Talk:History of early Christianity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Early Christians / Jews / Judaism

I know that many of the Early Christians practiced some degree of Judaism, but Robin klein's recent edits suggest that they were Jews in the ethnic sense, which I think is wrong. I'm not expert on this, and would appreciate if others would weigh in. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:57, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Ummmm, ALL of the earliest Christians were fully and completely practicing and ethnic Jews. As in Jesus, the apostles, etc. Re-read Acts of the Apostles -- the first community was at Jerusalem. When Christianity spread to Antioch, where there were Jews and Gentile "hearers" interested in Judaism, you had the first large-scale influx of Gentiles into Christianity (in fact, the term Christian was coined by pagans in Antioch who wanted to distinguish between the relatively insular Jews they knew, and these new Jewish Mesianists who welcomed Gentiles). This created the crisis that led to the Council of Jerusalem in 49/50: did the new Gentile followers of Jesus have to adopt "our" Jewish customs, follow Jewish law (kosher rules, etc.), or was Christianity not just a continuation of Judaism but something new? The council decided that a Gentile did not have to "become Jewish" to be a follower of Jesus.

Paul himself in the 50s would first go to the synagogue in each town he visited, worship there as a practicing, ethnic Jew, as he considered that proper.

It wasn't until the Jewish rabbinical counil of Yavneh/Jamnia in the 70s that practicing, "ethnic" Jewish Christians were definitively barred from the synagogue. By that time, the majority of Christians may have been Gentiles anyway.Amherst5282 03:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== this article is redundant, the material is already covered by: James the Just and Jewish_Christians and Pauline Christianity and Apostolic_Fathers and Ante-Nicene_Fathers (anon May 2005)

• So, in short, you are saying that because there is relevant information scattered over five other articles, there would be no reason to write an article on this topic? -- Jmabel | Talk 16:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

"Messianic Jews"?

I disagree with this edit, but would like to hear from others. To the best of my knowledge, the term "Messianic Jews" is of 20th century origin and refers to a distinctly modern fusion of Christian belief and some elements of Jewish practice. It is doubtless modeled (well or poorly) after the Early Christians, but that doesn't make the Early Christians Messianic Jews. -- 05:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess technically the term is correct: they were Jews of the belief that the Messiah had turned up on planet earth. According to the Messianic Jews article, they are not Messianic Jews, seeing as these have only existed from the 1800s. Overall, that entire paragraph in the article is confusing, and I'm going to remove it until someone can explain what it means! jnothman ^talk 13:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

I simply can't make sense of the following paragraph that was in the article (whether it should be Messianic Jews or just Jews:

The term has an underlying connotation of many of the early Christians being Messianic Jews. The term was used by the later Graeco-Roman Christians to refers to the early followers of the Christ, at a time when what was later called as Christianity was largely a Jewish sect. The Early Christians, however, mostly referred to themselves as Nazarenes (Acts 24:5). The early Christian-Jewish heritage lingers in the Nasrani tradition in South India.

The article explains that Early Christians were in fact Jewish Christians (a much better article on a very similar subject) in the first paragraph. It then repeats the claim in the first paragraph now above, then talks about the terms for Jewish Christians (or does it? I have no idea what that second sentence is trying to say) and gives an example of a Early Jewish Christian group, surely much more relevant to Jewish Christians or Nazarenes articles. The article, after explaining the Judaism of Early Christians then lists some, notably many non-Jews (although some Jews).... Someone please clear this up before I go insane trying to read it again. jnothman ^talk 13:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Mystery religion stuff

I removed the unsourced stuff about mystery religions (see WP:CITE)...it's a minority view with very little support among mainstream academia. I kept what was useful and placed a section stub notice on the article. I've also asked the editor who placed the material on the page (which has been hotly disputed on the Christianity article) to make a case for inclusion here in order to gain a community consensus. KHM03 19:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As is being discussed and proven on the Christian page, this is not a "view very little support among mainstream academia." This makes for a good working piece that could be developed here independently. I have sources, if requested and welcome disputes. Please also cite your sources to support your claims (such as the one being made above to suppress this information).

Instead of simply reverting, tag it and let the discussions take place here. Im sure in the end we well all be better educated and have a fine section worthy of the best encylopedia. Thanks Giovanni33 10:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Gio

The views offered do have very little support in mainstream academia. This is also not "working space"...it's an article. Use a sandbox or something as working space. Some recognized authorities who refute these theories include Kenneth Latourette (A History of Christianity, Volume 1, albeit a bit dated now), Justo Gonzales {The Story of Christianity: Volume 1, A History of Christian Thought: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon, A Concise History of Christian Doctrine), Owen Chadwick (A History of Christianity), Paul Johnson (A History of Christianity), and Alister McGrath (Christianity: An Introduction, An Introduction to Christianity). There are many others, of course, but these names are known and respected as authorities within the academic field of Christian history. I won't tag inaccurate information as POV unless there's no other choice; if you wish to place these more radical, less accepted views a part of the article, you'll have to find a way to do it concisely and with respect to mainstream academic view. KHM03 11:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I dispute that your referenced authorities refute the information I presented. Can you be specific and cite your authorities that offer a specific refutation to specific claims that I make in this "radical" view? It’s only radical from the perspective of Church orthodoxy. Since this is not a religious site, but NPOV, I'd say it's rather important to get out of the Church sanctioned box, so to speak. As you know I have a lot of authorities who support the connection I assert here, but before I make that point, I'm curious to see what yours really say. Giovanni33 23:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a mainstream view held by historians. They pretty much agree that while there are similarities between Christianity & mystery cults, the cults had nowhere near the influence you claim. There's no need to argue about this point. It's simpley the way it is; don't blame me...blame academia. Now, as in any field, you have some folks sho disagree and take any number of divergent views; that's fine. But we need to treat these more radical views which have not found as much acceptance in academia as the fringe views that they are. Mention them, also mention that the views haven't found general acceptance, and move on. That seems fair, doesn't it? I attempted to list a few historians who are generally respected in the field, and some of their works which present "mainstream" views on Christian history. The list was not exhaustive. Read or look over a few if/when you can and find out if the views you've presented are shared by these authorities. Certainly, if you know of other maistream authorities and their works, share them. Paglia, whom you've mentioned previously, obviously is not an authority (nor would she claim to be, I'd guess), so let's keep focused on those generally accepted in academia. KHM03 01:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

KHM, you claiming that it is mainstream doesnt make it so. I disagree, so please provide evidence. Show me where the views of your scholars are accepted, whereas the ones I cite are not. But, more importantly, as I asked above, can you be specific and cite what your "authorities" say that constitues a specific refutation to some or all of the specific claims that I make here? You've failed to show that. You've only states that the above authors have refuted me, and thatthey are mainstream. I challenge both of these claims and ask you to prove that your claims are accurate.

I will note, though, that the authors you cite above as acceptable ("respected in the field"), are all activist Christians. I do not make the argument that that alone means what they write is not objective but it raises the question if in your mind any scholar who is not bound by religous faith is "mainstream" and acceptable by you? Or would a secular scholar be automatically considered "radical" because they would refect a differenat bias? Also, you say we should keep focused on those generally accepted in academia, yet some of the above are not even part of academia, notably Paul Johnson, who is regarded as "pop-historian" and journalist. Contrast this to Paglia who you dismiss in the same vien and its ironic because she is at the very center of academia--a published university professor in the Humanities, a 'disciple of the Cambridge School of Anthropology,” who influenced the teaching of humanities in American academe itself, who in addition to having written five books, she continues to write articles and reviews, and scholarly journals, such as her long article, "Cults and Cosmic Consciousness: Religious Vision in the American 1960s", published in the classics and humanities journal Arion in winter 2003. In September 2005, she was named one of the "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" in the world.

But, I did take the time to look over your list what you say are acceptable mainstream scholars, although I have not read their books, I can read editorial reviews of their works and learn a bit about the authors. Let me share you what I found.

Kenneth Scott Latourette. Yes, he was an American academic historian, in 1884, and his works seems respectable. I note he was involved as a missionary in China to help spread Christianity. I would like you cite sections of his work that refutes what I have written, though.

Justo Gonzales, is said to cover the materials in a more Protestant way reflecting his bias. One reviewr noted, as an exmaple, "his lack of coverage of Pseudo-Dionysus." It is also stated that "however, this book is only an introduction, and does not claim to be the end all guide to every figure in church history." So its possible he doenst even delve into the subject of ideological origins. Although this text is stands in Protestant Seminaries I also note tat "footnotes are kept to an absolute minimum," and "Suggestions for further reading are given at the end of each section, but these are very incomplete. For example, the only suggestion for further reading on English Puritanism was published in 1912." This doesnt sound very scholarship. Other reviewrs have stated that "the information given is basic and watered-down, lacking a more in-depth view of Christian history." Also, that it does not have the degree of the history of doctrinal development, or even of all aspects of religious conflicts that would be helpful in graduate studies. It seems this was written on a very basic level. One commentator who read the book, had a problem with the elementary level of its writing, too. "I did not care for the writing style, which seemed on a par with what "grammar checkers" would allow as not being "pretentious" (translation: nothing above the level of an eight year old.) Though I'd consider the term "readable" to be very complimentary, this book goes too far, placing the language on such an elementary level that I sometimes had to stop a moment and remember this was not a child's book." Again, not what we normally find in scholarly work in academe.

