Talk:John Chrysostom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article John Chrysostom has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 5, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] mini-Todo

  • Revise with research from:
    • "The Spreading Flame" DONE
    • "The Early Church"
    • "A History of the Early Church" DONE
  • Revise Conclusions
  • Reword, edit, rearrange
  • Linkage
  • Bibilography
  • Proof read
  • Spell check
  • Check the dates to see if He could have possibly baptized WA Mozart

AW

The article doesn't state that John Chrysostom baptized Mozart. It states that Mozart was baptized with the name John Chrysostom. —Preost talk contribs 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous comments

Nice job! I rewrote Constantinople/Alexandria sentence because Alex WAS the pre-eminent see of the East, Constantinople just wanted to be (and didn't GET to be until well after the Islamic conquest of Egypt). --MichaelTinkler

I'm worried about: His reign in Constantinpole meant an end to lavish entertainments. Prescriptive preaching doesn't always (ahem) work. See the career of Savanarola. He may have gotten some reaction, but I'm sure there was lots of resistance. --MichaelTinkler

OK, I think I fixed that now - aw

I've done revision 3 before completing 2, because of a book-flow problem! --aw

MT: I rewrote that sentence again. partly because it didn't make sense ("between" had no gramatical subject) and partly because i'm not convinced that Alex was recognised by everyone as the preminence Eastern see - feel free to show my error thou! --AW

I deleted the link of Diodorus (of Tarsus) because it linked to Diodorus Siculus. Those people are not identical, did not live in the same region and did not live during the same time - they differ centuries. Johanthon 20-02-2006.

All that needed to be done was to correct the link, which now goes where it needs to. —Preost talk contribs 18:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a church in Inglewood, CA named after him. INGLEHOOD! 03:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged anti-Semitism; quotes from homilies against the Judaizers

Are all of the anti-semitic quotes from the same citation? If not, could citations for the other quotes be provided? --Wesley

I'll check. I think they are all from one source, but I may have missed a second source. RK
Yea, i'd to know and check out the source material for those quotes please, i can not find it on http://www.ccel.org/. I have removed the quotes and replaced with a link to the Christian anti-Semitism article, as such duplication of material is unessecary. - AW
There are links to the Antiochian homilies at http://www.chrysostom.org/writings.html. There's also a discussion of his "anti-semitism" with additional references at http://www.chrysostom.org/jews.html. I suspect that such remarks are limited to these eight homilies, so I just edited the text to remove the implication that they are more widespread than that, and to again restate their context. Wesley
Thanks for revising that paragraph Wes. It reads much better and NPOV now. I was allways incomfortable with how it read before - someone else came in and added it and though i toned it down a bit i thought i shouldn't mess with it too much as i was not read enough on the subject. Asa Winstanley
I toned it further, as well as adding refs, because I was unconvinced that "virulent" can ever be an NPOV word... ;-)
While I see irritation at duplication, I think the verses are better placed here, in the context of John's life, than at Christianity and anti-Semitism - if it's decided they should only go in one place, I think they should go here. Martin
The presence of these quotes, with nothing from his other writings, skews the impression the article gives of John. http://www.ccel.org/ gives 90 homilies on the Gospel according to Matthew; 88 homilies on the Gospel according to John; 60 homilies on the Acts of the Apostles; 244 Homilies on the Epistles of St. Paul; and 63 other homilies, treatises, and letters (545 total), as opposed to the eight homilies Adversus Judaeos. The statement that some (unnamed) Jewish groups find certain Christian writers' praise of John offensive, especially without documentation of why those writers would hold such an opinion (e.g. the Pascha Sermon, http://www.ocf.org/features/EasterSermon.html), is scarcely proof that John was an anti-Semite in the modern sense. I would suggest removing the quotes and adding links to the homilies themselves, as well to the article that Wesley mentioned above. I'll make the edits in a day or two unless I hear a better suggestion. JHCC 16:31, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Also, the entire "Modern Influence" section is given to anti-Semitic misuse of John's writings. Even if the writings are so used, totally ignoring his influence on liturgy, social theology, and scriptural exegesis is like saying the only important part of the Mona Lisa is the middle finger on her right hand. This section should be moved to the anti-Semitic section. I would wager that more Orthodox have heard John's Pascha Sermon or read his Treatises on the Priesthood or On Marriage and Family Life than anti-Semites have read his Adversus Judaeos; that just might be more relevant to his Modern Influence. JHCC 16:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the length of these quotes, and the absence of any others, skews the article in a non-NPOV way. We should probably cut down these quotes (while linking to the homilies they are quoted from) and add other quotes from some of his most important works. --Jim Henry | Talk 17:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name

What was his original name? The Anome

Just John of Antioch, AFAICT. Martin

[edit] Looking for a quote

In a work on the history of libraries I found a claim attributed to John Chrysostom that at his time, pagan writings could no longer be found in pagan homes but only, if at all, in Christian ones. Chrysostom is not directly quoted, and the citation given is Joh. Chrys. de S. Babyla et contra Iul. 2 (PG 50, p.536c.). I've been able to find a reference which supposedly contains a "substantial part of the treatise of John Chrysostom on St. Babylas and against Julian", which I believe is the work being cited here. However this book is not directly available to me and I'm reluctant to purchase it because I don't know if it even contains the claim in question. Is anyone familiar with this work by John Chrysostom, and if so, could they check it if it contains the aforementioned claim?--Eloquence* 23:03, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Vegetarian category

I removed this article from Category:Vegetarians. St. John was simply an observer of the standard Orthodox practice of fasting which was normal for monastics. He wasn't a "vegetarian" any more than all Orthodox monastics are vegetarians. Yes, he didn't eat meat, but to place him in the "vegetarian" category is to put more of a deliberate ideology to it than St. John held to. Does anyone know of any preaching against eating meat in his sermons? --Preost 16:39, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Facts, not opinions

The following sentence:

"Some Jewish groups find it offensive that Christians speak positively of him. In view of the esteem in which Chrystostom is held in Eastern Orthodoxy, it is likely that these complaints are encouraging anti-semitism."

A. If there are indeed such "Jewish groups" -- name them. Otherwise, this should be deleted. B. "these complaints are encouraging anti-semitism" -- is opinion of the writer, not fact. C. The whole sentence is in the traditional form of "don't cross your bounds, as this will increase anti-Semitism" which assumes that 1) anti-Semitism is based in some logical consideration (here, insult to an esteemed person); and 2) That rise or fall of anti-Semitic sentiments is connected somehow to this or that scholastic debate. Both contentions are untenable. Ori 192.115.133.141 13:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joyce

It might be worth a mention, if not some exploration, the connection between John Chrysostom and Stephen Daedalus's epithet, "Chrysostomos", referring to Buck Mulligan, in Joyce's Ullyses.

[edit] Category:Anti-Semitic people

While John Chysostom expressed anti-Jewish and anti-Judaizing sentiments, to associate him with modern anti-Semitism (even if modern anti-Semitism takes inspiration from these writings) and modern anti-Semitic people (practically every other person included in this category is 20th century) is at best inaccurate and at worst inappropriate. The vastly major part of John's Homilies against the Judaizers is theological in nature, and a only very small percentage (the only parts cited by modern anti-Semites) what we might call personal attacks. I doubt if modern anti-Semites would be interested in the theological debate about pre-communion and lenten fasting versus fasting on Yom Kippur, or in John's assertion that:

Christ did keep the Pasch [Passover] with [the Jews]. Yet he did not do so with the idea that we should keep the Pasch with them. He did so that he might bring the reality to what foreshadowed the reality. (Homily III against the Judaizers, III, 9)

JHCC (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Antisemitism (People)

Please discuss here.[[1]]Doright 12:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Antisemitism (People)

It has been proposed that the category Category:Antisemitism_(People) be deleted. Since it has been proposed to add this article to that category, please consider voting on it at: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Antisemitism (People) --CTSWyneken 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

I find the tone of this article uttery innapropriate. The Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is of great importance to Orthodox Christians, and does not contain any anti-Semitism./ To read this you would think he was a Hitler. There were many unpleasant conflicts between Christians and Jews in this time, and to paint it in black and white is ludicrous. The 'one of the most virulently anti-Semitic preachers' is utter rubbish.

