Talk:History of early Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in Early Christianity.

	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

	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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 NPOV? 2 Requested move 2.1 Survey 2.2 Discussion 3 Revisiting the move 4 Recent revamp of article 5 Apologies to Vassyana 6 Why are the views of E. P. Sanders being censored from this article? 7 Claim made in the current article 8 another odd claim 9 claims being made about Halacha/Jewish law in the first century 10 Further expansion 11 Vassyana's reversions 12 Early Christianity 13 mucking with cited material 14 removed claim 15 Dating of 1 Peter 16 Suggest merge to Apostolic Age 17 GA goal 18 Some queries on the latest edits to the introduction

[edit] NPOV?

In view of the time that I had to spend in order to get some changes accepted in what is here presented now as a separate article, I do not intend to enter a discussion on this article, which I have not put on my watchlist. Even if someone wants to draw me into a discussion by posting something about it on my personal Talk page, I plan not to respond.

I just want to leave here a record of my doubts about the rightness, in Wikipedia, of presenting as plain undoubted fact, as this article does, ideas that I think should be explicitly presented as the conclusions or hypotheses of the writers who have proposed them. Take as just one example: "Theological conflict between Paul and Peter is recorded in the New Testament and was widely discussed in the early church". As far as I know, the New Testament records only one clash between Paul and Peter, and that was not, properly speaking, a theological conflict, but a reproach by Paul against Peter for not having acted in keeping with the theology that Peter too accepted. And the article, after stating that the alleged theological conflict was widely discussed in the early church, then speaks of it as discussed only in relation to Marcionism. (Do I perhaps misinterpret?) Then, there is the reading back into early Christian times of the (recently invented, I imagine) expression "Pauline Christians": I don't think any early Christians, except perhaps among the groups Paul reproached in 1 Corinthians for saying: "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas" (1:12), thought of themselves as "Pauline Christians" or called others "Pauline Christians", and I cannot imagine that even those in Corinth who, presumably during a very short period, used these or similar expressions thought that "I belong to Paul" meant "I am not a Jewish Christian."

All such questionable expressions and statements should, I think, be presented in the form: "Writers such as X and Y say that ..." Then I would have no qualms about leaving those expressions and statements in neutrality-claiming Wikipedia.

In defending the way the article actually presents these expressions and statements, another editor holds that a consensus about them exists among those recent writers whom he considers to be authoritative. Doubts could be raised about whether Wikipedia should make a judgement on what writers are or are not (or are no longer) authoritative. But even leaving those doubts aside, why not at least insert a (sourced) statement to the effect that what follows represents a consensus among present-day scholars? Lima 08:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

This article has been renamed from Origins of Christianity to History of early Christianity as the result of a move request.

[edit] Revisiting the move

this doesn't make sense. early Christianity is already a sub-article of history of Christianity. It is completely pointless to keep two articles, one on "early Christianity" and the other on its history. What is the difference of scope here? This article appears to be completely unaware of the existence of the early Christianity on (except for the "see also" section). The scope of origins of Christianity used to be the time of Acts up to the revolt (say, 30s to 70s, that's two generations), not the full three centuries (12 generations) down to the Council of Nicaea. dab (𒁳) 13:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are using the split tag. Are you suggesting that certain materials be merged into Early Christianity and the move be undone? What end exactly are you looking for here? Regarding the scope, this article should cover the historical context of early Christianity, while Early Christianity should focus on the organization, practices and beliefs of early Christians. Vassyana (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I should additionally note that Early Christianity is not a sub-article of History of Christianity. (It was started as a stub about "early Christians" independently, rather than spun off as a subarticle from History of Christianity.) It is an article about a historical form of Christianity, or Christianity as practiced within a historical period. Articles about historical topics are not necessarily the same as, nor is it necessarily appropriate to follow the style of, "History of ..." articles. Vassyana (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

General comment from someone new to this discussion: It might also be practical to have articles covering specific epochs of the early history of Christianity: Christianity from Acts to the Revolt, Christianity from the Revolt to Nicaea, as appropriate -- these article titles are obviously intended only as "samples". -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, though I think the best way to do that would be to add referenced material to this article until there are sections large enough to spin off into their own articles. Vassyana (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

the rationale behind my split tag is that the scope of an article entitled "History of early Christianity" is logically identical to the scopes of "Early Christianity" plus "origins of Christianity" for the very first or "proto" phase. Regardless of its history, "Early Christianity" is a logical sub-article of history of Christianity, and duly linked as the {{main}} main article to a major h2 section there. I do not have a fixed opinion on how to best arrange articles on this topic, but I insist that their respective scopes and interrelation be clearly delineated, in order to avoid WP:CFORKs as much as possible. I also feel that we need a dedicated origins of Christianity article that will focus on the milieu in 1st century Judea out of which Early Christianity grew. --dab (𒁳) 12:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK... let's review the bidding here...

The major difficulty is actually around the definition of the scope of Early Christianity. Should it describe primarily the attributes of Christianity as it existed in the first few centuries A.D. without spending much time discussing the history, leaving that discussion to another article such as this one (i.e. History of early Christianity)?

That is the current scheme which parallels Christianity and History of Christianity. Dbachmann suggests that "Early Christianity" is a logical sub-article of History of Christianity". However, this is only true if you view Early Christianity as primarily a historical article which it is not now. We could make it so by merging this article back into Early Christianity but the reason it was split out in the first place was that Early Christianity was too long and had too unwieldy a scope. I would not favor merging this article back into Early Christianity.