Next, Chadwick, described as "The Reverend William Owen Chadwick, (1916) is a British professor, writer and prominent theologian." And the editorial review from the Library Journal"

"has written an accessible, easily readable history of Christianity...a clear meaning of basic Christian concepts. However, this book has faults. It attempts to be utterly noncontroversial, relating the traditional history taught in mainstream schools and omitting or downplaying much. The Spanish Inquisition is discussed in three paragraphs, and the Holocaust receives barely a half-page. Radical feminist theological movements of the 20th century are not mentioned at all. These oversights unfortunately give the book the sanitized narrative tone of a companion book to a PBS special. Further interrupting the work are the intrusive opinions of the author. The voice is that of a lover of Christian history rather than a purely academic scholar, and if all the reader wants is a comfortable and entertaining historical introduction to this immense academic field, this book satisfies that need."

Hmmm, another book that is described as something other than classicly academic in character, but rather something that is more designed to be comortable and entertaining. Others have said of the book, "I found Professor Chadwick not to have a detached scholarly approach. The text is peppered with his moral and political views. For example in P14: "In these towns where religions and cults were everywhere, yet moral standards were as low as those of later twentieth century, ..."

Now, we get back to the best example of the opposite of what you claim your scholars to be with Paul Johnson. I actually have read some of his articles in various magazines like the New Repblic, before, I believe. He makes some pretty crazy politically charged claims, and many of which I have found to be very false. But, as I said, he is described as a pop-historian, and journalist, commentatator, pundit, although I do acknowelege that the book you cite by him sounds like it would be worth reading and instructive. Indeed, its stated that the book is "so good, his books almost qualify as serious academics.." Almost. Anyone can type in his name and read any of his many provocative articles and instantly see he is no academic historian, so I won't bother with showing that here. Infact he is often mocked, esp. in the UK. I do note we have a Wiki article on him, so to give you some idea of where he comes from, I quote:

Johnson is a critic of the enlightenment because of its implicit disavowal of faith[6] and also finds Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution[7] objectionable for the same reason. His criticisms of established scientific theory illustrates a failure to understand the scientific method and has resulted in some wildly inaccurate and naive articles on science especially where those come into conflict with religious dogma. He agrees with the traditional Christian view of the Bible as containing the literal truth about the nature of the universe (including truths which can be evaluated scientifically), a position which has been challenged strongly by many scholars of the last three centuries. As a result of Johnson's views on evolution, the Darwinian scientist (and noted atheist) Richard Dawkins[8] has been a target of Johnson's ire in the past. As a conservative Catholic, he regards Liberation theology as a heresy and defends Clerical celibacy, but sees women priests as inevitable.[9]

A hero of conservatives in the United States, he is strongly anti-communist[10]; according to Johnson the anger in Marx's writings makes his views invalid (In the Psychiatrist's Chair BBC Radio 4 1991). Johnson has defended Richard Nixon[11] in the Watergate scandal, finding his cover-up considerably less heinous than Bill Clinton's perjury, and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra Affair. In his Spectator column he has defended convicted perjurer and friend Jonathan Aitken[12] and has openly expressed admiration for General Franco and General Pinochet[13].

He was an early admirer of Tony Blair, principally for his foreign policies, but has more recently fallen into line as an opponent; he disliked everything else about the Labour Party under Blair, particularly objecting to its Scottish element.[14] He does not see himself as being inconsistent, arguing that he has admired individuals more than political philosophies. An amateur painter, of landscapes rather than portraits, he has admitted to a fascination with faces.[15]

Johnson is regularly mocked in the liberal British press[16] for what his critics regard as inconsistencies and changes of opinion. Private Eye long used the epithet 'Paul "Loonybins" Johnson', though the magazine originally applied the tag to American President Lyndon B. Johnson for his policies in the Vietnam War. Despite accusations that Johnson's historical writings are mere propaganda which twist facts, he can develop an antipathy to conservative governments, as he showed during the years John Major was Prime Minister in the UK.[17]"

Well at least we can all see what you accept as the high standards for serious mainstream academics regarding Christian scholarship. hehe 64.121.40.153 09:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

It isn't what I accept...it's what the acdemy accepts. They do accept Gonzales, McGrath, etc., whereas Paglia is not taken seriously as an historian (though she may have respect in other fields, which is fine). The books I cited are considered somewhat authoritative and used often in and by the academy as "overviews"; none agree with your perspective. That says something, doesn't it? No, they all don't have a chapter which openly refutes your ideas...largely because they simply don't take the time to treat every radical approach that's out there. They attempt to say, "Here's the thrust of Christian history inasmuch as the academy understands it today." I have no doubt that the scholars' personal views color their writing perspective, and that doesn't bother me. The same is true of, say, Paglia. While the academy hopes for objectivity, they never ask you to leave your perspective out (unless they're helping to write an NPOV encyclopedia, I suppose!). Besides, somewone being a person of faith doesn't mean they aren't among the top in their field, particularly if the historical evidence supports their perspective (which it often does). My concern remains that we do not take a fringe view which hasn't won over the academy and lift it up as mainstream. As I've said, we can mention it in a sentence or two and move on. That seems fair. KHM03 12:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What I would suggest is that you see if you can write a sentence or two on the influence of the mystery religions on early Christianity, and see how that fits. We can (hopefully) solve this impasse with brevity (and, by all means, a link to Mystery religion, where the reader can find out more about that phenomenon). KHM03 12:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Which academy? Prove it. Prove they accept only your scholars and not mine. Prove to me that Paglia is not taking serious. By whom? Cite specifically and show that. Now you say the books you cited are only considered "somewhat authoritative." Well the scholars I cite are fully authoritative. Why is your accepted and mine not? You say they dont have a chapter which openly refutes my ideas. But you said earlier they do refute it. Now they dont refute it openly? So do they refute is secretly? hehe Or maybe they just don't mention it at all? I think that is what you are getting at. See, they do say what they think is the trust of Christian history but as I've shown these Christian authors tend to not want to deal with the origins of their own beliefs. That is to be expected and that is POV. My view is only fringe within the context of this Christian POV. If its not, then, please prove that. Until you do, the suppression of my content has not basis to stand and I'll restor it. If you can show its a minority view, then Ill shorten it and change the language accordingly.

As Dr. Larson writes, "Christian have always held that their creed was a single, unique, miraculous, and supreme revelation without predecessor or outside contributor. But the fact is that nothing could be further from the truth; Christianity is a composite of doctrines, teachings, and ideologies which have forerunners in previous religions, with a proximate source in the Essene cult. If these facts were widely known, the authority of the Church or the churches would be drastically reduced....they prefer simply to ignore the whole thing as if it did not exist." Giovanni33 16:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Gio

I don't always have time to write long explanations on talk pages, so for the moment will just state simply that I agree with KHM03. AnnH ^(talk) 08:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but he has not been able to support this challenged claims yet. If one makes a claim, then they assume a burden of proof to support it when challenged. Anyone who agrees with him can do so as well, ofcourse. Then I, and others, can evaluate if this claims have merit or not, or debate them or aceept as valid. However, simply making a claims in absense of references support, whereas I am providing referenced support, does not give one the advantage to supress referenced information. I don't always have time to make my case either but I don't make major changes, and remove others work without first making the case why it should be removed, and supporting that case when challenged. I think this is a reasonable protocol. 64.121.40.153 11:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have mentioned authorities who disagree with your view. Again, your beef is with the academy, not with me. Obviously, your proposals have been challenged. All we're asking is that you convince us here, saving us having to remove or revert. When any editor wants to put forth such radical, fringe theories, they need to make their case. Please convince us, and we'll try and reach a consensus. Thanks...KHM03 11:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well suppose that you cannot be convinced--not because of a lack of logic, or evidence, but due to a kind of dogmatism? A religious beliefs rely on dogma, and no matter what someone says, no matter how much of evidence is presented, such a person will continue to hold to even an absurd set of beliefs. Predudices work in the same way. Sure, that is irrational, but its what we find in humans sometimes. So, your saying that all it takes is for there to be such reglious faith here and by that fact alone no such other view would possibly be allowed since it would require the impossible: changing their minds. As you can see, such a stance only secures POV. Faith should be private not a basis for asserting objective truth. For that task we must let reason, logic and evidence dictate. That is no how scholarship works.

All that I should be required to do is use logic and rational argumentation with references to scholars who support my views and same arguments I do here. I make a claim and I support it. In response you make the claim, too-- that what I have provided is refuted by the mainstream scholars, that my scholars are fringe, obscure, radical, etc. Ok, those are interesting claims and if they are true you would have a point. However YOU need to support your claims and prove it is true. You make the claim YOU need to support your claim. That is how it’s supposed to work, right?

True, you provided some scholars and books, and I looked at each one, as you can see. I did not find were they refute my stance as you claim. Moreover, you have not shown support for your claims that these particular authors (all Christians) are mainstream, whereas mine are not. Since your argument rests heavily on this assertion of alleged fact, it's rather important that you support it, no? After you do that, cite me where they have refuted my claims. The ball is in your court. Failure to act should default to my position since I have provided sourced references that specially support my claim from many scholars. 64.121.40.153 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi my name is Kecik. I have not contributed yet, but I have been an observer here. I dont have a lot of time to do the research that Giovanni has done but I want to state that I agree with including the content argued for by Giovanni, Mika, Belinda, TheShriek, and others. I think they have made their case better than the other side (KHM03, Str1977, and Ann/MuscialL), and I don't like how things are being done unfair. I mean is I too can see there has been a double standard held against Giovanni. It seems the admins on here are also biased by being a Christian, and will enforce the predjudices of one side. That is a shame that this place is not NPOV, as it claims. I think this admin should recuse herself and get one that is not so close to the subject matter. Otherwise one can not expect impartiality 17:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Kecik

Hi my name is Kecik. I have not contributed yet, but I have been an observer here. I dont have a lot of time to do the research that Giovanni has done but I want to state that I agree with including the content argued for by Giovanni and I don't like how things are being done unfair. I mean is I too can see there has been a double standard held against Giovanni. It seems the admins on here are also biased by being a Christian, and will enforce the predjudices of one side. That is a shame that this place is not NPOV, as it claims. I think this admin should recuse herself and get one that is not so close to the subject matter. Otherwise one can not expect impartiality. So that is why I wont waste my time to argue here, but want to say to count me in that the Christians here do not have the consensus either, and no im not a socket puppet. 18:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Kecik

Hi, this is Belinda. Constants reverts back to a stub without good cause is silly and counter productive. Contributions by Giovanni are relevant and intersting in this article. They should not be supressed without making a case here and getting our consensus first. I stuck on POV tag to show dispute, and hope to see you work with Giovanni for consensus instead of mindless reverts of his sourced historical infofrmation back to a stub. This is not the Wiki way and does not promote neutrality. I note Giovanni has made his case but no one is responding, here, even. I also think he is being picked on unfairly. For example, see comment to justify reverts, "because you refuse to compromise." That is a lie, as far as I can tell. BelindaGong 01:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Belinda, I agree with you on the stub issue and hence I have moved over the relevant parts from the valid accurate account of the history section at Christianity.