-Gregory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.203.252 (talk)

Indeed. This has been a recent POV-attack by an anti-anti-Semite, it seems. Chrysostom's anti-Judaising sermons are actually only a fairly minor portion of his massive corpus.
I've restored some of the balance and added in some references. This article still needs some balancing, though, as numerous references from Jewish sources have been added, as though particular Jews' denunciations of Chrysostom are the generally agreed scholarly opinion on him. They are not. See, for instance, this section from a review of the Wilken book. Additionally, there are favorable Jewish analyses of Chrysostom in Interwoven Destinies: Jews and Christians Through the Ages, edited by Eugene J. Fisher. 71.241.79.182 13:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Academic sources are not divided into Jewish and non-Jewish or, for that matter, into those of the white race and those of the black race. The issue of recent re-interpretations of Chrysostom has already been addressed in the section on his sermons against the Jews (yes, Adversus Judaeos means Against Jews, not Against Judaizers) However, you've given these re-interpretations undue weight so that they dominate the section. His anti-Jewish stance cannot be dismissed as a minor and insignificant issue for the simple reason that the Jewish issue is central to the Christianity as a whole and to one of its major figures in particular. Beit Or 15:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Does it occur to you that a Latin name applied to sermons given in Greek might perhaps not be the title given them by the preacher? In terms of dominance and undue weight, however, it is the recent massive revisions which you've introduced which have unbalanced an article worked on for a long time by a good many people. A review of this discussion page shows that the weight of consensus is generally against the blatant POV changes you've made to the article. 72.28.30.34 20:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The sermons were written down by his audience, not by Chrysostom himseld, and this is simply your original research that Chrysostom gave them a different title. The discussion here is very sparse, and nothing resembling a consensus can be found here. Otherwise, I don't see any reasonable objections on your side to the introduction of well-sourced material into the article. Beit Or 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The point is that the Latin title did not come with the sermons themselves, so arguing that their title is "really" something or other is a bit of a red herring, and therefore does not prove the point that they're "really" anti-Semitic. The sources that you're using are quite explicitly POV. Just because something is sourced does not make it a proper inclusion for a balanced WP article. This issue of the anti-Semitism charge has come up again and again in this article, as is evidenced by this Talk page. Please cease from skewing the article away from the balanced version to your own POV (sourced though it may be).
Even the version as it stands now (then?) dedicates entirely too much space to this issue. Of the many hundreds upon hundreds of sermons by Chrysostom which are extant, only 8 of them even touch on this topic much, and the amount of space dedicated within those 8 to the issues of Jews themselves, rather than the theology (as pointed out by JHCC above) is relatively minor. On top of that, the attempt to define that minority of a minority of material as being anti-Semitic in the modern sense is itself quite controversial. Most Patristics scholars absolutely do not read Chrysostom this way. Thus, to label Chrysostom as a "virulent" preacher of anti-Semitism in the introduction to the article is to introduce a massive deviation from a more sober analysis of his legacy. Chrysostom spent far, far more of his preaching on entirely other topics. You perhaps may specialize in the topic of anti-Semitism, but Chrysostom quite frankly did not. Are you even familiar with his volumes upon volumes of other writings? My suspicion is that you are not. 72.28.30.34 21:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Antisemitism is a central isue for Christianity in general, and John Chrysostom was one of the founding fathers of the Christian antisemitism. In addition, he delivered his sermons against the Jews precisely because in Antioch he felt strong competition from the Jews. So much for the antisemitism being a minor issue for him. If you feel that his contribution to theology is poorly covered in this article (so do I), go ahead and improve the article, but don't try to sweep an inconvenient topic under the rug. Beit Or 22:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Antisemitism is a minor issue for him in the context of his entire body of work. As the anon IP above wrote, he wrote hundreds of sermons on myriad topics, and the article must treat antisemitism in the proportion it appeared in his work. What you seem to be seeking is to treat the article as a soapbox, by your unsourced assertion that antisemitism is a central issue for Christianity. Please see WP:NOT. CRCulver 20:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Please provide sources for your arguments and learn what vandalism is. Beit Or 20:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I've already cited WP:NOT, and that removing sourced content is considered vandalism may be seen from the vandalism template tags. I see from your userpage and user contribs that you already have quite a reputation for edit-warring and unproductive revert campaigns. Why continue such detrimental editing here? CRCulver 20:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous IP is right: Beit Or is going against the broad concensus throughout this discussion page. While there is no problem with opinions on the talk page, a revert war is completely childish. Personally, I think the article as it stands is much better balanced, thanks to the edits of User:SlimVirgin. Of course, we will need much more on his other works, but fortunately we have a wide collection of external links at the bottom of the article.

However, I feel the section "Works on the liturgy" should be listed before the "Homilies Against the Jews" section, simply because, as a bishop, Chrysostom's primary "occupation" and training was as a liturgist, not an anti-Semite. Beit Or, we're not trying "to sweep an inconvenient topic under the rug", and please don't accuse us of that; the section is still there, but there are many other more important topics he covered in greater detail, and these should be represented proportionately. --Grimhelm 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see anything resembling consensus on this moribund (last edit before this section made on 24 January 2006) talk page. Then, I don't understand what your point is. If you contending that the article was better before my edits, feel free to state your why you think so and revert to your preferred version. Beit Or 16:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Other than the two of us, we have here five other users in the discussion of the tone. Four of them don't agree with you, one has been trying to balance the two sides, and there has been a good bit of messy blanket reversion in the article history page (I still don't know which version the summary "rv to last good version" refers to). Now, I won't say that this article was better before your edits, and it is trivial to use such rhetoric; there have been edits since yours, and on the whole this has vastly improved the article, incorporating your work in the process. The current version is nicely balanced, and although we need more work on his other homilies, I don't think any more needs to be done on his Adversus Judaeos, whose section is well balanced. --Grimhelm 17:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I can count two anons, both insisting on the same version with homilies described as being against the Judaiziers rather than Jews; then, there is SlimVirgin with her version, entirely different from that of the anons, and you, who agree with her; finally, there is your humble servant with his version. A correct description of this situation is a broad disagreement rather than consensus. I can accept that the reference to his antisemitism in the first sentence was probably an overreach, but otherwise there are quite a few things that need improving. The sentence "Chrysostom is known within Orthodox Church chiefly as a preacher (especially in his homilies on the New Testament) and liturgist, particularly in the Eastern Orthodox Church." belongs to the first paragraph: it's only purpose where it is now is to soften the impact of the next sentence about his anitsemitism. Then, my structure of the "Homilies" section was logical: first a factual discussion of the usage of his sermons by later antisemites; then, a discussion of recent attempts to re-interpret his sermons (they were deleted together with a reference for no apparent reason). Putting a reference to Wilken on top and devoting an entire paragraph to him makes the section look slanted. Beit Or 18:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The three anons I see are 212.219.203.252, 71.241.79.182 and 72.28.30.34. I wouldn't refer to it as a "broad disagreement" either; 212.219.203.252 (Gregory) who replied at the bottom of the page said he was happy with the state of the article.
The points about his veneration as a Doctor of the Church and his relics, etc, are important for the introduction, as they explain his importance to the Christian Church.
While I also agree the paragraph should not be headed off with Wilken (who should be kept to the footnotes), Patristics has been around for a long time, so I wouldn't say it is recent revisionism. I have, however, separated the final paragraphs into two: one dealing with the anti-Semitic abuse, and the second with the Patristic explanation; there were also a few spelling and grammar errors that needed fixing.
Also, I am not sure about the second citation of Lacquer, as he was not part of "the Christian church, which attempted to explain his words with reference to the historical context." I'm leaving it for the time being, but it seems out of place in the final paragraph and may need to be moved further up the section. --Grimhelm 19:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Lacqueur isn't part of the church, but he is a scholar of antisemitism, and he describes this argument, not makes it. Beit Or 19:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but I didn't have his exact reference at hand to check what he wrote. I think we should mention him inline, lest any potential confusion arise among readers. -Grimhelm 20:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


I have restored part of the paragraph on the psogos rhetoric. The paragraph was cited, and did offer an insight into the literary influences of the time. --Grimhelm 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have explained above, the paragraph is out of place where you have "restored" it. Actually, you didn't because this material is also at the end of the next paragraph, so your edit has resulted in a duplication. Beit Or 18:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sincere apologies, I see that now; I thought it was the addition of the second anonymous user. But on the plus side, I corrected a misspelling in the process. --Grimhelm 18:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for the alteration that was made about 'one of the most virulent etc'

I am an Orthodox Christian, and know very little academically about Chrysostom. But for me that is the point; I've attended his liturgy countless times and there is never any mention of anti-semitism, and culturally cannot see that his alleged anti-semitism had a great influence.