Dbachmann also wrote that "we need a dedicated origins of Christianity article that will focus on the milieu in 1st century Judea out of which Early Christianity grew." I don't disagree with this. Perhaps we should split out Origins of Christianity as an article which focuses primarily on 1st century Judea with this article covering that topic in summary form as well as discussing the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire (i.e. up until the Edict of Milan and the First Council of Nicaea.

--Richard (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, and I don't think there is any fundamental disagreement in this. Still, I have difficulties understanding how you can claim that Early Christianity is not (primariliy) "historical" when its entire scope is a movement of the 1st to 4th centuries. I agree that History of early Christianity can be a sub-article to Early Christianity simply per WP:SS, but its scope will still cover the entire period AD 30 to 325, while the scope of an article "Origins of Christianity will be something like 100 BC to AD 100. dab (𒁳) 14:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent revamp of article

Hi Vassyana,

You have executed a significant reworking of History of early Christianity. Since you are an established editor of articles on Christianity, I start with an assumption of good faith and expect that your edits are reasonable and justified.

However, I'm sure you can understand that it is difficult for us to evaluate what you've done over the course of 20-30 edits. Some edits are fairly unobjectionable. Others might merit further discussion.

I'm not particularly concerned about your moving stuff around and changing section titles. What I would appreciate, though, is some indication of whether any major segments of text were added or deleted and, in the case of the latter, what the rationale was. I did a diff between my last edit and the current version and it's difficult to track what text was moved and if anything was actually deleted. There is at least one section that looks like it was deleted. I would like to see some discussion of why text was deleted. It may well be that I and others agree with your rationale. It's just that the edit summaries do not allow for sufficient explanation that others can understand and evaluate.

Thanx.

--Richard (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Give me a bit to review my changes and I will provide an overview of what I may have removed/altered/etc. Please accept my apologies if I went a little overboard in taking the initiative (seriously). It wasn't my intent to befuddle anyone, just to improve the article. Vassyana (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Diffs provided when the diff is needed to illustrate what I did without going into long explanations and details.)

First, I revised Appellation to reflect the sources. No real content change, except removing one unsourced statement (that "The Way" was the name preferred by early Christians).

I removed a section about antisemitism in the NT that lacked references, committed some original research and seemed to lack a solid connection to the article topic.[1]

The next change was a very significant one. I chopped down a very bloated section by removing unreferenced material, original research, outdated claims, etc.[2] The section still needs solid references and rewriting per those new sources.

I sharply cut down the circumcision controversy section and later rewrote/replaced the text based on a reputable reference.

I removed the claim about the establishment of Rabbinic Judaism in Jamnia from the lede, as it's not about the topic of the article.

I heavily revised the "Gentile Christians" section of the article. It only discussed Cornelius using the old Catholic Encyclopedia and a synthesis of Bible references. I renamed it "Initial Gentile converts" to appropriately reflect the topic and replaced the text based on two reliable sources.

I removed some categories that I believed were inappropriate for the article.[3]

I reverted one change that ran counter to the reference used and added an unreliable reference.[4] I immediately added similar information with more context and explanation using a reliable source.[5]

Finally, I removed the top-of-the-article general cleanup tag, because the article is now mostly sourced with a few remaining issues tagged. However, there's still plenty of room in the topic for expansion.

Also, I did remove some redundant material and tags in the process of all the changes. I also cleaned up the reference list, removing unused references and adding new references as I brought them into use. The remaining changes made in the recent spurt of activity were just focused reorganization, layout issues, etc.

The edit I just did was simply a reorganization, placing the early leaders section immediately after appellation and making the Essene section a subsection of the Jewish origins section (the latter without any order change).

I hope that helps clarify the changes that I made. If you have any questions or concerns, let me know. Vassyana (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have further revised the appellation section to better the discuss the word Christianoi, in order to address concerns raised by Lima through edits. Vassyana (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies to Vassyana

Vassyana has written to me: "Please do not alter text in such a way that it incorrectly represents the source or contradicts reliably sourced statements using unreliable sources, as you did at History of early Christianity.[6][7]"

It seems that I owe Vassyana an apology for something. Indeed for several things, since this is not the first time that he has told me I have done wrong in this way.

In the changes that Vassyana cites, I twice removed the statement that "Χριστιανοί" means "household of Christ". I did not see, and still do not see, that this was attributed in the text of the article to a reliable source. But Vassyana does see it, so I must apologize to him for not agreeing that the word conveys the idea of a household, and for failing to find the indication in the article that the statement about the idea of a household is based on a reliable source.

In the second alteration I made, I changed the statement, "The term 'Christianoi' was essentially a Latin word with a Greek ending", which to me seems the exact opposite of the truth. In fact, I still think that the non-ending part of the word is Greek ("Χριστ[ός]"), not Latin ("Unct[us]"), meaning "Anointed" (which is the meaning also of the Hebrew word "םשיח", usually Englished as "Messiah"). As for the ending, "-ανοί" is a great rarity in Greek, never appearing, as far as I know, before the language came under Latin influence, while "-ani" is an absolutely normal adjectival Latin ending, used, for instance, of the inhabitants of city (e.g. Syracusani), where the corresponding Greek ending is "-ιοι" (e.g. Συρακούσιοι). So I completely failed to see that the term "Christianoi" really does have a Greek ending, as Vassyana knows, and I must apologize to him for my failure to understand this. In his message to me, Vassyana also indicates that this statement is a reliably sourced statement. This too I failed to see, and I must apologize to him for it.