Unfortunately, I must differ with you on Giovanni's willingness to compromise (and hence my indeed quite harsh comment you call a lie) - KHM worked out a compromise, with only minor tweaks by me, but Gio flat out refused this.

Also, consensus works both ways. Gio cannot be blamed for inserting his version the first time but after there was disagreement about this he didn't seek consensus but simply insisted on having it his way until a consensus could be reached with him. Time and again, he did insert the most blatant POV, and he did reject references given by others basically on the ground that these authors were Christian or mere introductions (when introductions are probably the best foundation to base our article on).

So forgive me if I dare to differ. Str1977 10:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not quite correct. I assume you are refering to the Christianity page. There were two version of compromise "worked out" and not accepted by either party. This was because the changes were done (the compromise) only be your and KHM alone, which in effect was 95% reversion back back to your contensted version. I reviewed the changes and in the spirit of compromise synthesiszed both version to a more equitable compromise that brough back several points that whose removal was not justfied in my view, and for which I explained in the talk page. I waited for references to support the claims when none were given I added back these areas. To say that because I didn't accept your version of compromise as finale (one that didnt include reaching conensus with me and other editors) is disingenuous and misleading.

I didn't ask or expect you to simply accept the version worked out by KHM, but you simply reverted, reinserting all the very contentious elements. You didn't say: well, this is your proposal but I don't like this and this and what can do to include it - no, you reverted.

These points are contentious partly because they are fringe (while claiming to be wide spread), partly because they are POV, and partly because they exceeded the "overview" nature of the section (the latter point is not as urgent here on "EC" as it is over at "C", for obvious reasons).

Again, not quite true. I didnt simply revert. What I did do was revert some of the deleted section while keeping the language change and other new section changes to your new version. It was a synthesis, and only a partial revert of some sections that were removed without merit (in my view). Also, I note I did comment on this prior to making the changes. I expected further compromise, or for the claims that were used to make the removals backed up with references. If they were not, I said I could not accept it as valid. So after a while when there was nothing forthcoming to justfy the exusions, I restored two sections only.64.121.40.153 14:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I did seek consensus (as I do now). The only times I inserted material (in a compromised manner, which was still rejected) were when its removal stood completely unjusfied, and unsuported, despite request that the claims justifying removal be supported with specific references (the claim was view was "radical and refuted" by the mainstream). Note that I asked for references to support this claim (in my view false) several times, waiting for a response (same as here)--yet none is given. It is on that basis alone that I rejected the sources, asking, again how it supports the claim being made. Simply cited a several books without showing how those book cited support the claims being asserted was the only basis for my rejection---not because there were all Christian. Such a claim on your part is yet another instance misrepresenting the case. 64.121.40.153 11:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You graced us with a list of the books cited by your opponent and then knocked them down one by one by rather dubious arguments - the gist always being "Christians are biased". I conced that Christians do have biases but so has everyone else, including "your" scholars. The aim of a scholar is not to be bias-free but to do scholarship based on proper methodology, conscious and in spite of one's own biases. And of course a scholar should be qualified in the field he writes about. But you preferred to portray it as a manicheistic battle between "secular" and "religious" scholars, or even at one point as "scholars" vs. "religious scholars". Str1977 11:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I completelly disagree with Str1977's characterization of Giovanni's possition. I think hes make it abundantly clear that his objection was not to the bias of only selecting scholars who all share the same world view, but that none of those books listed can be seen is evidence supporting the claims made by his opponent. We all have biases and no one has ever made the silly argument that you pretend that Giovanni makes. You are taking a side line comment he makes and attack that as if it were his main (and only) argument. Infact, its clear it is not and you are engaging in a straw man fallacy. Please deal with the real argument at hand.

On a positive note I'm happy to see that you left in about half of the proposed text while substituting your own to the other half. This is great progress over simply reverting back to a stub, without making a case here. So I thank you for this step foward. BelindaGong 12:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Last things first: I agreed with your complaints about the "stub" and hence move the relevant material over from the history section of Christianity. Because this article is focused on "Early Christianity", things can be dealt with here in a much broader fashion. But the shorter version might be useful as a basis. I didn't substitute it for anything. What I did is also remove the last paragraph by Giovanni, which was particularly POV and void of historical reality, instead containing the old prejudices from the Enlightenment which by now are debunked by historiography.

As for my characterisation of Giovanni's possition: I know that he said a couple of times he would not exclude scholars because of their Christian faith, but IMHO that is exactly what he has done. Or why is it that he has dealt in great length with the books cited by KHM, knocking all of them down for their involvement with Christianity. Why references to the phantom of "secular scholars" (as there is no such thing)? Why the characterisation of his opponents as religiously biased, "ignorance", suppressing, agenda-driven etc. Yes, I do have an agend. To have a concise, truthful, scholarly account of the history of Christianity. We should at least be able to agree on the first requirement while we argue about the content of the second and the third. Str1977 16:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I also don't agree with your chracterization of Giovani's possition. Any objective reading shows that his objection was not on using Christian scholars who have their own bias (hope no one disagrees with this basic point) but merely pionting out that they did not say what was alleged they said. Also, he made the very valid point that using only scholars of the same ideological and philosphical outlook suggests POV bias, esp. when the mountain of secular scholarship Giovanni did produce was dismissed without valid supporting references. And he never characterized his opponents in the manner you state above, either. MikaM 06:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Unproductive edit warring over minority view

RV to longtime wikipedia version. Do we need to protect this article administrativly? Is that what all these new people want to do? Dominick ^(TALK) 02:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Longtime wiki version section is only a Stub that asks for contributions. When those are given, with sourced material that is interesting and relevant history by Giovanni, it's suppressed without justification on that talk page. He has made a case refuting objections of "minority view" claim and asked for that stance to be supported. No response given. I've made my case as well, and no response. Yet the reverts back to a stub continue. Before reverting make the case on the talk page. The constant reverts to a stub under the pretext that there is no conensus is amazing and not the wikiway. The unsupported supresion is POV and should not stand. Even if its true this is a minority view, that is no reason to revert everything back to an empty stub. If this kind of vandalism condintues we may need to protect the article, or else it wil remain a stub. Or take this to the next level of dispute resolution. 38.114.145.148 04:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Early Christianity

Isn't "Early Christianity" better defined as Christianity before the First Council of Nicaea rather than the Fall of Rome? The council is very significant to Christianity, hence the compilations Ante-Nicene Fathers and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. How is the fall of Rome significant to Christianity? The only thing that actually fell was the tradition of a Roman emperor - the papacy continued, and the empire continued, though commonly called the Byzantine Empire.

While making no claim of expertise, I'm inclined to agree. - Jmabel | Talk 02:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dating wars

Please don't start edit wars on the date nottation AD vs. CE. Consider the following:

1. There is no preferred way of doing it on Wikipedia. Neither the one or the other is considered POV.
2. The Wiki rule is that the notation should not be changed by editors but rather remain at the status quo. That means, what counts is either the original version (in this case a ambiguous "in the Christian Era" [1] (ambiguous because it is not identical with CE, usually read as Common Era) or long standing usage (in this case: AD, since [2].
3. A case can be made that in an article on Christianity the traditional/Christian notation AD is not inappropriate - but of course statment #2 takes precedence.
4. A case can be made that an article dealing only with events of the Christian Era can do without either notation (though BC events might appear and change the picture) - but of course statment #2 takes precedence.
5. No case can be made that the "the secular dating" is more neutral (see statement #1) or appropriate.

I don't want to participate in this, but leave these five statements to your consideration. Str1977 16:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no preference; either method is OK with me. Or both used side by side. It's really a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned. KHM03 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My only preferences are that the article should be consistent and concise (so no dual notation if possible), and that no name calling occurs "from this hour henceforth" (unfortunately it has already occured in the past). Str1977 18:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

suppression of rivals

I removed the following: It was not until 4th century with its ascendancy as the state religion under Constantine the Great that a central and conentrated authority within the church emerged that used the power of the state to begin programs to oppress, exile or exterminate both Pagans and Gnostic Christians. The state issued a series of decrees to "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older Pagan religions." The losing groups, exiled and persecuted, with their property taken, their sacred literature banned and destroyed, were condemned as heretics.