- Gregory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.203.252 (talk)


Hello,

As a Theologian and Patristics scholar I was curious to see what was written on Wikipedia about some of the great Christian scholars of the era. My understanding is that this is to be a brief synopsis of the life and work of St. Chrysostom. The content here is rather light and weighted heavily towards a small body of his work. The tone of this article suggests a rather negative and perojorative view of this scholar-saint. The charges of antisemitism are not in line with the best scholarship of today. The inclusion of referrences to Nazism are highly unprofessional and do not belong here. I have modified the site as necessary. Please forgive any editing errors as I am still learning how the editing process works. Things are much different online than in the academic world. I am currently not registered with Wikipedia but that may change soon.

-JR November 18, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.186.56 (talk)

Thank you for your recent contributions to this article. As you are probably aware, there has currently a discussion going on regarding his Adversus Judaeos homilies, with different editors trying to find a balance. It is good to have more Patristics scholars who are familiar with his work, as this article needs some improvement on his other writings. Therefore, I would encourage you to get an account and hope you will have more to contribute in future. --Grimhelm 22:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no reasons to thank you, dear User:69.230.186.56 for your removal of all sourced material regarding Chrysostom's vilification of Jews and Judaism. Beit Or 22:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
It is important not to WP:BITE by continuous reversion, and instead encourage newcomers to enter the talk page discussion, especially when they are experts in that field. Vandals get a "Thank you for your recent edits" notice, so it should be all the more so appropriate here with Bona Fide edits. Assume Good Faith. --Grimhelm 11:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have restored some balance to the section on his homilies, and renamed it "Homilies Adversus Judaeos" according to the Latin title, to avoid disagreement over the varying translations. I think that this section can now be left be, but the current problem is over whether or not to refer to the effect of these homilies in the introduction. They currently read as:

Chrysostom is known outside these Churches for his anti-Jewish sermons, which played a considerable part in the history of Christian antisemitism,[1] and were extensively used by the Nazis in their ideological campaign against the Jews.[2]

It could be possible to reword this slightly and still keep it, but to what we will have to decide. --Grimhelm 12:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check a Latin dictionary to see that Judaeos cannot be translated as Judaizers. Nor to my knowledge does any respectable source attempt to make this translation. It is arguable, and the current version of the article does say so, that Chrysostom attacked Jews to dissuade Judaizing Christians from their practices, but the Latin title translates as Against the Jews; no other translation is conceivable. On top of that, you cannot claim that his sermons were later "abused": this is POV and/or original research. You'll have to assume in this case that he was misunderstood throughout the history of Christianity, which is hardly the case. Beit Or 17:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The most recent translation of this work "Discourses against Judaizing Christians", by Paul W. Harkins, according to one of the links at the bottom of the page. Not that I would use that translation, but the original Latin is completely neutral. Also, Chrysostom's works were religiously based, while the Nazis' persecution were racially based. I would have to say using a religious argument to justify ethnic cleansing irrespective of religion is an abuse. --Grimhelm 19:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Those were not only the Nazis who used his sermons as justification for persecutions of Jews. Beit Or 20:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judaizing Christians

Crculver, could you say what your evidence is that Chrysostom was speaking out against Judaizing Christians only? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

My main quibble is that the title should be in the original Latin, since that is the standard method of citing it in most of the patristics scholarship I've read. CRCulver 18:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia article for people who may not know anything about Chrysostom, not for scholars, so it's probably makes most sense to have the title in English, using the accepted translation. Perhaps we could put the Latin after the English. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Latin here is not even the original because the sermons were delivered in Greek. Beit Or 19:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Then why are we arguing which Latin translation to use? Can we just get the original Greek title? --Grimhelm 19:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Kata Ioudaion or Against Jews. Beit Or 20:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Kata does not mean "against," but rather "according to" or "downwards." (For instance, To Evangelion kata Ioannin is certainly not "The Gospel Against John.") Did you just back-translate your English translation of the Latin into what you think the Greek might be? Or do you have an NPOV source?
In any event, we can be pretty sure that these sermons had no titles at all originally. Rather, the Latin title was something that Western scholars ascribed to the sermons, just as they did with many texts from Greek. 71.241.82.41 22:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] categorization as anti-Semite

This is really unfair and entirely POV. There have been tomes of debate on the subject on both sides. -- Kendrick7talk 07:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It is not an established fact that Chrysostom was an anti-Semite, nor is it even the general consensus of Chrysostom scholars. Rather, what we're seeing is an attack by an anti-Christian POV which regards Christianity itself as being anti-Semitic (despite all its founders being Jews!). 71.241.82.41 22:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a problem. Most notably, all of the citations are to secondary literature, while all of Chrysostom's works are in the public domain and the web. This section either needs to cite primary literature or tone down the rhetoric. 4.240.114.110 20:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've always been taught that what he said about Jews is a mistranslation of what should be Judaizers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.180.164 (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ordination to the Diaconate

This article declares St. John was ordained to the diaconate in 384 by St. Meletius of Antioch. The Wikipedia article on St. Meletius of Antioch states that he passed away in 381. Likewise, a number of other sourses state that St. John was in fact ordained deacon by St. Meletius in 381 (see for example the New Advent Catholic encyclopedia). Either the date of ordination is 381, or it was done not by St. Meletius - the data as they stand contradict each other.

[edit] Incorrect categorization

[the two comments below were copied from User_talk:Beit_Or#John_Chrysostom_2]

I looked at some of the details of this article, and it appears that the person under consideration held anti-Judaic views (in the sense that he opposes Judaism as a religion). He doesn't appear to be antisemitic (i.e., he doesn't seem to be having any opposition to Jewish people—and their corresponding ethnic group). Do you agree with this formulation? I was thinking about creating a category called "Anti-Judaic people"—people having negative views toward Judaism as a religion, but not necessarily the ethnic group. For example some Jewish converts to Christianity might be anti-Judaic, but they may not be anti-Semitic per se. I hope you see what I'm saying. So let me know what you think about this idea in general and whether or not you think it applies in the case of John Chrysostom. Regards, Taxico 09:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Antisemitism is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious or ethnic group. Religious antisemtism is thus just one of the facets of antisemitism, alongside racial antisemitism. Beit Or 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if that definition were a given (which it is not—did you write it?), it still does not qualify in describing John Chrysostom. We do not know what his personal feelings toward Jews (whether as a religion or as an ethnicity) were. We only have his sermons whose purpose is to discourage Christians from being involved in Judaism. By today's standards, his rhetorical style may well indicate a personal hostility or prejudice, but patristics scholars and others who study rhetoric in history are pretty unanimous that this style of speech is a deliberate artifice with certain conventional elements which in themselves convey nothing of the speaker's personal feelings.
Opposition to a religion does not equal hostility or prejudice toward those who practice it. Please cease this POV jihad of yours (both in this article and throughout Wikipedia). This is a perennial topic on this article which honestly should not be inserted into it as a major or categorical component, having been hashed out again and again, always with the same result: The weight of scholarship regarding Chrysostom is that, while he delivered a handful of sermons (among many thousands regarding other topics) denouncing Christians who engage in the practices of 4th century Judaism, he was not an anti-semite in any meaningful (and certainly not modern) sense.
By the way, it is not proper practice on Wikipedia to move other folks' comments from your personal talk page to the talk page for an article. It's rather rude, actually, and constitutes misquoting, as it is taking comments out of their intended context. 71.241.91.236 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It's funny to hear lectures on what's acceptable on Wikipedia from a random user who never even bothered to establish an account. I'm slightly amused by you personal attacks, like "this POV jihad of yours"; I realize, however, that you're not afraid of being blocked for that because you edit from different IP addresses and you believe you can always evade a block. An additional advantage is that you can create an impression that you're more numerous than you actually are. The bad news for you is that whatever rhetorical devices Chrysostom used in his sermons, their content is clearly antisemitic and all the works on antisemitism place Chrysostom among the founding fathers of Christian antisemitism. Beit Or 20:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack, but is rather an observation about your chosen activities on Wikipedia. I have no idea what sort of person you are. But I see that your response has indeed been a personal attack. In any event, I did have a Wikipedia account but have chosen to use it no longer. I've been editing Wikipedia for more than two years now. The fact that I end up signing with multiple IPs is not an attempt to appear numerous but is simply a function of how the Internet works. That doesn't really matter, though, does it? Your account has only been on Wikipedia for two months. Should that exclude you from editing as you've taken on various folks who've been active here for years?
In any event, I rather doubt that "all" the works on Anti-Semitism even mention Chrysostom, much less that you've read "all" of them yourself. (How many languages do you read?) Wilken's work on this precise subject (the only book on it) takes quite a different view, and it certainly ought to be included in your "all."
Even if it were the case that all the works on Anti-Semitism describe him this way, that's an open admission of bias and POV, an attempt to skew an article toward something relatively minor. If Chrysostom's career were one of Anti-Semitism (that is, that was his job and the main thing for which he was known), then you might have a point with that comment, but it's still only an extremely minor element of his life and legacy.
But the context of Chrysostom's life and career is as a priest in 4th century Antioch and as a bishop in Constantinople. Are you familiar with any of his other writings? Have you even read, for instance, the Divine Liturgy ascribed to him which is celebrated by millions of Orthodox Christians at least once a week? 71.241.112.59 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight

Currently, a rather massive section is dedicated to Chrysostom's homilies against Judaizing Christians in Antioch, yet almost nothing is dedicated to the overwhelming bulk of his work, i.e., his homilies on Scripture and other writings (e.g., On the Priesthood). Additionally, the majority of the citations in the References section are dedicated to the Judaism issue. No matter whether one thinks the homilies constitute anti-semitism or not, this is clearly undue weight being given to a relatively minor item in Chrysostom studies. If anti-semitism has anything whatsoever to do with John Chrysostom, it really isn't very much.