In the same second alteration, I moved up one place the paragraph (of his authorship) that mentioned the use of the ending "-ani" in the words "Pompeiani" and "Caesariani". (Rather curiously, these words are Latin, not Greek.) This seemed to me the logical place to put the paragraph, in order to explain the meaning of the word "Χριστιανοί" immediately after its introduction. Maybe this also calls for an apology from me. Apologies too for my belief that the Latin ending "-anus" merely indicates a connection of any kind with something or somebody, as Romanus with Roma, Pompeianus with Pompeius, Claudianus with Claudius, Arianus with Arius, Nestorianus with Nestorius, Africanus with Africa, Troianus with Troia,Vergilianus (of or belonging to the poet Vergil, e.g. his writings) with Vergilius, Britannicianus (someone doing business with the Britannici) with Britannicus etc. Now I am to accept that the connection cannot be of just any kind: it must instead be of a non-religious kind.

At the same time I omitted the statement "It did not carry the implication of a religious association, which would have instead been rendered Christiastai". My main reason was to place the examples of the two words "Pompeiani" and "Caesariani" close to the word "Christiani" that had the same ending (Latin, I thought), another wrong deed I must apologize for. I must also apologize for failing to realize the vital importance of the mention of a merely hypothetical non-existent word with the decidedly Greek ending "-αστής", and for failing even to realize that the observation that members of a religious association must be designated by this ending was a reliably sourced statement. I thought it added nothing worthwhile to the explanation of the word "Christianoi". So I must apologize for being so ἀφηνιαστής (rebellious), ἐξεταστής (inquiring), ἐπηρεαστής (insolent), φιλοπαρρησιαστής (fond of frankness), and not sufficiently ἐγκωμιαστής (laudatory).

As I said, this is not the first time Vassyana has attacked me in this way. I had better just stay out of editing anything he is working on. Lima (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The paragraphs have footnoted sources clearly cited at the end of each paragraph. Regardless, I took the time and effort to find additional reliable sources to address Lima's concerns and clarify points that might be unclear. Vassyana (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lima, "I had better just stay out of editing anything he is working on." We don't want you to stop editing our work. We want you to edit our work fairly, in accord with WP policies and guidelines. That's why we keep trying to explain the policies and guidelines to you, because we want you to edit, just edit fairly. But, if you really can't edit V's stuff or my stuff without doing it the way you do it, then, you're right, please steer clear. Or stick to the talk page. Leadwind (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Having finished work on another sector of Wikipedia, I have returned to this Talk page, and I find that Vassyana still holds me guilty of "altering and disputing sourced passages" because I could not (and cannot) believe that a source exists [allegedly Dunn, James D.G., The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 26] that is both reliable and propounds the nonsense that "Χριστιανοί" (Acts 11:26) is a Latin word with a Greek termination. Vassyana and Leadwind consider it "unfair" of me not to accept as both accurate and definitive their accounts of what some book states. When I have used a "{{fact}}" tag to question their accounts, they have responded by merely reaffirming that the book does state what they attribute to it. So, since I do not wish to buy books merely to quote what the authors really say in context, Vassyana and Leadwind leave open to me only two ways of dealing with such matters: either go through a process such as this example, or else just let the silliness stand, as I did here, and as I did with the unqualified statement that Jesus in no sense baptized, though a first-century writer says more than once that Jesus did baptize (through his disciples, not personally).

I find this amusing, as what I wrote above shows, but unhelpful for Wikipedia. Lima (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A citation was provided. {{Fact}} is for unreferenced statements. You are free to either accept the citation or go to a library to verify the claim. You could also politely ask that other users verify the citation or politely ask for a quote from the source. Insinuating that other users are in essence lying about their citations and altering the article based on your own views are not acceptable in the least. Vassyana (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As an additional thought in terms of verification, for those who do not have decent library access immediately available, there are online services such as Questia, which I personally use. Vassyana (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I may as well politely ask for a quote from the source that declares "Χριστιανοί" to be a Latin word with a Greek termination. (I did ask Leadwind to give exact quotations, but to no avail.) Lima (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's somewhat moot now, as the claim is no longer in the article, replaced by a better explanation. However, the source states: "Another novelty of the development at Antioch was that (according to Acts 11:26) it was there the Jesus movement came to be known as Christianoi -- a Latin term, apart from the Greek ending ..." Vassyana (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Vassyana, for this proof of the unreliability, at least on this point, of the book quoted. Any grammar of Latin will tell you that "-anus" is a very common Latin suffix. So that you do not have to depend on my word on the matter, I have sought out one such grammar on the Internet for you to check personally. On this page of Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar, you will find "-anus" given as the first of the suffixes by which adjectives with the sense of belonging to are formed. Goodwin's Greek Grammar (I haven't found it on the Internet) does not, of course, mention "-ανός" as a Greek suffix in sections 826-831, where it speaks of suffixes. As for the initial part of the word "Christianoi", "Christ(os)" is good Greek, with the significance of "anointed"; in Latin the word is merely a borrowing from Greek. To what extent is the so-called Reliable Source (capitalized, of course) reliable on other matters also? Lima (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is just getting ridiculous. -anus and -ani are Latin endings, -anoi is a Greek ending. It's not that complicated. As the article now states, we're talking about a Hellenized Latin word for the followers of Jesus. Please move on to something constructive, instead of arguing inaccurately with reliable sources written by well-established experts. Vassyana (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"-ανοί" is a foreign ending adopted in the Greek of that period in perhaps no other word but "χριστιανοί". Just as "Christus" is a foreign word adopted in Latin. On matters of Latin language, Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar is a reliable source written by two well-established experts. The book that declares that the ending in question isn't Latin (!), but is Greek instead, does not even "argue" inaccurately with Allen and Greenough: it simply inaccurately contradicts it. Secondary sources, no matter how seemingly authoritative, are far from infallible, even when they make definite statements, as in this case. And when an article proposes as plain fact, without any "may have been" or even a "quite likely", what is really only speculation by the writer, these sources provide even less support. Lima (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why are the views of E. P. Sanders being censored from this article?

