Talk:Tabor Light

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Greece Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Tabor Light, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
High	This article has been rated as a High priority article
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. See also the Eastern Christianity Portal. (rated as High importance)
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.

An entry from Tabor Light appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 30 May 2007.

Shouldn't the main title be Uncreated light? True, Tabor light is a better translation of the Greek "Φῶς του Θαβώρ" (although Light of Tabor would be better still), but "Uncreated light" is MUCH more common. E.g., a Google search of "Tabor light" gives 801 results (of which fewer than half refer to the subject of this article), while another of "Uncreated light" returns about 23,200.

I support the name change. "Uncreated Light" is a much more common term, and it accurately implies the theological concept behind it. MishaPan 15:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pejorative

The sentence from the article, "(known in the West by the pejorative Palamism)" was recently changed to, "(known as Palamism)" with the Edit Summary of, "how is this pejorative?". To answer the question, throughout the history of Christian theology heretical doctrines have been typically named for the individual who originated them (cf. "Nestorianism", "Arianism", etc.). The adoption by the West of the term "Palamism" is, in this sense, pejorative, as an indication that the concept so described is heretical; whereas in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas is accepted as a part of the mystical theology of the Church, and is not called "Palamism" but is referred to as the doctrine of the "Uncreated Light". I'm going to restore the sentence to its previous status, since it is historically accurate (and the assertion that the doctrine is "known as Palamism" is offensive to Eastern Orthodox readers). However, I would appreciate any comments readers have about this. MishaPan 15:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, this doesn't make sense. A doctrine is named for its originator, yes. Palamism, Nestorianism, Lutheranism. This is regardless of whether you accept it or reject it. Of course, if you reject Palamism, the term will have negative connotations. And if you accept it, it won't. This has nothing to do with the term itself. The doctrine is known as Palamism, by its originator, Palamas. If you want to argue the term itself is somehow pejorative, at least say who has claimed that. "In the West" is utterly pointless, since this being en-wiki, we obviously give English language terminology. If you had taken the time to do a superficial google search before engaging me, you would have found any number of occurrences of the term in perfectly sympathetic discussions.

[1] [2][3] [4][5]

dab (𒁳) 06:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Gregory Palamas is not the "originator" of the doctrine, only its defender. Obviously, the concept already existed, or Barlaam would have had nothing to attack (1338). Palamas only entered the debate afterwards (1341), in response to Barlaam. The expression "In the West" has nothing to do with languages, it refers to Western Christianity (as opposed to Eastern Christianity). Furthermore, "Palamism" is not the only English-language term used in writings about the doctrine. If you need some "-ism" by which to call it, "Hesychasm" would be much better. I think it is unfair of you to presume that I have done no research on this question; I have, both on the Web and in print--and more than just a "superficial google search." If you are interested in Western academic sources that treat St. Gregory's teachings negatively, try [6] (characterizing it as "an obscure speculation, with the wildest form of mystic extravagance") and [7] (accusing it of "pseudo-spiritualism akin to that of the ancient Euchites or Messalians"). With regard to the sources you link to above:

• [1] I'm sorry, I don't read Russian, so I can't address the reference.
• [2] This article does not use the word "Palamism." It does speak of "Palamite theology," but this does nothing to disprove the pejorative use of "Palamism" in the West. Furthermore, the article specifically says, "St. Gregory was suspected of subversive innovations by his enemies and this is still the way he is perceived in general in the West" (emphasis added); and, "St. Gregory starts his theological investigation with the question: What is the essence of the Christian experience? The answer he gives to this question, which is theosis, is not new" (i.e., Gregory did not originate the idea).
• [3] I don't read German either, but I'll bet the author, Reinhard Flogaus, is a Westerner.
• [4] Here the author, Otets Hryhorij (Ukrainian for "Father Gregory," whose user profile features a picture of a Dominican, and who describes himself as a "Byzantine monk"--which would appear to mean Ukrainian Catholic, since Orthodox in Ukraine do not normally refer to themselves as "Byzantine"), gives a negative assessment of Gregory Palamas' patristic theology.
• [5] This Websites' mission statement says, in part: "We will live and defend the faith given to us by Jesus Christ by remaining completely obedient to the teaching authority of His Church" (i.e., the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church). The page referenced treats "Palamism" as part of a class on "Theological Issues".

MishaPan 20:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Here's another, more recent article with a negative use of "Palamism" from the Western point of view (Anglican) [8]. And an interesting quote from the Lutheran point of view [9]: "Just about every "error" that Lutherans point to in Orthodoxy was firmly entrenched by the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Even "Palamism" is seen as far back as the 400s in the works of Macarius and in the monastic milieu." MishaPan 23:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. It is true that Palamism is generally rejected in western theology, but that has nothing (whatsoever) to do with the term Palamism, but with the doctrine itself. Authors rejecting the doctrine would reject it under any name. Palamism is a perfectly neutral for "the doctrine developed Palamas" and in itself has no negative connotation. Claiming "Palamism" is a pejorative term is like claiming that "Communism" is a pejorative term because you'll be bound to find a great number of English language sources rejecting it. dab (𒁳) 07:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, Palamas did not invent the doctrine. The Orthodox Church does not have the Roman Catholic notion of developing new dogmas. The Orthodox believe that the fullness of doctrinal teaching was given on the day of Pentecost. Doctrinal formulas are only "defined"--i.e., the Church finds a specific vocabulary with which to express what it has always believed. When the Holy Fathers elucidate a teaching, they are not speculating; they are only giving voice to what they have recieved from Sacred Tradition. This is why heresies are named after people, but doctrines are not. While some Orthodox sources (Meyendorff, etc.) may use of the term "Palamism" they are doing so only as a bow to Western convention, but is improper from an Orthodox point of view. One might argue that since Wikipedia is an English-language project we should bow to "Western convention." But I would argue that we should not do so if the conventional usage is steeped in one side of the argument. MishaPan 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

that's splitting hairs, and frankly a red herring. Of course, if you believe in a theological truth, you will believe it had already been true before it was formulated. That's just a truism. Muslims argue that "Islam" didn't begin with Muhammad but with Abraham. Will we talk of Abraham and the patriarchs as Muslims to honour Muslim convention? No, and not because we're anti-Muslim, but simply because this would confuse the heck out of the reader. dab (𒁳) 22:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge?

ok, so I cobbled together this article without being aware that we already had Essence-Energies distinction. I think the topical overlap is rather too great, and the two articles should probably merged. thoughts? dab (𒁳) 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)