I propose cutting the section on the homilies in question and reducing it to a single paragraph as part of a new, larger section describing his preaching in general. I also propose cutting the reference to these homilies from the introduction. There also needs to be a general listing of his extensive works.

Comments? 71.241.91.236 22:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm principlied against removing information from the wikipedia. I don't think the balance is terribly off right now; my own impression is this criticism has been notable and abundant for the last half century, and it makes sense for the criticism to have its own section. If the article became too long at some point, some parts could be branched off to sub-articles, at which point this area could be a good candidate for a subpage. -- Kendrick7talk
We must disagree on the question of balance: Chrysostom's notoriety throughout the centuries and even into our own day has hardly anything to do with the homilies in question. Additionally, regarding whether information should ever be removed from Wikipedia, your principle is not really appropriate to an encyclopedia, which should be dedicated to concise, balanced, representative articles on notable subjects. Wikipedia is not a repository of all possible information known to human beings. (By your principle, if I wrote an article about my dog, it should be included.) 72.28.30.34 14:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I would be interested to see your edits. I can only advise you not to take this a bridge too far. -- Kendrick7talk 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Funnily, the above who complains of the article's alleged imbalance never moved a finger to add anything about Chrysostom's contributions to the Christian theology. All we have instead are attempts to POV, remove, or at least reduce a discussion of the homilies Against Jews. Beit Or 20:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've not made any major changes, because I'd like to see consensus worked out (again) on the Talk page before engaging in an edit war. You'd do well to learn similar tactics rather than engage in sudden and unilateral major changes which go against previous consensus, followed by perpetual reversion and edit wars when you don't get to push your POV. This article has been on Wikipedia 30 times longer than you have, so please take the time to learn about its history before jumping on it and then complaining when you don't get to push an anti-Christian POV on an article about a 4th/5th century Christian preacher. 71.241.112.59 18:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Despite what you're preaching, you did that tendentious rewrite without reaching consensus. Beit Or 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You seem to use tendentious to mean "edits I don't like." In any event, I wish you'd address the content in question rather than just complain of bias. I made the significant edits I did essentially because you asked me to. Please cut out the blind reverts. Why, for instance, did you revert out the new content regarding his homilies on the Bible? Were they too "tendentious" and not fitting your POV of Chrysostom as nothing but a slavering racist? You even reverted spelling corrections. Sheesh. 70.105.220.100 01:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"I wish you'd address the content in question rather than just complain of bias." I couldn't describe your behavior better. Beit Or 12:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

The revert war I just witnessed was completely immature and irresponsible on both sides. (If it went on any longer, we could nominate it for Lamest Edit Wars, but the topic is too serious for that and I'd rather we come out the better from the discussion). I don't understand how neither side felt there was anything that could be salvaged from the other revision - or were both sides merely testing out Chrysostom's uncomprimising psogos? There was so much cited material that was simply blindly reverted - as for the "outrageously tendentious edits", the ensuing revert removed some very important sections about Chrysostom's writings/sermons on the Old and New Testament, as well as a correction to a reference spelling. I fail to understand why AGF was cited during a revert, as the editors seemed to be following Assume Bad Faith in general anyway.

I also felt the merging of three small sections (on Importance, Modern Influence and an almost trivial list of Baptismal names) into "Legacy and modern influence", as well as some other section consolidation, was a good move. The Adversus Judaeos homilies section could be given its own section again, but it fits nicely under the general "Homiletical writings", and could even be given its own sub-section under that title if felt necessary.

Perhaps the philosophy of WP:TEA is the best way to address the issue, or at least some discussion right here on the article's very own discussion page. I have found good contributions in this article by the editors involved, and have consequently gone for another more balanced version incorporating their work, restoring relevant text from both sides, and moving some excess material into the footnotes (which could easily have been done earlier).

I hope this will give help give the article some better POV balance, and that we will all remember to be a bit more considerate and Assume good faith in the future. Thank you! :-) --Grimhelm 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd honestly prefer to assume good faith, but as the WP policy page says, "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."
The truth is that the overwhelming weight of scholarship is against the accusers of Anti-Semitism. But I honestly don't think that Beit Or is familiar with Chrysostom scholarship at all, just a few out-of-context quotes circulated by Nazis and those who see them everywhere, even in Christian bishops dead for more than 1500 years before the Nazis came to power. The fact that he'd prefer this article to be about Anti-Semitism rather than about Chrysostom is evidenced by his reversion even of new content regarding the works of Chrysostom, which don't happen to fit his "tendentious" POV regarding him.
If he'd be willing to learn the reality regarding Chrysostom scholarship, then good faith might again be demonstrated. I'm certainly not saying that this WP article should include no mention of the Adversus Judaeos homilies, but it is at least worth noting that most major sources on Chrysostom don't even bother to cover them. That is, Chrysostom experts have generally regarded them as of extremely minor importance. 70.105.220.100 01:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly antisemitism scholars consider them to be of great importance. I didn't read many works on Chrysostom himself, but those that I read at least mention these homilies. Allen and Mayer even provide a full translation. Beit Or 12:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There might be some undue weight, but that doesn't justify the removal of sourced information. Instead you should try to expand other parts of the article. Taxico 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it should be included in an article. Not all sources are equal, not all are good (many are outright bad), and not all are the best choices for an encyclopedia article, which should be kept as concise as possible and cover the major elements of a subject. (I could, for instance, possibly find a source stating what brand of shaving cream Bill Clinton uses, but should that be in his WP article?) 70.105.220.100 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It is true that not all references are acceptable, but the ones about his anti-Jewish statments clearly are. If you would read WP:RS you would see that the sources are considered reliable. If you feel that the article does not focus enough on Chrysostom's other activities, feel free to write about them using valid references.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Moshe, I don't understand your most recent reversion, under the edit summary "his anti-Judaism is probably the most famous aspect of his beliefs". If you had looked at the revision before reverting, you would see that his homilies were mentioned in the inroduction (enitirely unchanged from your version except for four words), and that the Adversus Judaeos were now mentioned earlier in the article than before, with almost exactly the same information they had had before. And of course, a lot of relevant material on other writings and homilies was removed in the process. The current version does have balance regarding the Adversus Judaeos, and all the content there before the IP edits, so please do not blanket revert if you have a problem.
At the anon IP about the article protect: you said you have an account, so why not use that instead of complaining, as it is a good courtesy to other editors to use a consistent and easily identifiable username rather than a changing IP. --Grimhelm 08:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