Sanders' first major book was Paul and Palestinian Judaism, which was published in 1977. He had written the book by 1975, but had difficulty in having it published due to its controversial nature.

Sanders argued that the traditional Christian argument that Paul was arguing against Rabbinic legalism was a misunderstanding of both Judaism and Paul's thought, especially as it assumed a level of individualism that was not present, and disregarded any notions of group benefit or collective privilege. Rather, the difference was in how a person becomes one of the People of God. Sanders termed the Jewish belief "covenantal nomism": one was in due to God's covenant with Abraham, and one stayed in by keeping the Law. Sanders argued that Paul's belief was one of participationist eschatology: the only way to become one of the People of God was through faith in Christ ("dying to Christ") and the old covenant was no longer sufficient. But, once in, appropriate behaviour was required, based on the Jewish Law, but not necessarily keeping all aspects of it. Both patterns required the grace of God for election (admission), and the behaviour of the individual, supported by God's grace. The dividing line, therefore, was Paul's insistence on faith in Christ as the only way to election.

75.0.6.141 (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the source is being used in an inappropriate manner. What you report does not contradict the claim that Jewish Christians considered circumcision and (an unspecified version of) Law-adherence as necessary to salvation. The source also does not support the statement that Judaism and modern scholarship have criticized that claim. It does support a critique of the classical view of "normative" Judaism, which parallels the critique of the classical view of the normative position of Christian orthodoxy that was rising in popularity in academia at the time. However, that is not contradictory to what is stated in the article. The source also repeatedly states that Paul did not oppose Jewish Christians observing the law, but fiercely opposed the imposition of such requirements on Gentiles as a threat to their salvation. This also does not contradicts the article (even reinforcing some claims). Vassyana (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

page 233: "I have argued that that view [that Rabbinic religion was a religion of legalistic works-righteousness] is completely wrong" 75.15.207.33 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The source clearly states it is speaking of a view indicating that "Rabbinic religion was a religion of legalistic works-righteousness in which a man was saved by fulfilling more commandments than he committed transgressions". Sanders further specifies that "the Rabbis believed in the enduring validity of the covenant relationship and did not count merits against demerits (but rather atoned for transgression) and that they believed God had provided for the salvation for all faith members of Israel -- all those who have maintained their place in the covenant through obedience and by employing the means of atonement provided by the covenant, especially repentance, for transgression." (pg 236) [emphasis in original] [emphasis added] Once again, his work does not contradict the article and clearly reinforces the some claims in the article. Vassyana (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claim made in the current article

"There was a burgeoning movement of Judaizers in the area that advocated adherence to traditional Mosaic laws, including circumcision. Paul identified James the Just as the motivating force behind the movement."

Is it too much to ask for citations for where in the Pauline epistles Paul is said to make this claim? 75.0.3.67 (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I may as well partially answer my own question. Presumably this is an interpretation of Gal 2:11-12:

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. ..." (NRSV)

Shouldn't this be noted in the article? 75.0.3.67 (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And, I guess I should point out the obvious. Gal 2:11-12 is about shared meals, not circumcision. 75.0.3.67 (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The reliable source does not specify the source of this claim. I can attribute the claim to the source. However, we cannot guess as to what the author was referring to using our own opinion. Vassyana (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see, just adding to the Wikipedia credibility problem. 75.15.207.33 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] another odd claim

"Many of the Jewish Christians were fully faithful religious Jews, only differing in their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. As such, they believed that circumcision and other requirements of the Mosaic law were required for salvation."

The implication is that so-called "fully faithful religious Jews" believe that following the Mosaic Law is required for salvation. Editors should at the minimum familiarize themselves with the article Judaism and Christianity before making such foolish claims. Must the mistakes of the past be needlessly repeated? 75.0.3.67 (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As above, we cannot use our own opinion to contradict reliable sources. I have attributed the claim to the author. Vassyana (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] claims being made about Halacha/Jewish law in the first century

Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus:

“

Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakah was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity.

