Talk:John Chrysostom

Quantity written: The article claims Chrysostom’s quantity of surviving writings is second to Augustine’s in the basis of very vacuous-looking argumentation. As I am aware, Chrysostom’s writings survive in approximately double the quantity of Augustine’s: eg https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XY6Rp0_zfu8C&pg=PR15&lpg=PR15&dq=augustine+5+million+words&source=bl&ots=nWar4eFpHa&sig=hqXcfk9ms_mJ27sk-AN4bGuk8lE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj02J_y04HfAhVpB8AKHTjnB-gQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false and passim shows that Augustine wrote 5 million words surviving https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IeTzDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=john+chrysostom+%2210+million%22&source=bl&ots=oWi1oLTEvB&sig=j6ozxzM8MPSskgmjYg4bc4XmqRw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjv6pmK1IHfAhVlCcAKHbnkD8IQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false p146 shows Chrysostom wrote 10 million words surviving — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.225.4 (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Year of birth

Could the fact that the year of birth is discussed be explained in the article (vs. note) and set consistently through the article. It currently says:

1. c. 347 in the introduction and infobox as in the Catholic Encyclopedia,
2. in 349 in the first sentence of the article.

Thanks! --Anneyh (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Myth about the Temple of Artemis

The idea that the Temple of Artemis was "destroyed by a mob led by St. John Chrysostom" is a persistent myth that seems to be based entirely on a single very unclear comment by Proclus of Constantinople in the Fifth Century. In his twentieth Oration, Proclus praises Chrysostom for various things including by sayining "In Ephesus, he despoiled the art of Midas". Exactly how this can be interpreted as "he led a mob to destroy the re-built Temple of Artemis" is a mystery. The supposed source previously given is a secondary genralist history that backs up this claim with precisely nothing and the whole idea seems to be fantasy. In fact, I know of no evidence at all that the Temple was rebuilt after the Gothic sack in the Third Century. I've removed the Chrysostom claim, because I keep coming across people asserting this is true and pointing to this Wiki entry when challenged on it. Wikipedia should not be supporting unsubstantiated pseudo history.TimONeill (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Chrysostom on women

Known as "the greatest preacher in the early church", John's homilies have been one of his greatest lasting legacies. He was, however, critical of women, and wrote "Of all the wild animals, none can be found as harmful as women."

Greetings. I don't think what I've added to this article must stay exactly where I put it, I only am sure that it belongs here. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it notable? How did Chrysostom's views differ from those of his peers? What were his views exactly? The single quote given is hardly clear. (Statistically speaking, are you more likely to be harmed by a wild animal, or a woman?) Rwflammang (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to see a primary reference for this out-of-context quote. Neither of the sources currently cited is notable for being an expert on Chrysostom. Rwflammang (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So, I've been looking for the primary source of this text, and this is what I have found, (emphasis is mine). Here it is, showing more of the context. What Chrysostom is talking about here is popularity, the fickle favor of the multitude, personified here as a woman:

For what is more worthless than the honour and glory which is paid by the multitude? What fruit has it? What kind of profit? What serviceable end does it meet? And would that this only was the evil! But in fact besides failing to get anything good from the possession, he who owns this most cruel mistress is continually forced to bear much which is painful and injurious; for mistress she is of those who own her, and in proportion as she is flattered by her slaves does she exalt herself against them, and ties them down by increasingly harsh commands; but she would never be able to revenge herself on those who despise and neglect her; so much fiercer is she than any tyrant and wild beast. For tyrants and wild animals are often mollified by humouring, but her fury is greatest when we are most complaisant to her, and if she finds any one who will listen to her, and yield to her in everything there is no kind of command from which in future she can be induced to abstain.