There was no central authority within the church that undertook these things. The Roman Empire continued to do what it had always done, and that is suppress religions that were out of favor. It did this to the Christians up until Constantine (because they would not burn incense to Caesar). It did this to the Jews to some extent, although it also extended them some toleration. When Julian the Apostate was emperor, it again suppressed Christianity by closing churches or converting them to synagogues or pagan temples, etc. etc. The constant force at work here is the Empire, not the Church, even when various emperors announced (and maybe even believed) that they were acting in the name of the Church. Wesley 17:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to brush up on this point, because I think there is a greater role of Church-State direction and in the extent and depth of the persecution than you suggest. But for now I propose fixing the langauge to reflect your understanding. That is, change the "church emerged that used the power of the state to begin programs" to "In the name of the Church the state began programs to..." Giovanni33 17:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reseached this point and I must disagree. While the Empire would supress in various ways any group that was critical of the imperial court, or seen as a threat the the harmony of the empire, there is a fundamental difference between a basic toleration of different public religious beliefs and the complete intolerance of any other religious beliefs by the Christians once they assumed state power, on purely religious grounds, instead of just polical concerns. For these Christians there could be only one religion available to the public. The others had to be stamped out by whatever means necessary. This is what was different and notable. This account here basically accurate that illustrates this point: [3]If this source is disputed I can provide other sources to support these points. They are farily well known and accepted. So, I will reinclude this passage, and proivide attribution for the views. Giovanni33 15:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Wesley. Especially since some of the Emperors most viviously going after paganism - Constantius II and Valens - were, how shall I put it, not the "model of orthodoxy". I also think the text above overstates a bit - Theodosius prohibited pagan sacrifices, either public or private, but there were no pagan hounded down and especially not coerced to become Christians. At least not by the Empire. Str1977 18:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny are you denying the existence of the laws passed making "heresy" a crime punishable by death? That, Emperor Constantius II closed all pagan temples, continuing the policies of his predecessor, emperor Constantine the Great? These are all well documented facts, but if you are going to deny it (amazingly) then I'd be happy to bring out sources.Giovanni33 15:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I made the compromised changes and re-introduced the section in that form. Giovanni33 04:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

NO NO NO...By the 4th Century, Constantine and then Theodosius were not all that concerned with Gnostics (there is an over-interest in Gnosticism it seems to me in this article anyway). The larger -- much, much larger -- issue was Arianism. THAT was the cause of the calling of Nicaea, and was Theodosius' target after Ambrose talked him into shutting down the Arians. Gnosticism would reappear as Manichaeanism in the 5th Century. This is an important point that Giovanni33 has consistently screwed up.

Also, this "war" in early Christianity between Jewish Christians, Pauline Christians and Gnostics is also incorrect. There was confusion and turmoil about the issue of whether Gentiles could become Christians, or whether the Messiah was meant for the Jewish people, true. But the Jewish/Gentile issues (Jewish/Pauline if you like)were largely resolved by 50, and were certainly no longer an issue by the end of Paul's life (67 at the outside). I don't think one can properly characterize the dispute as a conflict between the groups anyway.

Yes, what we might call "mainstream" or "orthodox" (small "o") Christianity did engage in conflict with Gnostics, which resulted in the development of the Apostles Creed by about 200. After that, the persecutions of Decius and Diocletian and the fallout from those is the main issue facing Christians, not Gnosticism.Amherst5282 05:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Misleading sentence

This sentence is misleading: "Under the leadership of the Apostles Peter and Paul, it early opened up to Gentiles and gradually parted way with Judaism."

First century Judaism admited Gentiles, this was not a uniquely Christian thing, see Proselyte. First century Judaism was Eschatological and as such anticipated that the Gentiles would turn to Judaism, see also Isaiah 56:6-8, Council of Jerusalem. See Judaism and Christianity if you're interested in the differences between the two religions as they exist today. See also Noahide Laws. 22:20, 25 January 2006 User:209.78.17.164

Then suggest an improvement. The sentence is supposed to mean that one could become a Christian without becoming a Jew first. You could become a Jew without fully subscribing to the Mosaic Law, including circumcision. And even a proselyte was not considered a Jew, though he was in all respect treated as one. A Jew was (and is) one who is born of a Jewish mother. Str1977 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume that a Jew is one who is born of a Jewish mother, and that likewise a Greek is one who is born of a Greek mother. In that case, a Jew cannot become a Greek, and a Greek cannot become a Jew, these ethnic distinctions are determined by birth. The primary ethnic distinction was that traditionally Jewish boys were circumcised on the eighth day. However, in the first century, not all Jewish mothers followed this practice, while some Greek mothers did. Some circumcised men attempted to reverse the procedure later in life, and some uncircumcised men became circumcised later in life. This was the dominant issue for first century followers of Christianity as well as followers of Pharisaic Judaism. Paul of Tarsus, though himself circumcised, and though he circumcised Timothy in Acts 16, and spoke in defense of circumcision in Romans 3, later attacked the practice - showing that the issue was unresolved in his time. Later, most Christians would reject circumcision, but not all, Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox still observe the practice. See History of male circumcision and Jewish Christians for more info. 8:18, 26 January 2006 User:64.169.4.37

64..., please sign your posts using four tildes (~). Are you Giovanni or someone else? All you say is quite interesting but not to the point. Paul accepted circumcisio for those born Jews but rejected that Gentiles first become Jews (by circumcision) to become Christians. (Whether some Greeks practicied circumcision, which would be news to me, irrelevant - we are talking about circumcision under the Mosaic Law). He rejected the necessity of circumcision (i.e. of submitting to the entirity of the Mosaic Law) and told Gentile Christians not to circumcise themselves, as this would "invalidate Christ's sacrifice"; in his view Jew and Gentile should enter into Christianity as he was. Later, when Jewish Christianity dwindled and Gentile Christianity was dominant, circumcision fell into disuse among Christians in general and only some secluded communities, especially those who already had some tradition of circumcision, retain it. But that all has no bearing on the point. Str1977 09:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Synthesis

I combined the two disputed sections, taking a bit from each, removing spurious material but retaining the minority view and links to Gnosticism, MCs, Mithraism. I also removed the scholars who aren't scholars of Christian history (still don't understand why we need them mentioned). My suggestion is that we have a section (or two or whatever) detailing the "mainstream" view of early Christianity, and then have a section to deal with with these alternative theories (presented primarily by Gio). While the brief overview on the main Christianity article can really only give these fringe views a sentence or two, I think here we can have more room for development of these ideas, provided, of course, that they are treated properly as represnting a minority in academia. KHM03 18:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not see any combination of two sections. I only saw 100% of Giovanni's section removed and little more than a stub in its place. Since his version was the original contributions to this article, it should remain until we all have consensus here about making signifiant changes. MikaM 22:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Gio's was not the original, and if you look closer, you'll see that info was taken from both. If you wish the "original" to remain until we reach a consensus, that's fine. KHM03 23:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Gio's section was the original that this is based on. There are only some style changes, but almost identical to original section. Before Gio there was just an empty stub. MikaM 23:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The article existed prior to Gio's controversial edits; if you want to revert to an original, then please do it accurately. Aside from that, just because a particular version existed prior to another doesn't mean that the earlier version is "better" or more accurate. Look again at both the current synthesis, which does include info from Gio's version (though clearly places it in the proper "minority" light), and the proposal I made above for an article structure, which would have space for Gio's ideas. KHM03 23:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There was not much space left, I I included the full version so that it could be chopped down appropriately, with justified support for any parts that are either over stated or proven not to be accurate. Giovanni33 22:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted for several reasons. In general, it presents fringe views as though they were mainstream, without real qualification. It presents gnosticism as though it were one unified group, when in fact scholars have identified up to 100 different forms of gnosticism, some of which had nothing to do with belief in Jesus or Christ. (See Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument For Dismantling A Dubious Category by Michael Allen Williams, Princeton University Press, 1996.) It pretends that Pauline and Jewish Christianity were much more opposed to each other than they actually were. Other objections to other parts have already been raised on this page and are hereby incorporated by reference. Also, I thought work was going forward on the "shorter" version. Wesley 07:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree Gnosticism was not a unified group, there were several schools of Gnosticism, but I did not intend to make it seems as if they were. Likewise, with an appearance of other versions of Christianity being much more opposed to each other than we know them to be. I will include a revised version that makes the points in an accurate way with citations.Giovanni33 15:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making your objections known, succinctly put. When I have a little time I will review my work in light of your objections, do a little research and then either amend the language per your objections, or argue the case accordingly as it may be. As you probably know, what I will seek is for a historical context be given for the emergence of Christianity, including the fact that there was no one Christianity, that it's also in part a hybridization and development of various older religions. I will want the various influences, noted by scholars, included which all serve to contextually the religion in its time and thus give understanding to its emergence. Specifically, a Jewish context, ofcourse (its various groups, Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes), but also the Pagan context most marked by syncretism, but also those also with clearly distinct threads, prominent being the cults of the Roman State, the mystery religions, and the schools of Geek philosophy. To have this presented is important as it gives balance and accuracy reflecting the modern understandings of the development of early Christianity. Giovanni33 00:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to do - but I will caution you that not only was Christianity not as unified as some think (as you point out), Gnositicism was not unified (as Wesley points out), also modern scholership is not as unified as you might think. This has all the hallmarks of another edit / reedit cycle. By all means do you research, however I suggest that all inclusions should be reported on the basis that "some think this...." and cite sources in each case. That might be uncomfortable to some here but will remain statements of fact (i.e. what the scholar has "actually" said). Satements claiming concensus are fated to fail - I feel. By the way this is just opinion, so I have no reference for this!!! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The tactic that might be used, based on my experience, though, is for any views no in the mainstream to be suppressed under the pretext of it being "fringe." Ofcourse, nots not fringe, its a significant minority view, and outside of the narrow confines of biblical scholarship (classics, mythology, etc) its a mainstream view. Hopefully the minority view can be respected and not excluded as "fringe." 64.121.40.153 16:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Giovanni, outside the very hard confines of comparative religion studies it is a fringe view. Str1977 16:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

But almost any view could be "fringe" if the mainstream scholars in that field hold other views. Remember that, yes, a scholar not from this field can have an opinion on early Christian history, and they may have even studied in a closely related area, but that doesn't make them expert and it certianly doesn't make their view mainstream. As I stated below, there's a lot we can say about early Christian history that is generally agreed upon...let's start there. KHM03 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

But it's not fringe because I can point to promiment scholars within the field who are recognized experts in the subject. This proves that the view is a significant minority view, and thus should be included. If it were fringe, it would not be able to find such support within academia that I do. Giovanni33 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Within what field? Christian history? Paglia is one...I'll give you that. But more? KHM03 01:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Non-conformist"

Where does this label originate and what does it mean in context here? patsw 22:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What would you call Simon Magus, Valentinius, Marcion and Montanus? Heretics? Would you group them with the Ante-Nicene Fathers?