”

75.15.207.33 (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That source is quite outdated and modern scholarship places Hillel and Shammai as competing schools within the Pharisees. Additionally, the thrust of the disputes between Hillel and Shammai revolved around exactly how to fulfill the requirements of the Law, making it an ill-suited example for your point. Regardless, I have added a referenced subsection about the diverse religious climate in the time of Jesus to help accommodate your concerns. Vassyana (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further expansion

I have expanded the article to cover more of the post-apostolic period, adding a section about the period in general and a section about the spread of Christianity at the time. Vassyana (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vassyana's reversions

What justification is there for Vassyana's reversion of my latest edits? "Original research, disruption of citation." he says.

Where is the original research in stating the fact, which can be verified by anyone without specialist knowledge, that Acts 11:26 presents something as occurring before what Acts 24:5 tells of? I gave no interpretation, just stated the fact. Where is the original research in stating that Acts 26:28 mentions someone's use of the term "Christian"? Where, above all, is the original research in replacing a curious interpretation of 1 Peter 4:16 with an exact account of what the passage really says, quoting the actual words in context? And where is the original research in quoting an authoritative Latin grammar for the meaning of the suffix "-ani"?

The last of these edits disrupted no citation: it was at the end of a paragraph, after the reference note about the previous statement. As for the other edits, I did not believe, when I was making them, that I was interrupting a citation. I had previously quoted 1 Peter 4:16 in a separate paragraph, precisely in order not to interrupt any possible citation; but Vassyana himself moved that mention of 1 Peter 4:16, inserting it into the previous paragraph. This led me to believe that any citation that followed that insertion did not include it. I should have noticed that Vassyana had preserved his earlier statement, in remark form, that all the preceding part of the paragraph (including, it now seems, his recent insertion) was from a particular source. I apologize for not noticing it, and am quite prepared to remedy my mistake by putting the information again in a separate paragraph, quite distinct from any citation by Vassyana.

Before doing so, I beg leave to ask Vassyana politely to quote the exact words by which his source claimed that 1 Peter 4:16 "tells believers not to be distraught if they suffer because the name was applied to them". This could be taken to suggest that they would dislike the name, while 1 Peter 4:16 actually tells them to "glorify God because you bear this name"! Of course, if this idea of being distraught at the idea of being called Christians is not in the source, this would be a clear instance of an editor's (not mine) "Original Research" in attributing a particular intepretation to the text, something that I was careful to avoid. Lima (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your commentary was still slanted, calling it "long before" (when the events were relatively close in time, in terms of early Christian studies). A reader can observe for themselves that chapter 11 occurs (in the text) well before chapter 24. This really feels like an addition to prove a point.

I moved the 1 Peter passage to place it in-context with the discussion of the word and use the reliable source already in the article to revise the wording used. That's standard good practice and doesn't need much justification. We should be relying on reputable sources to frame the issue, and it appears that the edit I reverted was intended to be an apologetic for earlier usage of the term.

Regarding the addition of the Latin grammar referenced statement, I apologize for an incomplete edit summary, as that is simply superfluous. The article already discussing the meaning of the suffix in-context to its usage. A broader discussion of the suffix usage from a source that does not discuss the topic at hand is completely superfluous.

Regarding the source's statement about the 1 Peter passage, it states: "1 Peter 4:16 instructs believers not to be ashamed if they suffer because the name has been applied to them". This is from a reliable source and is perfectly in-line with what scholars generally say about the passage. Vassyana (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpfulness, Vassyana. I was not referring to the chapters of Acts, but to the events described in those chapters. But you are right: many would, like you, think that the relative term "long before" is out of place in reference to a mere 15 years or so. I do believe that 1 Peter is a better source for what 1 Peter says than any declaration by any other source about what 1 Peter says. Barclay is clearly right in comparing "-ani" with, for instance, "-ites" in "Hussites", "Millerites" etc. But the idea suggested by Dunn (the writer who said "-ani" is not a Latin but a Greek suffix) in the following paragraph, that "-ani" could apply only to followers of a military or political leader, and not a religious leader, needs correction. I could have mentioned "Ariani" and other similar words, but then you would have called it Original Research; so I just quoted instead a truly reliable source on the meaning of the Latin suffix in question. Where there are authoritative sources about such matters, it is not NPOV to present only one view. I depend on the cooperation of better writers to smooth out and improve my imperfect way of expressing these facts in the article. Lima (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early Christianity

What's the difference between this article and the Early Christianity article? Leadwind (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Smells like Wikipedia:Content forking. 68.126.21.162 (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's let those who see a difference have their say. Leadwind (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This was originally a straightforward article split (WP:SPINOUT) from Early Christianity. The origins of Christianity section outgrew that article. The origin split title was Origins of Christianity. A move was requested and undertaken to History of early Christianity (see Talk:History of early Christianity#Requested move). Early Christianity provides the "nuts and bolts" overview (beliefs, sects, etc), while this article provides a historical overview of the topic (in the normal vein of "History of ..." articles). I hope this helps explain the origin of this article and the distinction in scope. Vassyana (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As this article stands now, it is mostly about the Apostolic Age, why not move it to Apostolic Age? 75.0.14.176 (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I'd like to agree with you, but I don't see the point of this article. If the article were still strictly about the origin of Xity as a distinct religion, sure. I could also understand Apostolic Age, as a distinct subpage of Early Christianity. But I don't understand what I'd put in this article that I wouldn't also want to see in "Early Christianity." Could you give me examples of information that belongs here but not there? Leadwind (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't say there's information that should go here that wouldn't be desirable in the main Early Christianity article. This was a length-based split, to keep the Early Christianity article to a manageable length. As this article grows, it will need to be split into distinct articles for similar reasons (possibly such topics as "Origins of Christianity", "Apostolic Age", "Ante-Nicene Age", etc). WP:SPLIT, WP:SPINOUT and WP:SUMMARY provide guidance and information about such article division. The scope distinction is simply as noted above (nuts & bolts vs. historical overview). Such splits are normal and necessary for topics covering such a broad overview of a large topic. I should note that some synchronization for the summary style section in Early Christianity is needed, as this article has been significantly sourced, expanded and revised since the original split. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've got a proposal. This page could be arranged around historical events, taking them in order, instead of discussing items by topic. So you could scan down the table of contents and basically see a timeline. Now this page has a different purpose from the main article. Leadwind (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mucking with cited material