The reference is called "Letter to a young widow." Rwflammang (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

More possible sources here and here. Neither is very convincing. Rwflammang (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Blavatsky gives this quote. No source, of course. Rwflammang (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well found (perhaps well "not found" is more appropriate) - and that's pretty much all I could find. An error's an error. I'll take it out. Haploidavey (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As this would leave the section with a single sentence, perhaps originally writ to balance an extreme, I'll just have to provide something on the broad context. All in all, John's views on women seem to have been fairly moderate, and not untypical for his time and calling. I'll attempt this sometime today. Haploidavey (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Second thoughts. Do we even need a section on "Views on women" at all? His views on men, women and sexuality are available through his writing, and seem more relevant to his opinions on Christian marriage, the Agapetae, Subintroductae and whatnot than to a "reception" discourse based on modern misreadings; do the latter even count as a "Legacy"? I'd say not; they're perhaps worth a footnote to John's writings on marriage, virginity etc. What do others think? Haploidavey (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I vote for removal. There is no substance in the whole section. Rwflammang (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Haploidavey (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Suburban Banshee has persevered where I had given up and found a very likely canditate. I think that solves the mystery of where this much garbled quote comes from. It's not Chrysostom at all, but Pseudo-chrysostom, and it's not about women in general, but about Jezebel and Herodias from the bible. In the following blog posts she provides a translation of this homily in two parts.

She also, in an earlier post, provides some of Chrysostom's thoughts on the status of women here. Rwflammang (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Christianity and antisemitism from several articles

This category has been removed, from this and other wiki pages, using a specific cfd as rationale. Seems to me that such large scale removal of categories should only be done using a Wikipedi policy as rationale, not just one wp:CFD? However, this is not an area I know very much about, so will let others debate this. XOttawahitech (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's take this discussion to Category_talk:Christianity_and_antisemitism#Removal of bios from this category - is that ok? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Divine liturgy in "Music and literature"

I propose moving reference to the divine liturgy in the section Music and literature to the article Divine liturgy because none of the music in these compositions is for texts accredited to St. John Chrysostom's authorship; some texts are from before his lifetime. e.g., the Sanctus and Lord's Prayer, while others are medieval, e.g., the Cherubikon (6th century) and Axion Estin (8th century). Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Anti-Judaism

Sorry, I somewhat misspoke in my recent change summary.[1] Antisemitism in early Christianity did survive the AfD, but was wisely moved shortly thereafter to a new title, Anti-Judaism in early Christianity. But then last week, a new category, Category:Ancient Christian antisemitism was invented, which I will send to CfD shortly. I really thought after years of discussion, this whole mess was settled. Antisemitism is a word that was only coined on or about 1860; projecting back to ancient Rome is a huge anachronism. In any case, they are not the same thing per the sources at Anti-Judaism#Contrasted_with_antisemitism and can't be swapped out at a whim. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No intent at edit war on my part; I am unaware of the discussion history on this topic. I was initially responding on the basis of the 7 Jun article edit that changed its category usage to include this new category, unaware that it was new. All was done at that same time by the same editor, which I accepted as legitimate editing because of appearances. In my opinion, John Chrysostom was not antisemitic at any time, though I do not have sources to support that view at present. I did, however, view the use of the word "ancient" in the new category as at least a way of separating him from modern ideas of anti-Semitism. He did certainly speak out against certain Jewish practices and was one of many who held Jews to ancient account for not accepting Jesus as the Messiah, but I agree that's not anti-Semitism in the modern sense. It appears there's some WP consensus that labels this "anti-Judaism" then? This also seems to me to be a somewhat misdirected label, still smacking of modern viewpoints, but I admit the difficulty of summing up his positions in one or two words. For this reason, I would argue there is no sufficient label, and one should not be applied. But I am guessing that a WP consensus is at least trying to recognize the difference between modern labels and ancient meanings. For lack of a better current recourse, I would currently abide with that distinction as at least a better alternative description than that of the modern criticisms. I am not ready to argue the point further. And of all things, I am most unwilling to reopen another hotbed argument source without reason. I would like to have a better way to deal with the issue neutrally, but I don't see one at present. So, I have restored your edit to the category list. In the same vein, I have also removed Category:Ancient Christian antisemitism from the article's category list. Evensteven (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"It appears there's some WP consensus that labels this 'anti-Judaism' then?" I think so. I mean, a long time ago -- after a truly epic edit war -- all the editors involved basically agreed to split the difference over the article now entitled Religious antisemitism -- which, if you scroll back far enough was originally called anti-Judaism -- and the near immediate creation, after that move, of the current article about anti-Judaism. I'm still happy to split that difference if need be, but this latest re-categorization from one to the other was basically just a drive-by. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal of reassessment or drastic revision

The article is tagged as good, but it does meet acceptable quality standards. It still proposes tenets which are not anymore held or are largely questioned by current research.