At Taxico's recent edits, I don't understand his reversion of the balanced revision to the original. You may have merely misinterpreted the most recent anon IP edit as being removal of information - as I have said earlier, I assure you this is not the case. The last anon edit before the protect was in fact restoring the article to my version; in the current revision I have made sure that it includes everything mentioned in the older revision of the section on Adversus Judaeos, in the process of the general restructure I have already commented on. It is my understanding that no content has been lost by this edition, and that we have instead expanded on Chrysostom's other works, as we all seem to agree is needed. --Grimhelm 17:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's as far away from truth as one can get. This is the sum of all my edits since I first edited this article: [2]. Do you see me removing a single sentence? The only instance where I've undid any of your edits is after you had taken out some of my addition. I obviously had no choice but to revert. This edit of yours reverted this edit of mine among others. So, no, your version did not "include everything", and that's why it was reverted. The question is, why were you removing my edits? I'm going to assume some good faith and assume that you weren't conscious that you were removing information (this is usually what happens when you try to make one big edit instead of several smaller ones). But it's okay. Let's not remove information from now on (especially without any acknowledgment or explanation). Taxico 04:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I was actually not editing your edit, but the one here. It was this edit that you had reverted, and anything removed (which you could have restored rather than blanket revert) was by the anon edit I was basing mine on, so I'm still not sure specifically what was removed.
Anyway, I have now restored the new material on other writing, section by section, avoiding the Adversus Judaeos for clarity of edits. I cannot conceive any problems that could be had with this version. --Grimhelm 16:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
No I don't have any problems with your new version. Thank you. Taxico 01:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
That's good. We can now use this as a foundation if anything is added to the Adversus Judaeos. Speaking of which, I'll have to look through the anon contributions again for sourced material. The original Greek title deserves a mention, in my opinion. --Grimhelm 12:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Significance of Adversus Judaeos

The two sentences here appear to be original research. I was going to just remove them, but I thought I should point them out first. The first sentence doesn't have any sources, and the second sentence doesn't seem backed up by the source (the source itself appears to be some kind of a forum???). In any case, as a courtesy, I'll let the sentences stay for a few days before removing them. Taxico 03:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems they have been removed prior to discussion anyway… I actually don't know about the second source - I was just trying to salvage more of the earlier anon edits. However, I think the first sentence could remain, as it does mention the single. Perhaps it could be restructured as:
These homilies are often not mentioned in scholarly work specifically on Chrysostom and collections of his works, such as the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church[3] and the six Chrysostom volumes of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series, probably because they constitute such a minor portion of it. The one work in English dealing specifically with the subject of these homilies is by Robert Louis Wilken (1983)[4].
--Grimhelm 16:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There are many more works in the English language dealing with these homilies, some of them are referenced in the article. These sentences are not merely original research, but a demonstrably erroneous one. Beit Or 16:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Are these other English works specifically on the subject of these homilies or Chrysostom's life? Because that it was all the revision seems to be asserting. --Grimhelm 16:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
They are either on antisemitism in general, or on Chryosostom's antisemitism in particular. Regardless of their subject, the paragraph above is still original research. Beit Or 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joyce

The Joyce reference can be sourced from any commentary on Ulysses. I don't have access to my university library at the moment, but the Ulysses vademecum published by Routledge will do if someone can grab it from the shelf next time they are at their library. CRCulver 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you were talking about this book:
Blamires, Henry. The New Bloomsday Book: A Guide Through Ulysses. London: Routledge, 1996.
This seems like a pretty popular book, so it might take me some time to get the book. But let me know if this our guy. Taxico 15:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek word kata

Some editors have asserted that the Greek word kata may mean "on the subject of". This assertion needs to be supported with reliable sources; furthermore, one needs to show that the title of Chrysostom's sermons against Jews has ever been translated as On Jews rather than Against Jews. Beit Or 18:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Kata doesn't mean "against" (anti is "against"). Literally, kata means "downward," and it is also used metaphorically to mean "according to." It can also mean "during" when used of time. See the Liddell & Scott Intermediate Greek Lexicon, pp. 402-403. (The L&S lexica are the standard for Greek studies in English.) 70.105.195.191 20:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You're confusing Ancient Greek with the more recent variety of this language. I cannot say for sure when the word kata changed its meaning, but anyway, the sermons are known as kata Ioudaion, and to my knowledge, no one attenpted to translate the title as On Jews. Beit Or 20:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The L&S lexicon also covers patristic-era Greek (much of which deliberately used archaic Greek). (Even in Modern Greek, kata does not mean "against.") Kata can mean "against" in the literal sense, i.e., "the book is leaning against the wall," but for the sense of "opposition," the word is anti.
What is the source for the title of Kata Ioudaion? And do you have any source for what title they might have had in the period in which they were transcribed? 70.105.197.14 20:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Regarding edits such as this one: [].

  1. Most of my edits are exact quotes from sources. So "Traditionally these homilies have been called Kata Ioudaiōn (Greek: Κατά Ιουδαιων), which in Latin becomes Adversus Judaeos, or "Against the Jews". But this title misrepresents the contents of the discourses, which clearly show that Chrysostom's primary targets were members of his own congregation who continued to observe the Jewish feasts and fasts. So some have renamed the sermons Against Judaizing Christians." is a direct quote from Chrysostom (1979), page x. Those are not my words, and when you change them you're misrepresenting what the source says. The same goes with the statements attributed to Wilken (1983). So when Wilken says the sermons "were directed at Christians in his congregation who were participating in Jewish festivals [...]" that's also an exact quote. If you believe Wilken is wrong when he says the sermons were directed at Christians, then you should probably be providing alternative sources contradicting his statement—not putting words in Wilken's mouth.
  2. The translation of the title Adversus Judaeos is controversial and variant from author to author. There's no basis behind choosing one translation over another. The Latin title Adversus Judaeos, is pretty consistent and is used my most authors when quoting Chrysostom.
  3. The Amazon links were put there (not by me) to make it easier to verify that there are alternative translations of the title. You can go ahead and remove them, but I don't consider them harmful.

==Taxico 00:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

These are only Wilken and Harkins who have tried alternative translations. Elsewhere, the title of the sermons is translated as Against Jews: see the multitude of sources in this article, including Allen and Mayer, who are not cited in the respective section, but who have provided a full translation of the homilies in their book. Beit Or 19:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know Wilken doesn't even translate the title. He just calls it "Adversus Judaeos". Harkins calls it "(Discourses) Against Judaizing Christians". I take it that Allen and Mayer call it "Against Jews"? Shouldn't it be "Against the Jews"?? Anyway, what justifies choosing Allen and Mayer over Harkins? ==Taxico 01:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not just Allen and Mayer, but every other source that I'm aware of, with the exception of Wilken and Harkins. Beit Or 08:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah why don't you go ahead and list those sources? "every other source that I'm aware of, with the exception of Wilken and Harkins" doesn't seem like a scholarly statement. Have you personally checked every other source with the exception of Wilken and Harkins? ==Taxico 16:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
These sources are referenced in the sections on "Against Jews" and "Antisemitism". Why should I produce elsewhere a separate list of them? Beit Or 16:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay I'll get a hold of that book. ==Taxico 16:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As the traditional title, Adversus Judaeos is the most neutral title for the section. It avoids any controversy over translation, which is elaborated on in the first paragraph anyway. One thing I did not realise at first from reading the edits, however, was that these were direct quotes; it may help if quotation marks or some other way of indicating quotation were to be used, but misrepresenting such quotes should certainly be avoided.

I also think there is no harm in the Amazon links being there, but at the same time, there is no harm in removing them, so I am content with that much either way. --Grimhelm 17:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Adversus Judaeos is equivalent to Against Jews. There is no other conceivable way you can translate this Latin phrase. Yes, Harkins gives a different title to his translation, but this appears to be an attempt to give a different and, in his opinion, more adequate title to these sermons rather than an attempt to translate Adversus Judaeos as Discourses Against Judaizing Christians.Beit Or 18:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Then you should have absolutely no problem using the Latin title. And if Harkins' is indeed a more appropriate alternative title, then clearly that gives the possibility of using that as the title, while there are also the authors that opt to use the Latin title rather than the translation. The traditional Latin title is simply the most neutral, and anything regarding translation is discussed in the following paragraph. --Grimhelm 19:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Adversus Judaeos is equivalent to Against Jews. A Latin title cannot be more neutral than it's English equivalent. On the English Wikipedia, English titles are preferred. Thus, the section should be titled Against Jews. It's as simple as that. Beit Or 11:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misrepresenting sources

Regarding edits such as this one:

  1. Wilken (1979), page xi: "These sermons, eight in all, were directed at Christians in his congregation who were participating in Jewish festivals and taking part in other Jewish observances."
  2. From Harkins (1983), page x: "Traditionally these homilies have been called Kata Ioudaiōn (Greek: Κατά Ιουδαιων), which in Latin becomes Adversus Judaeos, or "Against the Jews". But this title misrepresents the contents of the discourses, which clearly show that Chrysostom's primary targets were members of his own congregation who continued to observe the Jewish feasts and fasts."