Lima, please stop altering cited material. It's cheating. Leadwind (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removed claim

I have removed the claim about Christiastai, due to strong objections.[8] I have access to works about attic and koine Greek discussing ιαςτα (pl. ιαςται) as a suffix associated with religious worship (like Αρωλλωνιαςτα). However, those do not discuss the topic at hand (the naming of Christians), nor the particular construction of Χριςτιαςται, so it would be inappropriate to use them to support the point in the article. Since I have not been able to find another source that discusses this matter and/or wording in context, I have removed the claim (that I inserted) as a controversial and an extreme minority (single source) view. Vassyana (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Vassyana, for removing the suggestion that "Christiani" must have meant followers of a political or military, but not a religious, leader.

Perhaps you will also do something about the article's suggestion that it was only "because the name was applied to them" (as an offensive nickname, perhaps?) that the people 1 Peter was written to would "suffer". The context is needed, if the reader is to be able to see that it may very well not have been at all a question of being offended at a name, but instead a matter of being made to suffer (whether by judicial trial or not) because of being classified as a Christian in a way analogous to the way "a murderer, a thief, a criminal, or even as a mischief-maker" would suffer.

You know very well that it was not I who initiated the discussion on the date of 1 Peter, which I explicitly said I thought was unnecessary. But as long as the article contains the bald statement that Ignatius was the first to use the name "Christian" in self-reference, as if there were no possibility whatever that the phrase in 1 Peter may be an even earlier instance of willing self-application of the term "Christians" than that found in Ignatius's letters (usually dated, I thought - and I haven't now checked - to about 107 or 110, rather than to about 100), the article is unbalanced.

Would it not be better to do something about calling "Nazarenes" one of the earliest names and only later bringing in a mention of "Christians", as if thus implying that the latter name arose only later? Similarly why the stress on "only" three NT mentions of "Christians", as if NT more frequently called them "Nazarenes"?

Does your source really say that Agrippa made his comment satirically? I suppose it must do so, and that the translation you quote is from the same source. However, the interpretation of that translation is not that of all translations. In particular, it does not correspond to the NRSV version that you link to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lima (talk • contribs) 21:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I will double check some sources I have set aside and rewrite the information about the biblical mentions within a better context. Peter's writing is universally thought to be addressing a Roman persecution. No reliable source that I have surveyed indicates it was a self-reference, while Ignatius' usage is very commonly referred to as the first self-referential use of the term. The rarity in New Testament usage of the term "Christians" is broadly noted in reliable sources. I can move the material about "Christians" to the beginning of the section, but I really think you're seeing some dichotomy/contrast between "Nazarene" and "Christian" that simply is not presented, implicitly or explicitly, in the article. The source uses the exact word "satirical", yes. However, I will be reviewing reliable sources to write a paragraph about the three biblical mentions. Vassyana (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Until I review the other sources, I have reordered the section and simplified some language to address your primary concerns. Vassyana (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Thanks for putting names in the chronological order of the Acts of the Apostles. Thanks for your statement on this page that 1 Peter "is universally thought to be addressing a Roman persecution", something that the article does not at all make clear. All the article says is that the letter "tells believers not to be distraught if they suffer because the name was applied to them". This is frightfully vague: one can "suffer" merely because of being called an insulting or unpleasant name and, to my mind, your use of the word "distraught", which you have said is not in your source, strongly suggests this milder "suffering", whereas in fact "μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω" literally means "let him not be ashamed". If the letter is referring to Roman persecution, the suffering was far more than that: it was punishment, indeed capital punishment, for the crime of being "Christians". Nothing to be ashamed of, says the letter, unlike what would be your situation if the punishment were for the crimes of being "murderers" etc. The letter says that, far from being ashamed, they should glorify God (NT Greek and also today's Greek says "Glory be to God", where in English we'd say, following Latin, "Thanks be to God") because they bear the name of "Christians". Glorifying or thanking God for bearing the name "Christian" seems to me very much like a willing acceptance by Christians of that name, a self-reference in fact. Thanks also for the other changes you have made to the text in the article. Lima (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

While you're checking your sources, would you please check also that Bockmuehl does say that "The Greek term Χριστιανοί (Christianoi) was a Hellenized form of the Latin word Christiani", rather than saying that the ending "-ιανοί" of the word "Χριστιανοί" is a Hellenized form of the Latin ending "-iani". I am not denying that he does say it, but I think he could have been more exact, given that the main part of the word (the word minus the suffix) is Greek, not Latin.