The bibliography is often lacking and needs thorough updating. For instance, Wendy Mayer's articles that revise Chrysostom's biography are not even mentioned. Ditto for her assessment of Chrysostom's literary output (partly with Pauline Allen).

The whole issue is rather complicated and requires independent assessment. --Sever Juan (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to add content to the article if you wish. Don't be shy about citing Mayer's work as you add to the article. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Die Lügend von S. Johanne Chrysostomo

After a second revert to the addition of new material, it is clear that edit comments are not enough to resolve or even express the issue. My objection to the edit is not centered on Luther's book itself. It is largely a matter of the wording of the addition, which is unsupported POV and not neutral in expression. Supported POV, of course, is possible when neutrally stated according to WP:NPOV. In addition, the wording is unclear of meaning, and I can't make out the editing intent so I cannot attempt a clarification. As for the statement regarding the book's influence, that also is unsupported. I grant that the brand-new article on the book exists, but it is little more than a stub, and does not reveal a great deal more about the matter than this editing entry, neither has it had wide contribution.

While I would not try to suppress inclusion of new material in either case, I think the POV issue requires a supported scholastic look covering a wider selection of backgrounds or views, and that there is as yet an insufficient basis provided. Perhaps a discussion here can yield some additional sources that can cover the ground more successfully, along with suggestions for neutralization of the wording. "Lies" is a strong word. The book article makes it clear that it is Luther's opinion that there were lies, but that has not been clear here. Now, I do not suppose that Luther wrote a Life that was full of lies simply in order to point them out in his marginal commentary. So what is the original Life that his editorial additions were an "edition" of? And how much weight do we give this book in this article, even if it is notable enough for its own article? These problems are not likely to be readily resolved in so short a piece of text. Evensteven (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I found it quite interesting to learn that Martin Luther, one of the pivotal figures in the history of Christianity (he definitely makes any honest and educated top ten list), wrote a legendary about this particular Father of the Church. Bizarrely though, given that editing tends to move fairly slowly on biographies of people who have been dead for a millennium or more, this discussion seems to have been outpaced by more recent editing which incorporates a mention of the work into the main body of the article.[2] I for one am perfectly happy with this new status quo. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree that it is interesting. And I am well pleased with the new edits, a much more natural, uncomplicated, and balanced means of mention. Evensteven (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Images

While I'm going to look at what we have available currently on Commons, I'm hoping that one or more of our regular editors here might have some knowledge pertinent to my following question... While the infobox image is beautiful, and undoubtedly the most aesthetically pleasing and important depiction we have of Chrysostom (and thus should remain at the top), are there any earlier images? I note that the terminus ante quem for that image is 130 years after his death, and the mosaic may have even been added after that date. Undoubtedly, it's probably based on earlier images of Chrysostom, perhaps even one which was created during his lifetime. But if we have any from extant images from around that period, given the general portrait style of the time, it'd likely be more realistic and true to life (excepting certain artists, especially monumental sculptors, of course). I doubt that there are any extant, and that the Hagia Sophia image is the earliest which survives to our day. Just wondering if any of you knew of one, so that we might add it to the article. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Good question. I'm unaware of what the earliest image is or which image(s) are considered to be most realistic. Majoreditor (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Patron of Vatican 2?