Do you have any sources saying the primary targets were people other than his own congregation? In any case I don't think anything justifies misrepresenting what the sources say. If you think the statements are "POV" you need to provide neutralize the paragraph by adding alternative points of view—not modifying what the sources say without even providing citations of your own. ==Taxico 16:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has been misrepresented at all, and you may want to refrain from such accusations of bad faith. I've simply NPOVed the polemical assertions of Wilken and Harkins that you have tried to present as facts. That the sermons were delivered to Christians is undisputable; that they were directed at Chrystians rather than Jews is a POV assertion, which at least must be attributed to source. The same is true for the naming issue: that their greek title is Kata Ioudaion is fact, but that the title misrepresents the content is a fringe POV assertion. You may want familiarize yourself with the available literature on Christian antisemitism to see how Chrysostom's sermons are treated there. Beit Or 18:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
They are being attributed to sources when one gives citations, no? Do you want me to put every single attribution in quotes? That doesn't make a lot of sense because, per WP:OR, every single statement on Wikipedia has to be attributed to a source anyway. ==Taxico 18:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
When inserting highly idiosyncratic POV, you must clearly state in the body of the article who holds this POV rather than state this opinion as fact. Beit Or 12:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I had no reason to think adding quotes from mainstream texts would constitute "inserting highly idiosyncratic POV". But even if it was (which clearly isn't) the responsible thing to do would be to add those in-the-body citations yourself--not to change what the source is saying. ==Taxico 17:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You had no reason to think so because you have refused to get acquianted with the scholarly literature on antisemitism in which Chrysostom emerges as one of the founding fathers of Christian antisemitism. In the future, Taxico, please do research first and edit later, instead of first editing and then never doing research. Beit Or 17:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say "scholarly literature". This is an article on John Chrysostom. When it comes to Adversus Iudaeos Wilken is the leading authority. Another authority on the history of Jews in Antioch is C. H. Klaeling. So I don't know whose work you're reading. I've got a hold of the book by Mayor and Allen, but that's just on Chrysostom himself and has only about 20 pages of direct translation of Chrysostom's work (not even commentary). So what's your source of "scholarly literature"? ==Taxico 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the "references" section. This is getting tiresome. Beit Or 21:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well actually half of those references were put there by me. I've also personally checked out about 80% from my local library. There were two I had overlooked: The German book and Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe before the Holocaust. I might check out this latter book as well, but I'm not going to add anything to this just to see it being removed or completely modified without much consideration. ==Taxico 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

(moved from User talk:SlimVirgin by SlimVirgin)

I'm not sure what you're thinking when you systematically remove my contributions. Maybe you personally don't like me? Well that's not really fair because you don't really know me. Maybe you somehow think this is some Christian vs. Jewish conflict and you better defend the Jewish side? Well that's also not true, because I myself am actually Jewish (באמת) and I don't really have particular Christian sympathies. So I don't really know what you're thinking. Maybe you somehow think I'm biased toward one side or another? Well I don't know about that either. I got into this after I saw an RFC on John Chrysostom. My original intention was to focus on his anti-Judaism, but Beit Or and you and some of the others have removed what little contributions I've already made. So I'm not going to even bother adding anything on John Chrysostom's anti-Judaism until you guys assume some basic good faith. —Originally signed by Taxico 21:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like a highly personal comment directed at SlimVirgin. It's irrelevant whether you are Jewish or not; your edits are the only thing that matters. Beit Or 12:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right, this is very personal was directed at SlimVirgin, but he removed it and decided to posted it here without my approval. I tried to removing it but they keep replacing it. ==Taxico 17:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of Balance?

I'm surprised that so much of this article is devoted Kata Ioudaiōn. The article should be expanded to deal more fully with JC's profound influence in other areas, or new articles created to address his contributions to liturgy, etc.

Question for Beit Or. What is your level of proficiency in reading either Koine or Medieval Greek? Majoreditor 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added section on musical influence

See the new section on music. Please feel free to augment.Majoreditor 01:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changed order of paragraphs for "Kata Ioudaiōn"

I swapped paragraphs 2 and 3 to reflect the thrust of the sermons.Majoreditor 01:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned Paragraphs are now in the Catechism Section

What's up with that? Majoreditor 19:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that an anonymous editor removed some material, interfering with the structural style. I'll fix these problems with the article. --Grimhelm 20:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


And a few points at Beit Or:

  • "Most up to date translations" is a quote from the source given in that sentence, and I would prefer to avoid accusations like "a sneaky way to endorse them". It also seems you reverted so that it redundantly mentions Against the Judaizers twice. What is the logic there?
  • I accept the point about the biographer, as I was unsure whether it was Laqueur or a different biographer (Laqueur was the source quoted, however). Could we clarify who that contempory biographer was?
  • The Greek title has been there for some time, and I thought there were no problems with it. An untranslated title has been the consensus this whole time. Why is it being changed to English now?
  • Finally, in the same apparent semi-revert, the reference notes have been given an extra space. Maybe it's just my own stylistic preference, but I haven't seen this widely done on other articles.

Thanks. --Grimhelm 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Grimhelm and have made the appropriate edits. Majoreditor 22:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Grimhelm:

  • Stating a quote from a source with a known POV as fact is a violation of [{WP:NPOV]]. I have no doubt that the source sees its version as the most up-to-date and enlightened one, but we cannot just endorse this claim.
  • The sentence is sourced to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, not Laqueur; please the article before editing. The name of the biogrpaher is Palladius.
  • The English title has been the consensus one for as along as I remember this article; I haven't edited it for some time. If you want a foreign-language section title, you must bring a very strong case for it.
  • No problem with that.

A final note to Majoreditor: disagreements on Wikipedia are meant to be resolved through discussion rather an edit war, especially with uncivil edit summaries. Beit Or 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, need I remind you that I'm not the one who started this. You made wholesale changes to the article this month without posting any discussion points to this page. And I'm not sure what you deem "uncivil". Rather, your attempt to make wholesale changes without attempting to reach concensus is closer to uncivil behavior.
Let's discuss a path forward. I am open to suggestions. Majoreditor 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't make any wholesale changes. I've only restored some long-standing stuff that achieved consensus in the past. Take two major issues here: the intro and the section title. The section title was changed on January 25 by an anon without a word talk.[3] The sentence from the intro was also removed by an anon (this talk page history shows it was the same user) in what was arguably a vandal edit.[4] The next edit after the anon was yours.[5] You didn't bother to revert that vandalism; it was only Grimhelm who partially reverted it.[6] Now if you can bring a case for those anon edits, this talk page is the right place for that, but you may have to face an uphill battle defending a vandal. Beit Or 20:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • We are not "endorsing a claim"; it is simply a fact that the most recent translation is by Paul W. Harkins, as is given in the footnote citation, and the text merely reflects that. You also haven't commented on the redundancy you reverted for the second time, so I will assume there is no problem if I fix that again.
  • I misread the sentence; Laqueur is cited in the following sentence. The name of the biographer is appreciated (although some more information would be nice for linking - would it be this one?) and I will add this to the article.
  • The foreign-language title, or rather its original title, is the only title that it not disputed due to translation issues. Otherwise, we could go with the most recent title, which is cited from Harkins.
  • And there was a mess up with the citation-needed dating as part of the revert, but I will assume it was accidental (as often happens with edits of such large scope).
--Grimhelm 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The current version states that Wilken's translation is the most recent one. However, you have reorganized the section to assign undue weight to this fact, presenting it as an endorsement of Wilken.
I think so.
The translation of Kata Ioudaion or Adversus Iudaeos is not disputed. It is translated as Against (the) Jews; no other translation is possible. You just fail to distinguish between translation of the title, which is Against the Jews, and the title of a translation, which can be any.
Can you be more specific?
Beit Or 13:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I present my edits: [7] I am open to discussion. --Grimhelm 20:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Your edits were essentially a revert, only done piecemeal. Beit Or 13:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
No, if they were a revert to MajorEditor's version, you would not have seen these edits: [8]. The lead was not reverted (only one word was changed), the biographer was mentioned by name, and your concerns on the "most up-to date" line were addressed by making it less POV. You reverted all of this, which also restored the redundant sentences. These are the kind of "wholesale" reverts MajorEditor talked about. Can you please take a closer look before reverting that particular section? I would like to start by asking if you have any issue with my removal of the redundant sentence.
Also, the Kata Ioudaion/Adversus Iudaeos sermons are best known by their untranslated title, unlike all Chrysostom's other sermons. Stating that the translations of Wilken and other scholars are most recent does not give it undue weight or endorse it - how does it do that? "The most recent scholarly translations, claiming that Chrysostom's primary targets were members of his own congregation…" What is disputed here, and what would you recommend otherwise? --Grimhelm 17:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, one cannot categorize the anon's Jan. 25th edit [9] as vandalism. While we don't know who made it, we cannot assume that all anons are vandals. And if you check the talk page of the other user you will see that I contacted the user in question asking him not to remove the antisemitism section. [10]

My observations:

a. John Chrysostom didn't title his sermons, others did.

b. There are differing opinions and interpretations of the sermons.

c. There is no need to transform this article into a flashpoint. This is Wikipedia -- if you want to stir controversy then look elsewhere.