By the way, your comment (attributed to a source about whose accuracy concerning Greek and Latin you know I have doubts) that the ending of the word "Χριστιανοί/Christiani" was the reason why "Chrestus" was blamed for the disturbances among the Jews in Rome is very interesting. If true, it would show that, by 49, a very few years after when the word was, according to the Acts of the Apostles, first invented, "Christiani" had already become a familiar term in Rome. For my part, I do not find this convincing. It would surely be simpler to attribute the mention of "Chrestus" ("Χρηστός") simply to use of the term "Χριστός/Christus". Perhaps also itacism was already in operation in the mid-first century, although W. Sidney Allen's Vox Graeca says that the first sign of confusion between η and ι in Attic inscriptions appears only in the mid-second century. But that is just by the way. Lima (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm willing to accommodate concerns as best as I can, provided that they can be addressed with reputable sources. I'm looking over sources right now to address the concerns you've raised and add more context to the article. (By the by, if you have questions about humanities sources, I generally can probably help. I have full access to Questia and I also can get to a university library if I set aside an afternoon or evening.) Vassyana (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder where the writer of the article "Christian" in the Tyndale Bible Dictionary got the idea that some pagans, unfamiliar with the word "Christ", called the new group that appeared in Antioch "Chrestians". I have looked up Liddell and Scott: the word "Chrestianos" does not appear among the 4,844,028 words registered as used in the Greek texts it covers. I have also looked up Lewis and Short: the word "Chrestianus" does not appear among the 3,405,121 words registered in the Latin texts it covers. Yet various other suppositions in that article were presented as facts in the Wikipedia article, when they should at most be presented as suppositions of a single writer. Vassyana has now kindly removed them (except, perhaps, one), but they are examples of how what a secondary source says may need to be checked against (uninterpreted) primary sources, before being presented as fact. Lima (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is past the border of ridiculous. "Chrestus" is well-accepted as a variant (mis)spelling of "Christus". Also, we rely on experts to account for all of the information involved, including historical and linguistic data that is not related in primary sources and standard dictionaries. Please be reasonable. Vassyana (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I consider the professional writing of such authors as James D.G. Dunn and Phillip Wesley Comfort to be far more reliable than any pseudonymous Wikipedia editor's opinion of what is accurate in the interpretation of historical primary texts and ancient languages. If you disagree with such reputable scholars, you are free to pursue publication by reliable presses and reputable journals. You are not free to use primary sources and dictionaries to contradict reputable scholars. Vassyana (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The writer of the Tyndale Bible Dictionary article stated: "'Christ' was an unusual and meaningless name to Gentiles, but Chrestos (meaning 'good' or 'kind') was a common name; some pagans called the new sect 'Chrestians'." He was not speaking of variant spellings. He was saying that the pagans in Antioch did not really call the new group Χριστιανούς (Christians), but Χρηστιανούς (Chrestians). I do wonder, and I wonder how anyone can fail to wonder, how he could claim to know that. Acts 11:26 clearly says Χριστιανούς. Where can the writer have found the evidence that Acts is wrong and that what the pagans really called the group was Χρηστιανούς. I am disappointed at the reaction of Vassyana. I had come to believe that he was one who was prepared to consider reasoning put before him, instead of condemning out of hand. I do not claim to be more of an expert than the author of the article in the Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Nor do I consider the author immune from making occasional mistakes. Lima (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a possible explanation of the statement by the author. Although he makes the quoted statement immediately after talking about the name given at Antioch, had he moved ahead in thought to the situation in Rome some years later? Was he really saying that, while the people of Antioch called them Christians, some pagans at a later stage called them Chrestians instead? He could certainly have been clearer. If this is what he meant, he is making, as I said above, a very interesting statement, namely that "Christians/Chrestians" had become a well-known name for them even by 49, much earlier than some (who dispute the truth of Acts 11:26) maintain to have been the case. Lima (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Chrestus" claim in the article is supported by The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul.. This isn't the place to debate about claims not even put forward for inclusion in the article. Vassyana (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A "Chrestus" claim would be of no interest. As I said above, it is easy to understand how "Christus" could be understood as "Chrestus", especially since by, at latest, the second century both words were pronounced exactly the same in Greek, as they still are. What is interesting is the claim that by 49 "Chrestiani" was in Rome (not just in the Antioch of a very few years before) a word associated with disputes among Jews. I think it is interesting enough to deserve inclusion in the article. Lima (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. You argue against the source but think it is interesting enough for inclusion? Could you clarify what you're looking for? Vassyana (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(I hope you don't mind my reducing the number of colons to one.) I have absolutely no blanket objection to this source, far from it, even if I may perhaps have reservations about some points. You have seen above how I have, on my own, found that, if what the author says about "Chrestiani" is removed from the early-40s Antioch context and associated only with a late-40s Rome context, his claim becomes much more credible. It is, of course, a claim, not necessarily an absolute fact. For only one sector of only one source has a general doubt arisen in my mind, and that is about the knowledge of Latin and Greek of someone who says that "iani/ιανοί" is not a Latin but a Greek ending. And yet the same writer gives the Latin words "Pompeiani" and "Caesariani" as parallels! So I prefer to think that what he wrote about "iani/ιανοί" was a slip of the keyboard, rather than a lack of knowledge. If that is the explanation of what he wrote, then I have no objection whatever to any field of any of the sources used. But that does not mean that they never, not even once, expressed themselves somewhat ambiguously or perhaps even mistakenly. Would it clarify matters, if I inserted in the Wikipedia article the Tyndale Bible Dictionary statement? I promise not to refer to it as merely a claim. I have kept to the style in the article, giving no indication that the information is an opinion rather than an undoubted fact.