I found this on the Vatican website from a homily by Pope Emeritus Benedict on St. John Chrysostom: "Blessed John XXIII proclaimed him Patron of the Second Vatican Council." - https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20070926.html I can't find this on the Second Vatican Council page or on this one. Should this get added? I'm not sure how I should add it so... here you go. Pax vobiscum, Emosy (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Chrysostom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327111102/http://www.copticcentre.com/synaxarium.pdf to http://www.copticcentre.com/synaxarium.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Homophobic rhetoric

He says that homosexuals are "vile" and an "insult to nature itself". Having a view on homosexuality would be to say that you don't agree it should be recognised in law etc. But this is homophobic abuse. So why keep changing the heading without justifying it? I find that lazy. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia article 'Homophobia' note 10, 25 Sept2017Clive sweeting (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Clive sweeting

The journal article entitled "Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues"? What specifically am I looking at? Contaldo80 (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"Homophobia" is a politicised neologism, obviously it is laughable to place it on here. In the Abrahamic religions, God is credited with destroying Sodom and Gomorrah with brimstone and fire for their engagement in homosexual activities. Are we now going to have a "Homophobia" section for the God in Christianity and other articles to appease the militant minority? Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh please Claíomh Solais you are trotting out a late medieval interpretation of Sodom of Gomorah linking to a centralising church and a repression of minorities. Any self regarding Jew would have known that the story was in fact about inhospitality of strangers. Incidentally by "militant minority" are you referring to fundamentalist Christians? A noisy bunch I agree. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The term "Homophobic discourses" shouldn't be used without citing a reliable source. For that matter the entire topic is best handled via good secondary sources. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Since when do headings have sources/ references attached to them? In terms of the material are you just making a general point that "the entire topic is best handled via good secondary sources" or is it a specific point? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I have opened a NPOV discussion for the persistent use of an inappropriate term 6 November 2017

Have you? Where? You might want to be more specific in your line of argument if you want to make progress. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw the noticeboard discussion and made a few wording changes to the article. Tornado chaser (talk)

The section in question is much improved. The section title is now neutral in tone and citations are in place. I don't have any NPOV concerns at this point. Thanks to all for working on the article. Majoreditor (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I do have concerns. Why does "homophobic discourse" violate NPOV and "view on homosexuality" does not? The former is supported by the sources. The latter is somewhat euphemistic and benign - Chrysostom called for the stoning (murder) of people that are homosexuality. That as a "view" but quite an extreme one. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

He called for the lawful execution by stoning, and the view itself was not particularly extreme for when it was made.Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not in Judea but same-sex relationships were quite established in the civilised atmosphere of the Roman Empire. I'm also not sure there is evidence specifically that stoning was a specific Roman punishment at the period we are talking of (or indeed ever). By the end of the 4th century there were some laws relating to homosexuality but these dealt specifically with passivity, effeminacy and male prostitution. Are you making this stuff up? Contaldo80 (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I have an allergy to editors ascribing modern morality and law to historic figures - in this case you stated that Chrysostom called for the stoning (murder) of people that are homosexuality and I was responding to the assertion that such a view advocated murder as you stated. Not that I particularly care for or agree with Chrysostom's views on the subject - however we are talking about the post-Constantine Christian Roman empire.Icewhiz (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have an allergy? How sweet. I have an allergy to editors who think that morality is fixed and have little idea of historical facts. Perhaps you should better inform yourself with regards to legislation in the post-Constantine Christian Roman empire dealing with homosexuality, as opposed to simply giving your opinion that calling for the stoning of homosexuals was not "extreme for when it was made". Contaldo80 (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"Homophobic" is a bit of a loaded term, not everything a source says is neutrally worded, and as editors, it is our job to take facts form the sources and describe those facts neutrally rather that just using the wording from the source, with whatever biases the source has. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you not just come in and revert the change without properly arguing and debating please. Why is homophobic "loaded"? These might be your prejudices but they are not mine. Make your case. Debate properly. The terminology is perfectly neutral - it is simply factual language, supported by the sources. The onus is on you to explain why it is not neutral. "Views on homosexuality" is not an accurate description of the material. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There has been (and is) controversy around the morality of homosexuality. "Homophobic" is a term that was invented by those on one side of this controversy to label those on the other side, it is not a neutral term and should not be stated in wikipedias voice. How is "Views on homosexuality" not neutral? It simply stated the the section is about his views, his views are then described, making it clear that he was homophobic, but it is not neutral to say "Homophobic" in wikis voice. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