Grimhelm has made some sensible edits which are constructive, NPOV and help us move forward. As for myself, I would rather spend my time improving the section on liturgical contributions. But I will be patient and spend what time it takes to see this discussion to its conclusion. Thanks. Majoreditor 13:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil; comments like "if you want to stir controversy then look elsewhere" are in violation of WP:CIV. In addition, please argue on content rather than editors, and rely on arguments rather than revert firepower. Beit Or 14:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree we should all try to be civil, but the "totally disputed" tag is a bit excessive. I think there is a grand total of three lines disputed over neutrality, and the only factual dispute I can see is the Cardinal Newman quote, which seems irrelevant to this discussion. I have downgraded the tag to "neutrality dispute". --Grimhelm 17:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It may not be totally disputed, but this is English Wikipedia, and I don't see any good reason why the informative English title shouldn't be used. It would be very east to include the Greek transliteration in the first line of the paragraph. TewfikTalk 19:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section Title

As I don't see any argument why the section title must be in Greek, I'm going to change it back to English. Beit Or 20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

They are best known by their untranslated title, and the titles given in English are varied. --Grimhelm 20:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you give the source for the statement that they are best known by their untranslated title? Beit Or 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't give a specific source, but I think we should wait for Majoreditor to chime in. --Grimhelm 21:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
There have been plenty of arguments as to why the section title may appear in Greek. The real question is whether one agrees with the arguments. You clearly do, Beit Or. It is very apparent that scholars are divided on the best title. Majoreditor 21:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
That's non sequitur. I've asked whether there is any source, supporting the claim that the Greek title is more common than the English one, but I have heard no response so far. Beit Or 21:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You stated above: "As I don't see any argument why the section title must be in Greek, I'm going to change it back to English." I am addressing your statement. I maintain - as I belive Grimhelm does -- that there is much disagreement as to how to refer to the sermons. As mentioned earlier, Chrysostom didn't entitle them himself, and scholars are divided on the matter. Majoreditor 22:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I ran a WP:Google test for '"Kata Ioudaion" Chrysostom' as well as for '"Against the Jews" Chrysostom'. The first found 91 results, while the latter retrieved ~21,900. The difference of three orders of magnitude weighs heavily in favour of the English on what is after all English Wikipedia. While some of the latter's results found internal phrases, almost all of them found references to the title of these homilies. TewfikTalk 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Since this is the English Wikipedia, I propose a descriptive but neutral heading like "Sermons on Jews and Judaizers", without italics. It would be in much the same way that the section on "Opposing Paganism" is not the actual title, and the various posthumous titles used by historians would already be discussed further down. This would also give a balanced coverage of the views over their intent. --Grimhelm 13:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice work, Grimhelm. Your proposal is sensible and balanced. Majoreditor 15:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor note: I feel the title "Sermons on Jews and Judaizing Christians" is more neutral than "Sermons against Jews and Judaizing Christians". The latter implies that the homilies were against both groups, whereas it is disputed as to which group they were targeting. "On" is more neutral for the title in that what is not disputed is that the subject covered both. The first paragraph already covers the specific nature of the homilies. --Grimhelm 18:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone new to the talk page, Grimhelm's proposal seems like a reasonable compromise. I would not keep the title in Greek, per all the reasons mentioned above. I am, however, confused as to why the anti-semitic material is covered in two sections -- "Sermons on Jews and Judaizing Christians", and "Antisemitism." Perhaps this has all ready been hashed out through the consensus process, and if so, ignore me -- it just seems odd to someone who hasn't been involved in the editing of the article. -- Pastordavid 18:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)`
Thanks for the comments, Pastordavid. Actually, I don't think there's been any discussion on the talk page about covering antisemitism in one vs. two sections. I can see reasons for either approaches. Majoreditor 02:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Grimhelm, when you talk about a "dispute", you seem to be referring to that group of scholars who think that Judaizing Christians rather than Jews were the primary target of the sermons. There are no scholars, claiming that neither Jews, nor Christians were targeted. Beit Or 10:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Majoreditor, since you by default revert every edit I make to this article, I can only conclude that you're editing solely on personal grounds. Beit Or 13:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Really, Beit Or, accusing others of editing on "personal grounds" isn't going to help your case. As I have said before, I agree with Grimhelm and Pastordavid's position -- that the title "Sermons on Jews and Judaizing Christians" works better. That's why I reverted your last edit. Please limit your discussion to the facts and do not dwell on personal conjecture. Majoreditor 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That you're editing on personal grounds is pretty evident to anyone looking at this talk page and article history: it's sufficient to point to your question regarding my knowledge of Greek and your reversion of every edit I've ever made since you became involved in this article. Please do not put words into other people's mouth: Pastordavid did not say that "on" is better than "against". Beit Or 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Scholars differ over the primary target of the homilies, as you have said. "Against… and…" implies that they were both equal targets, which could be misleading with regard to scholarly opinion. "On" is certainly no less descriptive, and it does not detract from the content or accuracy of the article - remember that the first paragraph (and indeed the first line) immediately expands on them. And while Pastordavid did not specifically say " 'on' is better than 'against' ", he did say that it was a reasonable compromise (so Majoreditor wasn't putting words in his mouth).
I would proceed with caution before accusing someone's interest in an article as being on "personal grounds". In regard to the current discussion, when you changed the title to "against", it was several days before I changed it to "on" and explained why. From what I can see, Majoreditor was making edits to other articles in the meantime, and did not edit here until there was support on the talk page (currently the majority). I am not aware of either of you conflicting on other articles (correct me if I'm wrong), so that is not a strong argument for his interest in this article being on personal grounds. He does, after all, contribute to areas other than the homilies you are mainly interested in: "As for myself, I would rather spend my time improving the section on liturgical contributions."
To respond to Pastordavid's question, it seems that the reason for two sections is to keep the actual content and their long term effects separate (dividing under "Homiletical Writing" and "Legacy and influence"). If you feel they should be together, then you can simply propose that for discussion. --Grimhelm 21:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Grimhelm, thank you for the perspective on the current discussion.
Beit Or, I am not going to descend into personal accusations. Editors should assume good faith. Let's not stray from the high road and instead remain focused on facts and honest dialogue.
The point remains that Grimhelm offered up what is, to use Pastordavid's words, a "reasonable compromise" which reflects NPOV. That's the majority consensus. Majoreditor 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Tags

Since it seems that a compromise has been reached (at least, no one has commented further in 9 days, or done any substantial editing for a week), I am going to remove the POV tag for the time being. Please feel free to re-add if you disagree with my removal -- and bring it to the talk page so that we can work it out. Thanks, -- Pastordavid 10:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor cleanup to introduction

I have performed some minor copy edits to the article's first section. These edits are only to enhance readability. Majoreditor 14:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for reference material on liturgical contributions and influence?

I am starting to research his liturgical contributions and influence. Does anyone have any suggestions on best sources to use? Majoreditor 14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fr. Robert Taft is probably the most concise resource. He has a small book The Byzantine Rite: A Short History that's fairly accessible that goes into some of St. John's contributions. (I doubt you want his 6-volume work on the subject.) He also surveys the available evidence on the author of the Divine Liturgy traditionally ascribed to him and concludes that the tradition is correct in a paper I have in an anthology at home, but it may not be available anymore. I'm not at home right now, but I'll post the title when I get back there tonight, if I remember. You also might want to consult Hugh Wybrew's The Orthodox Liturgy. I can't recall how much he focuses on St. John in it, but there might be something useful. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I used to have Taft's "The Byzantine Rite" but have lost it over time. I'd love to see the paper title when you have a chance to post it. I will also see if I can access a copy of the Wybrew book you mention. Majoreditor 22:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Here it is. The book is Essays on Early Eastern Eucharistic Prayers, Paul F. Bradshaw, ed. Taft's paper is "St. John Chrysostom and the Byzantine Anaphora that Bears His Name" pp195-226. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