I have not dared to touch the statement about the appellation "Christians" taking prominence (over what?) "as the Church spread throughout Greek-speaking Gentile lands". The cited sources seem to indicate that for the general public "Christian" was the standard name already by 49, even in Latin-speaking lands. Nor have I touched the seemingly not very pertinent statement that James Tabor suggested that those who said "Christians" were trying to say "Nazarenes" in Greek (as if the Greek term "Ναζωραῖοι" didn't exist). Lima (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dating of 1 Peter

Any disputes or discussions about the dating of the First Epistle of Peter should probably be handled in its own article. The dating of the New Testament writings and its effect on the timeline of early Christianity may well deserve its own section in this article (with a {{seealso}} link to Dating the Bible), but only as a general overview of the scholarly consensus and significant minority views. (It would seem appropriate.) However, a side debate about the dating of a particular book in the appellation section distracts from the material at hand. Vassyana (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest merge to Apostolic Age

This article as it stands now is mostly about the Apostolic Age, so why not merge it there since that article is of very poor quality? The history of the second and third centuries is already well covered at History of Christianity, Early Christianity, Ante-Nicene Fathers and all the articles on the particular people of the second and third centuries and disputed texts. 75.15.196.201 (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend redirecting that article to here. If this article grows large enough (which it should eventually), we can always split off sections as appropriate. History of Christianity is a broad overview article, not a replacement for specific subtopics. Early Christianity addresses the "nuts and bolts" (beliefs, practices, etc.), while this historical overview was split from that article (and renamed based on the standard "History of ..." convention). (The heavy focus on the earlier period results from the split originating in a section focusing on the early origins of Christianity. This is slowly being corrected, as evidenced by the expand tag and concluding sections of the article.) Ante-Nicene Fathers is about the collection of writings published under that name and says next to nothing about the time period. Articles about early Christians and texts do not preclude a standard "History of ..." article, but rather exist to address their own topics, rather than the broader context. Vassyana (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and split off material from this article to Apostolic Age. A summary section needs to be written for the "hole" left in this article. Vassyana (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA goal

What does this article need to be a good article? Vassyana (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cooperative editing would be a start. As the article now stands, there are a number of errors and misconceptions, but a certain overzealous editor reverts all attempts to fix them. Do I make my point clear? 75.15.193.12 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some queries on the latest edits to the introduction

Is an article on a set of books of pirated translations a suitable link to explain "Nicene Fathers"?

Is "The Nicene period marks the end of this early period of Christianity" unambiguous enough? I fear it might be taken to mean that "the Nicene period" is the third period (after the Apostolic Age and the Pre-Nicene Period) within early Christianity. This article previously unambiguously used the First Council of Nicaea in the year 325 to mark the end of early Christianity and the beginning of a new era: anything after 325, when the Nicene period began (I don't know when it ended), was no longer early Christianity.

"The First Council of Nicaea in ~325 CE is the origin of the name 'Ante-Nicene', denoting its common use for marking the beginning of a new era" raises some minuscule queries, for which doubtless there are excellent answers, and so I beg pardon for mentioning the questions. For instance, what is the significance of the tilde before the date? Why say that the Council is the origin of the name "Ante-Nicene" rather than of the term "Nicene", which has been mentioned just before? (The meaning of "Ante-Nicene" would then be simply a corollary of the explanation of "Nicene".) If the First Council of Nicaea is commonly used to mark the beginning of a new era, and so the end of early Christianity, why does the article not accept the common use? Lima (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently the article currently found at Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers could use some help, but that's par for the course for wikipedia. The actual reference work is found here: [9]. The next period after Early Christianity is commonly called the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325=787). 75.0.9.209 (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Some further information. From here: [10] it appears Roger Pearse [11] User:Roger Pearse? is behind the claim of piracy. First I've heard of it. 75.0.9.209 (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I take it that 75.0.9.209 suggests that the article Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers should be moved to Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (books) or be put in italics or be changed in some other way to make it clear that it is not really about the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers themselves, on whom a new article could be written. I agree. By the way, I wonder when did the Nicene period end and the post-Nicene period begin. As for the charge of piracy, which I mentioned only because it was in the Wikipedia article on the set of books, I presume it was in reality a matter of the difference between British and United States copyright law at the time. Lima (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess the Nicene period is 325? Before is Ante-Nicene (literally), after is Post-Nicene? 75.0.9.209 (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Curious then that the Fathers of a single year (325) were numerous enough to be distinguished from the Fathers of the succeeding years, 326 onward (until the end of the Patristic period) Lima (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well I guess it was a banner year. (LOL). Presumably the Nicene Fathers are the Church Fathers who attended the First Council of Nicaea, or perhaps contemporary but did not attend. I guess you could extend the Nicene period till the death of the last Nicene Father but I've never heard of that convention. 75.0.9.209 (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)