05:35, 27 January 2006 User: 63.201.27.219

"Non-conformist" is anachronistic, as it is a term for non-Anglican protestants since the 17th century. The four mentioned people are certainly not Church Fathers. IMHO heretics fits them perfectly. Str1977 09:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Is heretic neutral? After all Luther was declared heretical - is it neutral to refer to Luther as the heretic? I agree that it would be incorrect to refer to the four (Simon Magus, Valentinius, Marcion, Montanus) as Church Fathers, but they certainly are significant to early Christianity, and the label heretic strikes me as pov, though it is factual to report that Valentinius was declared heretical after his death and Marcion was rejected by the Church of Rome in 144. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.78.19.238 (talk • contribs) .

Anon, it's not a question of neutral, it's a question of being accurate. The Catholic Church applies the label heretic and that's part of the historical. The Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for you to declare that Simon Magus wasn't a heretic, revise history, and right a wrong. patsw 19:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church and the Catholic Encyclopedia are not Wikipedia:NPOV. (posted by User:64.169.4.224)

That's correct...they are not. But what's your point? KHM03 12:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Most sources used for WP are POV or at least not NPOV.

Granted, saying that these were heretics could be considered POV, as it can be read as including a value judgement, but it is also a term used at the time to denote these people and in itself only means "someone who chooses a part of a whole or someone being a part of a whole". And these people did take part of the church that then dubbed them heretics, so it's not someone placing epithets on different people or subjects. I know I don't explain this well.

I cannot think of a alternative that is more accurate or concise. But suggestions are welcome.

Str1977 23:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A declaration made by the Catholic Church that someone is a heretic is a judicial act, not the expression of an opinion. Now if that declaration is made by an ecclesial writer, it's an opinion which carries weight according to the orthodoxy of the writer and the heterodoxy of the one accused of heresy. For example, when one states that Marcion was not a heretic. I've got to ask, what's your definition of heresy, or if you believe that the term has a real meaning, and if can't be applied to Marcion, then to whom could it be applied? patsw 00:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't one argue that the official church was not defined until Nicaea? Wasn't Marcion declared a heretic at Nicaea? Once Nicaea made its determinations, one could go back through history and determine who was heretical and who was catholic/orthodox - but isn't this looking at early Christianity through the lens of Nicene Christianity? Isn't there a neutral way to look at Pre-Nicene Christianity? Marcion and Valentinius were both candidates for Pope (Bishop of Rome), Valentinius just lost the election and wasn't declared heretical during his lifetime. Could this have happened after Nicaea? Isn't this telling us something about early Christianity, if we look at it neutrally? Early Christianity had a wide range of beliefs, it was only later that certain beliefs were labelled catholic/orthodox while others were labelled heretical. Most if not all of the early church fathers expressed at least a few beliefs that were later labelled heretical. User:63.201.27.114

Not at all, 63... (could you please sign your posts).

there were definitions and condemnations in the 2nd and the 3rd centuries - Nicaea is only different because it represented the Church of the entire world (i.e. Roman Empire), was accompanied by Constantine, who later promulgated some decisions as laws. But Nicaea was orignally planned by oriental bishops as a local council to be held in Ancyra.

Marcion wasn't discussed in Nicaea. He wasn't an issue anymore in the 4th century - though remnants of his group still existed.

Before Nicaea (and in fact after that as well), condemnations were issued locally, e.g. Marcion was first prominent in Asia and as he was condemned there, he moved to Rome, where he was a church member (and heavy donor) for some time before he was condemned there as well.

Hence it's not "looking through a Nicaean lens". Nicaea condemned teachings of Arius, while doctrines of Origen who might have paved the intellectual way for Arius were not condemned.

The same goes for Athanasius who might have held some opinions later condemned as "monophysitism" - he was never condemned a heretic as he held that opinions not against a definition of the Church.

In fact, it was a principle that persons (as opposed to their teachings) could only be tried in their life-time - it was violated prominently in the 6th century in Origen's and Theodor's cases but that was controversial at that time as well. But we are talking about the teachings.

The teachings of the people in question were condemned during their life-time or shortly afterwards.

I am suggesting the wording: "condemned for heresy"

Str1977 14:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. Simon Magus is somewhat of an exception: he occurs in Acts, where he wants to buy the Holy Spirit, and also in legends about Saint Peter (acts of Peter, pseudo-clementines), where he is the opponent of Peter. His claim to heresy is mainly his "purchasing attempt" and the act of buying church offices etc is hence called "simony". Since he was the first to do this and since this was the first heresy Simon is consider "archhereticus", the first heretic. Str1977 18:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Simon Magus is accused of heresy (as opposed to simony) in non-scriptural accounts. Many of these stories may be pious legend according to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry. patsw 04:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to say of someone that they are considered a heretic (or condemned for heresy) by the Roman Catholic Church, or by all Catholic and Orthodox Churches, etc., but the term heretic should not be used as a judgment in Wikipedia's narrative voice. posted by User:Jmabel

"Heretic" is not only a theological term (where it certainly would be used in a POV fashion); it is also a term used by historians to designate certain individuals, groups, and beliefs which differ from the Christian "mainstream". It can be used in an NPOV way, if it used properly, in the historic sense. KHM03 02:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Byzantium

Wrong.

Constantine defeated Maxentius in 312 and became emperor of the West. He defeated Licinius and became emperor in east and west, and moved the capital to Byzantium, renamed New Rome, later called Constantinople. He saw himself as reuniting the empire split under Diocletian. Constantine clearly saw himself as the continuation of the Roman empire, and in fact Byzantine empire is a retrospective construct, as the emperors in the East continued to see themselves that way even in 800, when Charlemagne's coronation as Emperor of the Romans was mightily protested as arrogating a title that already had a holder.

Romulus Augustulus' deposition in 476 is the date accepted by any university Department of History as the dividing date between the Late Roman Empire and the start of a "Byzantine Studies" curriculum.

Theodosius made his move as a result of the harangues from Ambrose, bishop of Milan, in Italy, eh? These blokes saw themselves as the Roman Empire, and "New Rome" as a transport of the ancient capital to the Bosporus.

For God's sake, just leave it alone. Amherst5282 09:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"empire centered in Constantinople" is npov and correct, the correct wikilink is Byzantine Empire, if you go to Roman Empire, you will find "Eastern Roman Empire" which redirects to Byzantine Empire. If you have some sort of agenda I suggest you take it to Talk:Byzantine Empire —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.201.26.120 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 31 January 2006.

what the hell does "npov" mean about an issue that has been non-controversial for a couple of centuries??? An "agenda"??? What, the assertion of Carolingian territorial claims against the descendants of Justinian? Constantine was simply not a Byzantine emperor, no matter what some dynamic URL number says.Amherst5282 10:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Only in wikpedia do you find freak show, to the death of the last man defenses of the honor of an empire that disappeared a millenium agoAmherst5282 10:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks Talk:Byzantine_Empire#The_.22cursed.22_name_of_this_article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.201.26.120 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 31 January 2006.

"Byzantine Empire is a featured article, which means that it or a previous version has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.201.26.120 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 31 January 2006.

Yes, no personal attacks.

I don't know what the fact that one article is featured has to do with this discussion (but maybe you only wanted to advertise it).

The fact of the matter is, that Theodosius made Christianity the state religion of the entire Roman Empire. True, lists of Byzantine Emperors often start with Constantine, as he was the first to reside in Constantinople. He nonetheless was the Roman Empire, regardless of where he resided. None of his predecessors resided in Rome (with the exception of the usurper Maxentius).

The partition that proved to be final was the one of 395, after the death of Theodosius and this is the best starting point for Western and Eastern Empire distinctions, though they still were only parts of one single Empire. Theodosius II's great legal code was law in East and West, as was the Codex Justianianus in the 6th century. The Eastern Emperor frequently influenced the Western one. After the Western Empire ended in 476 or 480, Italy - ruled by Odoacar and Theoderich, was still under (Eastern) Roman supremacy and in the 6th century Justinian had it reconquered. The supremacy lasted until the advent of the Carolingians. The name of the Eastern Empire always was "Roman Empire" - though in the 7th century Greek became the official language - right until its end in 1453.

