oh, and BTW, it's insulting to say, "read the article" as if I hadn't. If there is a particular point, make it, but don't insult me by implying that I haven't read it at all. Tb (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That comment was not this article, but the NPOV article. I have edited for a little while and concluded that because Wikipedia is so easy to use, many edit without a familiarization of polices and guidelines. I read your page and saw that you have stated you have a doctorate; you are the type of editor that is appreciated and valued on Wikipedia. However, you have to be careful that you do not write from a position of "knowing". As editors we write from a position of reporting. Wikipedia "knows" nothing; we only report what reputable sources claim are facts about the topic. In this instance, we can't say that creationism is a fringe theory, but we can say that Dr. Soandso has stated or make the statement and insert the citation. I hope that we are on the same page on this. If I offended you in any manner, I apologize. As I stated above, my objective is to improve the article and this section in particular. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who founded church for Restorationists

Fremte, I may have misunderstood your point. I think you were alluding to the dispute over who founded the Christian church, Jesus or this apostles. That dispute is not found in US Restorationism; there is only the church founded by Christ in their perspective. Is this the confusion you were alluding to or are you proposing there is a dispute among Restorationists about who founded the original Church? --Storm Rider (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)