While I am far from from an expert on the Theodosian dynasty's policies on homosexuality, Wikipedia's neutrality is not about sanitizing sources. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

If the sources state that John was calling for persecution, then describe this. Dimadick (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If we're really going for NPOV then let's label it "Views of Homosexuality" instead. I agree with Tornado Chaser's assessment: it's a neutral term, as opposed to a polarizing one. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No, this is not good enough. Dimadick is right. It is not sufficient to say that "homophobic discourse" is "polarising". Why is it polarising? Demonstrate it. It's simply a word describing the facts. Why is it not neutral? Explain why. I won't bother responding to the lazy point above by Tornado Chaser that homophobic is an invented term to label those on the other side. Presumably in the same way that anti-semites are unfairly labelled in your view? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

What is wrong with a heading of "Views on Homosexuality"? "Homophobic" is a term coined by those on one side of a controversy to criticize those on the other, so it is not neutral. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Look Tornado chaser you may be struggling to follow this discussion. Firstly I have stated that "views on homosexuality" is not sufficient and does not do justice to the section. I have views on what makes a nice biscuit or what my favourite type of cat is. If I call for all cats to be strung up from the trees then that probably needs to be described as a bit more than "views on cats". Secondly you keep saying that homophobic is a term coined by "one side" (presumably those who don't think homosexuals should be stoned to death) to deliberately annoy others. In fact it is a widely used, respectable, mainstream term. I really do insist that you make a better argument. Chrysostum's views are seen as quite unpleasant today, and I suspect quite unpleasant when he was alive - the fact is he influenced the subsequent centuries of anti-homosexual persecution by the Christian churches, he wasn't simply articulating the views of wider Roman society of the time. Finally, why do you change the heading and then add a NPOV tag anyway?! Are there still neutrality issues in addition to the title heading?! You're also pretty clumsy as you removed a perfectly good supporting reference in your eagerness to revert all my edits. As a compromise I can accept a title heading of "Homily against homosexuality". Contaldo80 (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable and accurate compromise to me, considering the source text. Haploidavey (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've amended. It's as neutral as we can get I think. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Contaldo80: Oops, your right that I deleted a reference by mistake, good catch. But I wasn't the one who added the NPOV tag, I think we have a good heading now and my only question is does the source say that he had a "personal" loathing of homosexuality? Tornado chaser (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Even if the source did use it (and I've not checked) I'd say the "personal" bit is redundant. Is there any form of feeling other than personal? Haploidavey (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Sorry for sounding a bit critical above. I also see the NPOV tag is randomly added by the so-called editor "Clive Sweeting" who seems to have a fairly casual attitude to editing on wikipedia. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

fixed. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Contaldo80:@Clive sweeting: Contaldo80, please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF and WP:NPA, "so-called editor who seems to have a fairly casual attitude to editing on wikipedia" is not how you should describe a fellow editor.

Clive sweeting, since this is being disputed, it would be helpful to know the reason for the NPOV tag. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I have been generous in the above. I don't think Clive Sweeting has been editing in good faith. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Contaldo80: You need to have evidence of wrongdoing to say that an editor is editing in bad faith, otherwhise it is a personal attack. I see nothing wrong with Clive Sweeting. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I have been checking for some time the Chrysostom text. So far I have found strong language-e.g. the reference to Sodom but have not found the verb "to stone" (lithazô). Could this by chance be Philo who also had strong views but much of whose language was metaphorical? Could a reference to Patrologia Graeca 60 be found, giving the column and line reference before we allow this one to pass.Incidentally Christians up to c 400 were very much opposed to the death penalty and I should be surprised if the powers authorities would tolerate explicit incitement to homicide 13 November2017Clive sweeting (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Clive sweeting