Anyway, in 390 there was one Roman Empire under the Emperors Valentianian II and Theodosius I. And Theodosius issued his decree, making the Roman Empire Christian. Period. No POV but fact. Str1977 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's POV. Theodosius made his "empire centered in Constantinople" Christian. He claimed it was the rightful heir of the Roman Empire, his POV. There are different names for the "empire centered in Constantinople", depending on ones POV, traditionally in the west it is called the Eastern Roman Empire, refering to the fact that it was centered in the east at Constantinople, not that it represented an eastern half of a larger empire. Of course, anyone who actually read Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire or Talk: Byzantine Empire would be aware of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.22.44 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 31 January 2006

I am absolutely stunned that we are arguing about this issue. KHM03 23:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Answering is probably in vain, but you are mistaken. That Theodosius was Roman Empreror is not POV but just merely fact. He didn't claim to be, he was. And he made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. And the name of that state was "Imperium Romanum" and nothing else. Anyone with a basic understanding of Roman history or Late Antiquity would certainly know this. Str1977 23:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. KHM, so am I. Str1977 23:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The correct Wikipedia:NPOV term would be "empire centered in Constantinople", because that is exactly what it was, from a neutral historical perspective. Some people might claim it was the rightful heir to the Roman Empire, but that is POV. Some people might claim it was the begining of the Byzantine Empire, but that is also POV. What it was, was an empire centered in Constantinople. That is the neutral fact. Check history, you will find many wars over claims to be the rightful heir to the Roman Empire. There is no need to propagate these pov opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.22.44 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 31 January 2006

Even if Theodosius claim would have been disputed during his day (which it wasn't), that wouldn't change the fact that the Empire we are talking about is the Roman Empire. He didn't claim to be the rightful heir to a once existing but now defunct Roman Empire, but he was the ruler (or one of the rulers) of that Empire. That's fact. You can stand on your head and scream "POV!" - it doesn't make any difference. The Byzantine Empire, as I have argued above, is the Roman Empire, at least until Justinian, based primarily on its eastern part but nonetheless.

Next time you will dispute the use of "United Kingdom of Great Britian", maybe because you dispute its unity or its greatness, or its Britishness (as British means Celtic) etc. In the case of a real dispute, Wiki gives the country's name as Republic of Macedonia and not as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or "state of Skopje".

Please get real and if you must post, please sign your posts. Str1977 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed on Talk:Byzantine Empire, and I think this is probably some spill-over from there. It's really not useful to tell people 'My position is NPOV; yours is POV, because my position is neutral and yours is not.' But it is mildly diverting to read 'heresy' for 'POV'. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Tom, and I promise I will not reply to the same stuff another time, but it had to be said. Facts are facts and not POV. I don't say my position is neutral because neutrality is not issue here, I say it is accurate. Goodnight, Str1977 00:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute

Statement A: "The emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius legalized Christianity in 313, and Theodosius I adopted it as the state religion of the Eastern and Western Roman Empire in 390."

Statement B: "The emperor Constantine the Great legalized Christianity in 313, and emperor Theodosius I adopted it as the state religion of the Roman Empire in 390."

Can Tom harrison explain why he reverted Statement A to Statement B on the grounds that Statement B is more accurate?

In 390 there was just the Roman empire, multiple emperors and internal disputes not withstanding. It's inaccurate to imply that there were in any sense two empires at this time. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

From Theodosius I: "In 378, after the death of the emperor Valens at the Battle of Adrianople, the emperor Gratian appointed Theodosius co-augustus for the East. After 392, following the death of Valentinian II, whom he had supported against a variety of usurpations, Theodosius ruled as sole emperor, defeating the usurper Eugenius on September 6, 394, at the Battle of the Frigidus." "Theodosius was the last ruler of a united Roman Empire - after the division between his heirs it was never again ruled by a single man." Conclusion: Theodosius wasn't sole emperor till 392 at the earliest, 394 if you include Eugenius, at his death in 395 the empire was never ruled by a single Emperor again. And you say it is inaccurate to imply that there was in any sense two empires in 390? Please explain? 209.78.16.243 22:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we made it quite clear that there was more than one Emperor (even in Diocletian's and Constantine's day). But, though there is a order of precedence for Emperors, Theodosius was the main ruler in 390 and anyway an Emperor has legislative authority in the entire Empire. Theodosius II issued his Codex for the entire Empire. There was only one Empire, and theoretically this never changed. Even after 395 the Empire was considered one, though it was divided for administrative purposes into two parts (pars Oriens and pars Occidentalis) under two Emperors. Nonetheless, historiography may speak of two Empires after 395 as the division proved final (but that's hindsight). Str1977 22:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks as if mediation has been requested as a result of this disagreement.AnnH ^(talk) 23:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wetman suggests: "313" is the key, a reference, perhaps at third-hand, to the Edict of Milan. Wikipedia's accurate article on that subject begins "The "Edict of Milan" (AD 313) declared that the Roman Empire would be neutral with regard to religious worship, officially ending all government-sanctioned persecution, especially of Christianity. The Edict was issued in the names of the Western tetrarch Constantine the Great, and Licinius, the Eastern tetrarch." Generic arguing is often beside the point. There's no need to struggle: particular edicts are issued by particular authorities. The idea of "legalizing Christianity", a non-historical construct perhaps echoing "legalizing pot", is less useful than the more specific wording— "officially ending all government-sanctioned persecution, especially of Christianity." Indeed, other cults were included, a historical point that Christianists elide but which needs to be very briefly mentioned— if balance is a concern. --Wetman 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

it is notable that there is reference to the Edict of Milan, but hidden under the link "The emperors [[Constantine the Great]] and [[Licinius]] [[Edict of Milan|legalized Christianity]] in 313" hence my revised format below in Statement C. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 17:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest a revised:
Statement C: "The emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius effectively legalized Christianity by an edict introducing general religious toleration in 313, and Theodosius I adopted it as the state religion of the Roman Empire in 390."

This first clause in the statement is verifiable from the actual text of the Edict of Milan itself. The second clause should stand if only that to describe the complext political nuances of the day would use more verbage thatn the subject truely warrants. Although Theodosius might not have been able to impose his edict on the east in 390, by 392 he could. Also account needs to be take of the effect of the edict after his reign in 395, was the effect reversed and if so how soon and how comprehensively. Also all statements by edict hide the true situation on the ground and are really only refered to to describe the centralised, legislative trend within which the life of the empire operated. But such consideration is not the realm of a simple statment. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the RfC, Statement C seems to be the best fit of the bunch, although their should like be a mention that Constantine was main shot-caller. Thats my two cents. Youngamerican 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Though I disagree with Kevin's observations and the view that there was a problem with the previous version, I have no objections to the version of statement C. The word "effectively" however should be left out, as they actually did legalize Christianity - legally.

Shot-caller is no includable information. Str1977 00:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"effectively" was included to indicate the the edict was a generalised statement of religious toleration rather than a specifically Christian permisson. Thus it gave general permisson "effectively" giving Christianity legalsed status. This is although the whole thing was really in response to the rise and rise of the popularity of the this new faith. If a better word can be introduced to indicate this, please suggest it. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "effectively" suggests that the legalisation wasn't what the edict was actually, legally about. We could revert to say the edict "introduced general religious toleration and thus legalised Christianity". To say that the Empire declared itself neutral, as Wetman has done, is inaccurate and anachronistic. Str1977 09:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

absorbing ideas from Str1977. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 10:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Statement C: (revised as above) "The emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius introduced general religious toleration and thus legalised Christianity by an edict in 313, and Theodosius I adopted it as the state religion of the Roman Empire in 390."

I think Wetman is more accurate. The Edict of Milan declared the state, both east (Greek) and west (Latin), neutral in regard to paganism and Christianity, ending Diocletian's Massacre (303-312) of Christians. Illegal and/or legal religions was not a relevant concept. It was Theodosius who declared the state Christian and anti-Paganism, i.e. no longer neutral but fully Christian. Theodosius is the one who went after paganism, 390-395, even going so far as to cancel the Olympic Games, ending the sacred Roman Temple of the Vestal Virgins, at the heart of Roman indentity, and taking actions against the Roman Senate.64.169.4.172 00:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is misleading, as it implies the modern concept of neutrality. The Empire as such did not turn neutral but it was at the same still the pagan state it had always been but also started to become Christian in the person of Constantine. I agree with Kevin' version (statement C), except that it should be "the Edict of Milan" and not "an ..." Str1977 02:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I then suggest a revised:
Statement D: "The emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius introduced general religious toleration and thus legalised Christianity by the Edict of Milan in 313, and Theodosius I adopted it as the state religion of the Roman Empire in 390." hope that suits. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, though I would suggest a few tweaks, resulting in:

Statement D+:
"The emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius by the Edict of Milan in 313 introduced general religious toleration and thus legalised Christianity. Theodosius I adopted it as the state religion of the Roman Empire in 390."

Str1977 11:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - let's go with it if nobody objects. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 17:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest adding that Licinius reverted to mild persecution in 320 by dismissing Christians from the military and civil service in the part of the empire that he controlled, and that the Roman empire briefly resumed a policy of persecuting Christians in the mid-fourth century under the reign of Julian the Apostate. It wasn't all smooth sailing for them from 313 to 390, as the text seems to suggest. Wesley 18:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't challenge the above statement in my view but sound like the subject of a second seperate sentence. like below for instance. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 18:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement D+ part 1
"The emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius by the Edict of Milan in 313 introduced general religious toleration and thus legalised Christianity. Theodosius I adopted it as the state religion of the Roman Empire in 390."
Statement D+ part 2
Licinius reverted to mild persecution in 320 by dismissing Christians from the military and civil service in the part of the empire that he controlled, and that the Roman empire briefly resumed a policy of persecuting Christians in the mid-fourth century under the reign of Julian the Apostate.