This article is really close to being GA quality. I am going to go through and do some touch-up / clean-up sort of editing, and then submit it as a GA candidate. -- Pastordavid 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. I think that the article is at or very close to GA quality. Majoreditor 17:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Good to hear. I agree that the article has been very close to GA quality for some time. --Grimhelm 18:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Grimhelm -- I had an edit conflict while I was doing a big edit. I think I was able to get your change in as well, but if I accidentally dropped something you were trying to put in, I apologize. -- Pastordavid 19:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about the interference - that must have been quite an edit to span over 40 minutes. My note seems to be fine, although the reference style was altered slightly. I'll refrain from editing until the tag is gone (not that I really have anything to add at the moment…). --Grimhelm 20:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize, it was my fault. I have switched the references so that they are all the same style (I really have no preference for one over another - although I do find this style easy to use and edit - they just need to be all the same style). There is a little bit of copy-editing in those edits as well. I tagged a few sentences that were either direct quotes without attribution, or statements that just seemed jarring without a reference. It would be nice if we could do something about those trivia-style sections at the end, making the prose a little better, or just making them seem less ... well, trivial. -- Pastordavid 20:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preparing for GA

I see a couple of things that will keep this article from GA/FA ... perhaps we can nip them in the bud before starting. There are (I think) 10 "fact" tag, there is also one citation from Wilken (#44 right now) without a page number. Also, the Literature and Music sections need some work to be a little more encyclopedic. I am going to go ahead and start the peer review process while we work out these last few details. -- Pastordavid 21:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can work onsome of the "fact" tags over the next 3 weeks. I looked over several books on John Chrysostom in the library a couple of weeks ago -- I should head back there and check them out in order to get cites. I'd do it sooner, but, unfortunately, am busy with other activities. Majoreditor 21:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think its ready to go ... nominating. -- Pastordavid 21:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited quotes/info

I am removing a few uncited quotes to the talk page to prepare for a GA nom. We can re-add them once we find sources. -- Pastordavid 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


In a sermon soon after his arrival he said "people praise the predecessor to disparage the successor".[citation needed]

What, pray, are we afraid of? Death? ‘For me life is Christ, and death gain.’ But tell me, is it exile? ‘The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains.’ Is it the loss of property? We brought nothing into the world. It is certain we can take nothing out of it. The terrors of the world I despise, its treasures I deem laughable. I am not afraid of poverty, I do not long for wealth. I do not dread death, I do not pray to live, except to help you advance in virtue. So I simply note what is happening at present and I call on you, my dear people, to be of good heart.

[citation needed]

His final words were "Glory be to God for all things!"[citation needed]

A number of famous people have also been baptized with the name John Chrysostom, including Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Jan Zahradníček and Jan Čep.[citation needed]

"Again Herodias rages; again she is confounded; again she demands the head of John on a charger" [citation needed] (an allusion to the events surrounding the death of John the Baptist).

I replaced which of these I could track down quickly, and also replaced some of the deleted statements in the article where I could find citations. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Great job ... not only do I think we should sail through a GA, I don't know that we are too terribly far from FA (although we still need some work to get there). -- Pastordavid 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)`
I will see if I can find and check out the Wilken book this weekend to get the page number for that one citation. I will also try to find the liturgical works Csernica mentioned. Hope I can find them. Majoreditor 16:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I completed the citation for the final Wilken reference. Majoreditor 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music

None of the works mentioned were strictly speaking inspired by St. John's work in anything but an attenuated sense. They're written for the Divine Liturgy as performed in modern times, the bulk of which is not his work. The Liturgy he brought to Constantinople (a redaction of the same source used for the Syrian Liturgy, according to Taft) was mainly the prayers of the Anaphora. The rest of the Liturgy was celebrated in a manner very different from how it is now done, and the Anaphora itself is usually prayed quietly in the altar by the celebrant and is not set to music at all. The Liturgy of St. John differs from St. Basil's in what is audible to the people in only one hymn, which was not true in his lifetime. I suggest this section be cut.

The reason these works are for the Liturgy of St. John and not St. Basil has to do with timing more than anything else. St. Basil's anaphora and commemorations are much longer than St. John's, so it's customary to use more drawn-out or melismatic arrangements for it. Music written for St. John's Liturgy will be more brisk -- in a manner of speaking. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silver chamber-pot

I generally prefer to use direct quotes over second-hand wherever possible. The only thing I can find similar to the "excrement in a silver chamber-pot" quote is here [11] in the paragraph starting, "I know that many persons make jokes at me for this...." Is the quote from the source a redaction, or just a very different translation? And is it worth the extra space? To convey the entire sentiment from the Schaff translation, we'd have to quote,

"Another, made after the image of God, is perishing of cold; and dost thou furnish thyself with such things as these? O the senseless pride! What more would a madman have done? Dost thou pay such honor to thine excrements, as to receive them in silver?"

That may be too long for the purpose. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question, Csernica. I believe, but am not positive, that the quote I've used is a translation rather than a redaction since the material I cited appears in quotations in Liebeschuetz's book [ISBN 0-19-814866-0]. Here's the exact context:
Instead of wasting it in display the rich are to give their wealth in charity to the to the poor. 'Do you pay such honour to your excrements as to receive them in a silver chamber-pot when another man made in the image of God is perishing of cold?'85 They are not to withhold alms because they might be assisting a wilfully idle layabout. God offers sun and moon, earth and water to workers and non-workers alike.86
Footnote #85 is listed as " Hom. VII 5 in Ep. ad Colloss. (PG lxii. 350). "
Regrettably, I have just a photocopy of chapter 15, so I'm uncertain as to what translation source the "PG" refers to. I'll see if I can retrieve the book this weekend. Any other thoughts or observations? Majoreditor 04:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
"PG" isn't an English translation. It stands for Patrologiae Graecae, a monumental collection of the Greek Fathers with Latin translations that was compiled in the 19th century by one Jacques-Paul Migne, and is a standard. So you won't get the English from it, although it's possible it came into English by way of Latin in Liebeshuetz which may account for the difference. But from the footnote, it's obviously the same text being quoted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. D'oh, I was slow-witted and didn't figure out the obvious. Majoreditor 03:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

I've put the GA on hold, but don't worry, it's about minor fixes only. Basically, the article is very well referenced (perhaps you should consider two columns in "Notes", I mean {{reflist}}?) and well-written. It is stable, accurate and broad in coverage, and looks neutral to me. The images are good enough and I don't think there could be any jargon in such an article.

What you need to do is some better struturing: you've got some overly short subsections ("Liturgy letters", "Influence on the Catechism and Clergy") which you have to either expand or merge with others, and some listy subsections like "Music" and "Literature" which are also rather short — I'd suggest merging them into one and getting rid of those bullets. "See also" is pretty ugly like that too, so my suggestion would be to get rid of it too, and link "Church Fathers" from somewhere in the text if possible. Also, perhaps you could have several subsections in "Biography", it's just a bit longer than a single heading should take as I see it, though I wouldn't insist on that too much. The whole thing is about having balance between the different (sub)sections.

Also, why don't you format the quote in "Biography" ("Do you wish to honour the body of Christ?…") using {{rquote}}, it looks better and makes the quote easier to see; but that's just a suggestion. A somewhat major problem is the "Publications" section, which isn't at the right place and is a bit POV ("most well-known", "most important", "fairly important selection" — says who?), plus it has no references to back its claims. I'd say remove it outright like "See also" and we're done :) Best, Todor→Bozhinov 14:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Bozhinov, thanks for the review and suggestions.
What if we do the following:
(1) Eliminate the "Publications" section, merging it into "See Also", per Bozhinov
(2) Eliminate all subsections in the "Legacy and influence" section to address the issues Bozhinov raises. Replace bullet points with sentences.
(3) Add subsections to "Biography" section, per Bozhinov.
Comments? Majoreditor 14:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That sounds great. Also, putting the references into columns, and the quote in "Biography" using the suggested template. um ... we should probably use tags on the page, to avoid edit conflicts while doing this maintence sort of stuff (which can take a little while). I will be unable to do too much on this until this afternoon (US Central time). -- Pastordavid 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
OK guys, I've passed the GA. Congrats on a job well done everyone, and thanks for the quality expansion of Wikipedia's coverage of key Christian figures! Best, Todor→Bozhinov 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian orthodoxy

I thought John Chrysostom was also venerated in the Russian Orthodox Church. In Russian he is known as Ivan Zlatoust (Russian: Златоуст), and there is a Chrysostom monastery in Moscow (see picture in article). Can someone with more knowledge about this subject than I have please check this, and make the appropriate changes if necessary? Errabee 09:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Russian Orthodox Church appears to be incorporated into Eastern Orthodox Church. I'll add the Russian name though. Errabee 09:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)