"What shall we say of this madness, which is so much worse than fornication as cannot even be expressed? For I should not only say that you have become a woman, but that you have lost your manhood, and hast neither changed into that nature nor kept that which you had, but you have been a traitor to both of them at once, and deserving both of men and women to be driven out and stoned, as having wronged either sex." If you want to check the original latin you can - but be advised that you don't slip into original research. He also talks a lot about the metaphorical fires of sodom hell. You can see why later christians found easy inspiration to then actually begin burning those that were homosexual in real fire. And they made this guy a saint. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"And they made this guy a saint". The spirit of the time (zeitgeist) was very different. For instance (and off-topic), Americans, much later, elected a slave owner as their first president... José Luiz ^talk 17:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

True. Rather I should say they still think this guy's a saint. But you make a fair point! Best wishes. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• "And they made this guy a saint" Big deal. Cyril of Alexandria is accused of organizing lynch mobs against his opponents and orchestrating Hypatia's murder. He is worshiped as a saint by all major denominations and has been named a "Doctor of the Church" and a "Pillar of Faith". Constantine the Great executed his own wife, his first-born son, his father-in-law, and a few brothers-in-law and nephews. (A few of his grandchildren also disappear from the historical record, but it is unclear if he killed them). He is considered a Saint by most Christian churches and has been called "Equal to the Apostles". Irene of Athens deposed and blinded her own son to gain the throne, but was considered a saint by some medieval sources due to ending Iconoclasm and to her supposed piety. Vladimir the Great converted his subjects to Christianity "at sword point", by threatening violence against everyone who refused to convert and violently destroying pagan temples and images of the pagan gods. He is still worshiped as a major saint. Olaf II of Norway is reported by sources of his era to have been particularly violent and brutal for a Scandinavian monarch. Due to his efforts for Christianization, he was canonized as a saint shortly after his death in battle, and is still worshiped as a saint by both the Catholics and the Orthodox. That one is a saint does not mean he/she is not a murderer, a bigot, or an organizer of persecutions. Dimadick (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes indeed. Thank you for the colourful examples. I was being somewhat tongue in cheek above :) Contaldo80 (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Homophobic is probably a good label to use to demonize him or scapegoat him. It probably is not a good label to use to understand him or to understand why he was canonized. So whether to use the label or not depends on what you think this article should aim for. Rwflammang (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Scapegoating? How is this scapegoating? It's just a factual label. He hated homosexuality and went out of his way to ensure everyone who heard him was motivated to shun and punish those that were homosexual. I think this label helps readers understand him quite helpfully - aside from the hagiographical puff. I don't know why he was made a saint - I suspect because he was a powerful man with lots of important friends and chimed with the direction of travel of the church. It certainly wasn't because he was "holy". Contaldo80 (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Anti-semitisim

The heading "Homilies on Jews and Judaizing Christians, and Anti-Semitism" (bold is recent addition) makes it look like the homilies were on Jews, Judaizing Christians, and Anti-Semitism. I think the edit was meant to say the homilies were anti-semitic, not that they were about anti-semitism, any ideas on how to fix this? Tornado chaser (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"Anti-Semitic homilies on Jews and Judaizing Christians"? Nick Michael (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Good suggestion, but after reading the section, and seeing that it mentions debate about whether he was anti-semitic, it doesn't seem helpful to have anti-semitic in the header.Tornado chaser (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Views on Jews an suggestions of anti-semitism. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Or one might adopt the model you suggested in the section above; thus "Homilies against Jews and Judaizing Christians". When a homily is titled Adversus Judaeos, adding "anti-Semitism" seems redundant. Haploidavey (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Changed accordingly. Haploidavey (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sensible. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Chrysostom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117221849/http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintj25.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintj25.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218074747/http://www.zenit.org/article-20539?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-20539?l=english
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.chrysostom1600.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Carden