Sounds good to me. You're right, I was proposing an addition, and not really challenging what was there. Wesley 04:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

IS THIS AGREED - don't want to bully anyone but can we move quickly to a resolution and get something agreed out on the main article. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not clarify that circa 390 there was actually two parts of the "empire", the Latin speaking Western Roman Empire and Greek speaking Eastern Roman Empire?63.201.27.30 20:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I would propose something more like:
Statement E:
Constantine I of the Western Roman Empire and Licinius of the Eastern Roman Empire officially ended state Persecution of Christians with the Edict of Milan of 313 (though there were small relapses), Theodosius I enforced Nicene Christianity as the state religion over Roman religion in 390-395.

No, unfortunately I disagree, although Constantine and Licinius were from east and west, There is NO distinction of Empire at this time. Distinct area of influence and administratively identifiable with their own copntrol structures and also people vieing for power, but not Empires. Also the whole statement has almost completely different elements and structure to what was being discussed. Surely we should be aiming to bottom out the discussion around something close to the existing options rather than saying similiar things to Statement A that most here have been argueing against. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kevinalewis. If the Western Roman Empire article is correct, the East/West division wasn't definitive until 395, nearly a century after the Edict of Milan. Wesley 17:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As Western Roman Empire points out: "The Western Roman Empire is the name given to the western half of the Roman Empire after its division by Diocletian in 286 AD." Further, one of the primary distinctions between East and West was that the Lingua franca of the East was Koine Greek whereas that of the West was Latin. That's no minor distinction. 64.169.0.14 19:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If that is what that article says, it is wrong and shoul be edited accordingly. To say that it is "a name given" without saying by whom is pointless. WRE is indeed a name given to something by historians, but not earlier than 395. Even than the division was only definitive from hindsight (glossing over the "reunification" under Justinian) - in legal terms 395 was no division of one Empire into two Empires but one Empire into two parts for adminstrative and dynastic reasons. And under Diocletian there was only one Empire as well, divided among four Emperors. But these four were not equal and Diocletian retained final authority, even after his abdication. Str1977 20:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is not the only valid opinion, there is a range of opinions as Byzantine Empire sums up: "There is no consensus on the starting date of the Byzantine period. Some place it during the reign of Diocletian (284–305) due to the administrative reforms he introduced, dividing the empire into a pars Orientis and a pars Occidentis. Others place it during the reign of Theodosius I (379–395) and Christendom's victory over paganism, or, following his death in 395, with the division of the empire into western and eastern halves. Others place it yet further in 476, when the last western emperor, Romulus Augustus, was forced to abdicate, thus leaving sole imperial authority to the emperor in the Greek East. In any case, the changeover was gradual and by 330, when Constantine I inaugurated his new capital, the process of further Hellenization and increasing Christianization was already underway." 64.169.0.14 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy but changes nothing about this issue. At the time of the Edict of Milan as well as when Theodosius made Christianity the Empire's religion there was one Roman Empire. The question you are referring to is to when to draw the line between Roman (or East Roman) and Byzantine, which is a purely historigraphical line, just Byzantine is a historiographical term. Str1977 21:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Pars Orientis is Diocletian's Latin for Eastern Roman Empire, Pars Occidentis is Diocletian's Latin for Western Roman Empire. 64.169.0.14 21:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

These are two partes of the one Imperium. Str1977 21:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You admit that there are two parts, a Greek speaking East and a Latin speaking West?

64.169.0.14 21:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not in this way.

• There always were two parts of the Roman Empire, a western one who spoke Latin, an eastern one that commonly spoke Greek, though the administrative language was Latin as well (and always remained so until the Emperor Heraclius). This is a cultural-linguistical division, not a political one.
• There were parts into which the Empire was divided, most clearly by Dioclatian, though there had been such divisions before (from Marcus Aurelius & Verus up to the sons of Carus). With Diocletian this all became more formal and more stable, but still there was only one Empire.
• Such division into parts persisted after the collapse of the Tetrarchy under the Constantinian and the Valentianian dynasty.
• Theodosius' division 395 was as such noch different and didn't actually create two Empires but only two parts, headed by the two brothers Honorius and Arcadius. But this division turned out to be the definite one. Hence, historiography speaks of a Western and a Eastern Empire after this date, and not before. Given the view of those living back then, this is inaccurate and historiography knows this, but it has remained as convention nonetheless.

Str1977 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In exactly the same way there is considered to be an Eastern United States, Central United States and Western United States, with different, administrative parts, seperate local and state government, Distint georgraphical and political makeup, however the whole makes up ONE United States. The are only two periods then this could be challenged, pre-war of independance and the 19th century Civil War period. Similar arrangements apply to the United Kingdom, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Much as some would like it different, It is legally one nation state, albeit with a reather complete background, and probably future. Sub-divisions within empire, do not equate to multiple empires, even if the routes of eventually multiplication manifest themselves. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 22:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for the Mediation Cabal.

Mediation

There has been a request for mediation on WP:MEDCAB but the case template has not been filled out correctly. Could the anonymous poster please correct the entry? --Fasten 09:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A registered user has to create the entry Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-01_Talk:Early_Christianity&action=edit before an anon can enter the data.

Isn't this issue currently being hammered out pretty well so far, just above on this page? Streamline all procedures! --Wetman 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-01_Early_Christianity for you. What is your reason for not creating an account, if I may ask? --Fasten 13:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you still require mediation in this case? --Fasten 10:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't think so - I also think the debate was being conducted okay here, although it got intense at times. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 10:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Early Christian Music

Is there any room on this page for mention of the earliest examples of Christian music? for example the Greek hymn "Phos Hilarion" which was believed to be ancient in the 4th Century AD. Should another page be made to deal with specifically the earliest forms of Christian worship? Also, is Wikipedia the right place for lyrics etc of ancient music in general? ~ Amatire 14:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I would think so - although if there is much you want to write a small section might suffice and link off to a full article such as Early Christian music. Or perhaps as part of Christian music. I would be very interested myself. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 16:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. there is some information on the Christian music page, but there is scope for considerably more and I'm wondering if I shouldn't split off Early Christian Music to another page so that it can be covered in more detail. There would be a brief mention on this page and on the Christian Music page referencing the new article. Only I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I'm somewhat hesitant about making such a big change. Any advice/recommendations? Amatire 15:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally what I would suggest is go for a low impact change. Write your new article, call it Early Christian Music and make reference back via a {{main|Christian Music}} at the top. Then once written, add appropriate links in both the articles. Christian Music and Early Christianity without making any other changes other to describe the target subject matter. How does that suit. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The separate article with links option sounds good. It's a subject I have an interest in but little knowledge of so would read. SOPHIA 12:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Great, will get on with that then. It will probably take a while though as there's lots of compiling to do and life to live in the meanwhile. I'll let you know when it's all done and ready. Thanks for the advice. Amatire 15:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A good addition for this proposed section would be the Oxyrhynchus hymn, which is from the earliest known Christian musical manuscript. JHCC (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What we have does look good to me as a start. I think there is a lot of room for expansion, and elaboration here, on the points--meat on the skeleton so to speak. This should help to enrichen the article to give a fuller understanding of the points. While there are no problems with what it says now, its seems too bare and sounds too choppy. Giovanni33 00:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

accuracy and npov tags

What still needs to be addressed before these tags are removed? Wesley 04:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't see anything. Only that the article deserves more material, not that what is there is a problem. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I appreciate this article. Thanks for working on it. Tom Haws 20:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

Wesley has properly added the expansion tag. Now we can really develop this article. There is so much we can add that is somewhat basic, accepted, and non-controversial...my suggestion is that we develop all of that stuff first, and talk about disputed issues after we have a decent framework. KHM03 13:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Author of Thomas

I note that the Gospel of Thomas is in the "unknown writer" section. However the Gospel of Thomas, internally states who is the author. Why is this not considered sufficient proof of who was the author? Is there better proof that Luke wrote Luke then that he states that he wrote it? Thanks. Wjhonson 09:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. If GOT was written by the Apostle Thomas, then it should have been included in the canon. It was not included in the canon, in fact it was never really debated much, which is a bit odd, because its teachings are not really that at odd with the canonical gospels. It is a sayings gospel, like the hypothetical Q, and perhaps likewise it was dropped because it was essentially included in Luke and Matthew. The Jesus Seminar includes GOT in its Five Gospels. I think it can be said that most Christian scholars reject the claim that it was written by Thomas - which leaves it in limbo. The Apostolic Constitutions claim to be compiled by Clement, however almost everyone today rejects that claim. GOT claims to be written by the Apostle Thomas, there is not strong rejection of this claim outside of religious circles, however there isn't much advocacy either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.20.47 (talk • contribs)

I don't think you can speak for "most Christian scholars" do you? The Jesus Seminar certainly included a fairly large number of Christian scholars who did quite the opposite. They felt that GOT was an authentic early source, which in some cases, preserved something closer to the original than the synoptics. So that's saying quite a lot. It's saying that Got may predate Mark which would be a fairly major shock to the standard Christian. Wjhonson 07:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Condemned

I would like consensus to change the expression "condemend for heresy" to something more accurate. Doesn't condemnation involve some kind of sentencing and punishment type procedure? Also it makes it seem like there was universal disapproval or that the early church was a cohesive unit. Actually it wasn't until much later the there was A church that had the power to actually "condemn" per se. Wouldn't you all agree? How about the word "denounced" ? Or something like that? Wjhonson 09:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