"Chrysostom was particularly influential in shaping early Christian thought that same-sex desire was an evil that ultimately resulted in social injustice – altering the traditional interpretation of Sodom as a place of inhospitality, to one where the sexual transgressions of the Sodomites became paramount.(Michael Carden, Sodomy: A history of a Christian Biblical Myth, Routledge, 2004) -This would seem to contradict his statement that "I have yet to find evidence that until the 1990s, any biblical scholar had ever publicly questioned the homophobic interpretation."Carden p. 7 Chrysostom could hardly have altered a "traditional interpretation" that according to Carden only developed "in the last two decades". ("Traditionally, Sodom and Gomorrah have been associated with homosexual acts.") EB Chrysostom appears to have taken a view similar to Philo, Josephus, and Augustine. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This is misleading. Carden is not contradicting himself. On page 7 he clearly talks in relation to the homophobic interpretation of conservative Christianity in contrast to Rabbinic Judaisim that did not have a tradition that homosexuality was the cause of the punishment of the two cities. Therefore Chrysostum altered the traditional interpretation (ie Jewish) as part of the formation of Christian theology. EB clearly refers to the traditions of Christianity. Philo and Josephus weren't influential in the shaping of early Christian thought. Sure Augustine was but that doesn't weaken the point of the original text. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Does "p.32" refer to Hall or Carden? Mannanan51 (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Why have you stuck in a quote by Philo? Does the source you're using directly compare Chrysostum with Philo or are you making the comparison? If it's the latter then it's original research and/ or synthesis. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

GA criteria

There are some issues with this article, such as uncited text and failure to adhere to MOS:IMAGELOC. The article lead also fails to adequately summarize the contents. buidhe 11:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I have rearranged the images a bit to make them comply better with MOS:IMAGELOC. —Katolophyromai (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

John Chrysostom

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted I think some of the unreliable sources might be OK, but enough are certainly unreliable and there are many uncited passages that really should have a cite AIRcorn (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC).

The article fails to consistently use reliable sources and also contanins uncited content. I have flagged some of the unreliable sources in the article. buidhe 23:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's another source. Can this be used to demonstrate more certainty of the quotes? https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210204.htm Jbermudes (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Nothing in the source is WP:DUE unless covered by a secondary source (especially when there are so many high quality scholarly sources available on Chrysostom). I'm not sure what you mean by "demonstrate more certainty of the quotes". buidhe 06:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Traditional Interpretation"

"altering the traditional interpretation of Sodom as a place of inhospitality, to one where the sexual transgressions of the Sodomites became paramount"... I find that statement quite rich, since it twists the obvious meaning of the Genesis texts. That "inhospitality" was the problem of the Sodomites is actually quite ludicrous, as the distinctive feature was them old and young seeking intercourse with apparent men. What was Lot's problem then with the affair? Citing Gen19:7 : "Please, my brothers,” he pleaded, “don’t do such a wicked thing!" Guess that wasn't about snubbing strangers. --105.8.2.143 (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice closing

Anglican priest James Parkes called Chrysostom's writing on Jews "the most horrible and violent denunciations of Judaism to be found in the writings of a Christian theologian". According to historian William I. Brustein, his sermons against Jews gave further momentum to the idea that Jews are collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. Steven Katz cites Chrysostom's homilies as “the decisive turn in the history of Christian anti-Judaism, a turn whose ultimate disfiguring consequence was enacted in the political antisemitism of Adolf Hitler.” Xx236 (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC) Steven T. Katz. Xx236 (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Why such order? Let's revert - first the critics, than the defence. Steven T. Katz is no authority in Christian studies. Parallel to antisemites quoting Talmud. Xx236 (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hitler's Willing Executioners has a similar shocking thesis. The book is based on hundreds of references but has been rathere sceptically reviewed and referenced. What exactly is Katz's research? Does he read the homilies in original version or their translations (which ones?). I have found an interesting phrase ' the criticisms are based on quotations taken out of context and are sometimes entirely fabricated' (It is not about Katz, but we should do something to prevent similar accusations). Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Golhagen's research is quoted in https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/500775 and Brustein rejects his thesis. Is it the right place to discuss the books? I do not have access to the quoted page. Does Brustein understand the difference between three main branches of Christianity?

Regarding Katz - is there "Christian anti-Judaism"? The same question regarding three main branches, fighting terrible wars but creating common "Christian anti-Judaism"?Xx236 (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Adversus Judaeos summarizes the critics with Walter Laqueur's words. The words could be quoted here.Xx236 (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)