At least three of the five were condemned an punished (by excommunication) - the wording doesn't imply a universal rejection of them, as the cases of Marcion or Montanus suggests: Marcion was condemned in Asia and moved to Rome, where he was a member for another decade until he got expelled there too. About Montanism there was much uncertainty, especially in the West as Churches were cautious to "extinguish the spirit". Str1977 11:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It just seems like it's trying to give a united feel to the idea of the condemnation. And saying "condemned (by some)" sounds a bit stilted. Perhaps I'm being too particular. Wjhonson 17:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Wjhonson, not "condemned by some", but condemned by the relevant church authorities - but their jurisdicton back then was only local/regional, not the least because of the problem of communication. Str1977 17:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson's point is valid. There was no official church prior to Nicene, thus the idea that these "heretics" were condemned by a united church is false, also most of the so-called "church fathers" held beliefs that were later determined, in an Ecumenical Council context, to be heretical. Tertullian, for example, sometimes called the father of the Latin church, was a convert to Montanism. Origen, likewise a key father, was condemned by many. But these particular figures (Magus, Marcion, Valentinus, Montanus, Paul of Samosata) were controversial in their own times, so it's not correct to just lump them with the ante-nicene fathers. I don't have any ideas of how to clasify them, perhaps condemned is the best, with text to explain what that means and doesn't mean in context. It is incorrect to assume they were condemned by the "relevant church authorities" as there were no recognized authorities prior to Nicene. Nicene Christianity has since gone back and declared certain pre-Nicene Christians church fathers and others heretics, but this distinction is out of context before Nicene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.20.47 (talk • contribs)

Just to review the facts: First, you have to address whether or not it is legal to condemn a consecrated bishop, this has not been established pre-Nicene, for example see Didache and Ignatius. Second, the single bishop per see took awhile to become established, see Pastorals, Ignatius, Didache, Apostolic Constitutions - thus you have the question of which bishop is the ultimate authority in each see. Paul of Samosata was bishop, thus he was the local authority, however he was condemned by a Synod, as was the term homoousios later adopted at Nicaea. Was the Synod right or was he? Was the Synod right to condemn Paul yet wrong to condemn homoousios? Pick and choose? Marcion was bishop of Sinope, one of the sources against him says he was deposed and then went to Rome, but it is difficult to believe he could have been considered for bishop of Rome if he was a deposed bishop - more likely he rejected the church of Rome after they rejected his bid for bishop and formed his own church - but again, Marcion felt his form of Christianity was the legitimate form, only later were the distinctions Nicene Christianity and Marcionism made. No Synod ever condemned Marcion, as far as I know. Montanus was likewise a bishop, again as far as I know never condemned by a Synod. Valentinus was very influential in Rome, also a candidate for bishop, an election he lost by a narrow margin, he is the first of record to write about Trinitarian doctrine, and he formed an influential "school" - only after his death was he condemned by some, but again not by Synod or declaration of the bishop of Rome. Simon Magus was baptised in Acts, yet in apocryphal texts he was recorded as at odds with Simon Peter, yet never condemned by Synod or declaration of the bishop of Rome. Tertullian converted to Montanism. Hippolytus was an Antipope. Origen was condemned by a Synod of Rome and Justinian the Great. A number of the early fathers were Quartodecimans, which was rejected by Nicaea. The NT canon wasn't determined till Damasus or Athanasius, again who says they were correct? Only the much later Council of Trent. Early Christianity should not be viewed with a Nicene bias, that would be a violation of wikipedia Wikipedia:NPOV policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.78.19.122 (talk • contribs) .

I don't think Ignatius directly addressed the question of whether a bishop could be condemned, and I'll have to recheck Didache. Of course both supported the authority of a bishop. But a single bishop has generally been held to be subject to a synod of bishops; this is reflected in the old requirement that at least two bishops be present to consecrate a bishop. This addresses the Paul of Samasota question too. There's not necessarily a conflict between a local synod rejecting 'homoousios' and the Council of Nicaea accepting it; context was not the same, arguments at the two councils were not the same, and most importantly, slippery Arius wasn't at the first council. The Council of Nicaea probably would have avoided homoousious as well if they could find any other way to pin down Arius' 'homoiousious' theology. I'll have to read up on Montanism, I'd be surprised if no synod addressed it. Origen was ultimately never condemned officially, although his writings were, much later at the 5th ecumenical council. From Athanasius' canon, we don't have to wait until the Council of Trent for endorsement, there were several regional synods one after another that endorsed it, I think starting at Carthage. That's all for now, but I look forward to hammering this out together. Wesley 23:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Canons of the Apostles has extensive rules about the bishop and should be added to the article (it is part of the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection, appended to the Apostolic Constitutions). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.78.21.54 (talk • contribs) .

I think "condemned by some" is certainly an impartial way to put it, and someone reverted me for "lack of consensus" without posting any discussion. How rude :) but anyway, now it's much longer because of that. I'm hoping this person will post their views so it can be discussed instead of simply reverting. Wjhonson 03:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It should not say "condemed for heresy," but instead "condemened as heresy," because the later is more NPOV, while the former assumes the correctness of the label, the voice of the winner. It should also state who did the condeming and lableling. Giovanni33 06:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying "condemned by the Church for heresy" - I don't think "condemned as heresy" works for grammatical reasons (persons aren't heresy) - grammatically proper would be "whose teachings were condemned as heresy", which is a bit circumstantial, or "condemned as heretics", which however isn't accurate, strictly speaking, when it's done posthumously. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "condemned as heretics." Why would it not be accurate when done posthumously? Giovanni33 13:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be so as posthumously only ideas/teachings/doctrines are condemned and not the man himself, as he couldn't speak to his defense. Granted, this was not always respected later on, especially on the 5th Ecumenical Council, but that is the overarching principle. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It is unfair to say a person is condemened for heresy when they are not. Or that they are by a single bishop and not others. Esp when the concept as we know it today, did not even exist at the time they lived. Wjhonson 07:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Significant Early Christians stated by at least one bishop but not necessarily within their lifetimes or by a full synod, to have been heretics" That level of detail would be better in the individual's article than in the section title. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have shorted it now, but "condemned for heresy" cannot stand as the parties involved, on both sides, wouldn't have any idea what it is supposed to mean in their own context. Saying "condemend for heresy" is simply historic revisionism, which is why I don't feel it's proper. Wjhonson 22:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

How about just linking to their biographical pages under See also? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What is currently disputed?

I see that the article has a dispute tag on it, but cannot tell what is currently disputed. Can someone summarize the dispute? - Jmabel | Talk 04:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The History/Origins section, because of Giovanni's additions. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes that I hope partially address that, but more work is probably needed. A few countervailing citations should be added for balance. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes to improve it. I also still think more works needs to be done on it. I'll try to make improvements myself shortly (after some much needed rest). Giovanni33 09:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article

Though generally lumped with the Gnostics, Marcionism actually represents a fourth interpretation of the significance of Jesus.

I've removed this from the article as it should be referenced and reworded as it "lumped" is not very encycolpedic. Sophia^TalkTCF 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

From Marcionism: "In various sources, Marcion is often reckoned among the Gnostics, but as the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed.) puts it, "it is clear that he would have had little sympathy with their mythological speculations" (p. 1034). In 1911 Henry Wace stated: "A modern divine would turn away from the dreams of Valentinianism in silent contempt; but he could not refuse to discuss the question raised by Marcion, whether there is such opposition between different parts of what he regards as the word of God, that all cannot come from the same author." A primary difference between Marcionites and Gnostics was that the Gnostics based their theology on secret wisdom (as, for example, described in the Letters of Paul; see Valentinius) of which they claimed to be in possession, whereas Marcion based his theology on the contents of the Letters of Paul and the recorded sayings of Jesus—in other words, an argument from scripture, with Marcion defining what was and was not scripture."

Also, lumped is a perfectly valid and encyclopedic word, meaning "to put together in a single group without discrimination" -Webster's. unsigned by 63.201.27.49

The wording certainly left room for improvement.

As far as the content, there is (or was) a dispute about how far Marcion could be reckoned among the Gnostics or not. He certainly wasn't as highly speculative as Valentinus, but there might be some Gnostic leanings. Still, he is best mentioned on his own, with a reference to his Gnostic/non-Gnostic leanings. In that sequence - the removed sentence was POV in that regard.

However, I'd dispute that the Oxford Dictionary said about that Marcion were more acceptable than Gnostic speculations. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. It seems as though it's significant enough to warrant a mention - but I'm not an expert in this area so maybe someone with more knowledge could back this up. Instead of "lumped with" can we use "reckoned among" as is used in the reference given as it does read much better. Sophia^TalkTCF 14:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Back what up? Among scholars who have actually studied Marcion, he is certainly not reckoned among the gnostics. Need a reference for that statement? Do you know who Henry Wace was? As cited above, Henry Wace wrote: "A modern divine would turn away from the dreams of Valentinianism in silent contempt; but he could not refuse to discuss the question raised by Marcion, whether there is such opposition between different parts of what he regards as the word of God, that all cannot come from the same author." He also wrote: "The story proceeds to say that he asked the Roman presbyters to explain the texts, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit," and "No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment," texts from which he himself deduced that works in which evil is to be found could not proceed from the good God, and that the Christian dispensation could have nothing in common with the Jewish. Rejecting the explanation offered him by the presbyters, he broke off the interview with a threat to make a schism in their church" Read the rest here[4].209.78.21.228 18:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No never heard of him - I said I'm not an expert but the original sentence did not read well and was the sort of statement that should be referenced. The first thing I thought when I it was - I wonder where I can read more about this. You have referenced this and the reference has suggested a wording which looks more encyclopedic (in my view) so if you want to put it back with the reference I would support your edit. Sophia^TalkTCF 10:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Like this?:

Though generally indiscriminately reckoned among the Gnostics, Marcionism actually represents a fourth interpretation of the significance of Jesus.[5]

209.78.18.48 22:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good and reads well with plenty of follow up for those interested. I really wasn't trying to be awkward - I guessed there was more to be known and I shall spend some time reading this as it's new to me. Thanks for your work. Sophia^TalkTCF 23:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)