Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Error in the definition of Catholic Church

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church - this is a wrong statement. The Catholic church is made up of 23 differet rites (parts) and the Roman Catholic rite is just one part of the whole Catholic Church. I would like to see this changed to reflect the truth.

thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.207 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is an accurate statement of English usage, as the OED would show you; if it has any flaw, it is an understatement: RCC is the normal English term for the whole Church.

The largely separate distinction between the "Roman Catholics", the "Greek Catholics" and the "Chaldaean Catholics" is another matter; is it really important enough to state in the first line? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the current wording is imperfect, but sufficient. And I disagree with Septentrionalis, "Catholic Church" is both the official name and the common parlance. I've almost never heard it referred to as "the Roman Catholic Church", except in Protestant sources. And really the anonymous person who made this section is right that "Roman Catholic" refers almost exclusively to the Latin Rite of the Church, while there are 22 other Rites. However, since both are used at some times to refer to the Catholic Church, the statement as it stands is accurate, albeit imperfect.Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the problem with this usage of "Catholic Church" is that "catholic" means "universal" — as for example in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds. There are Christians, therefore, who are part of the Catholic Church in this sense but who are not part of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church likes to claim (or imply) that it is the universal church, but it is not actually so. Ondewelle (talk), 25 April 2010

Before the East-West Schism, there was only one Church -at least mainly, as there were some previous schisms that were small in magnitude-, and that was the Catholic Church, the Universal Church. After the Schism, in the West, Catholic Church became equivalent to Roman Catholic Church. The Roman does not refer to the rite, but to primacy. All 23 rites of the Catholic Church are under the Roman Pontif, hence, Roman Catholic Church. The official name of the Orthodox Church is Orthodox Catholic Church. The Eastern Church is also Catholic, as was part of the Catholic Church that split in two. This has nothing to do with the Protestant Reformacion or the eastern rites in communion with Rome.--Coquidragon (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

PMA: "RCC is the normal English term for the whole Church."

RA: "I've almost never heard it referred to as "the Roman Catholic Church", except in Protestant sources."

These statements aren't contradictory: the English-speaking world is mostly Protestant. Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not correct to say previous schisms were "small in magnitude". The overwhelming majority of the church in heavily populated Egypt refused to accept the deposition of their Patriarch in the 6th century, & most of their descendants who haven't become Muslims continue to follow his successors the Coptic Popes. Peter jackson (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

First, I´ll clarify that I was speaking about Christianity. I know there were other religious groups. Now, Peter, looking at the numbers, the two mayor schisms after Ephesus (Assyrian Church of the East) and Chalcedonia (Egypt, Syria, Armenia, Ethiopia Oriental Churches) were local schisms were local Christian communities split in two, each following a Bishop. They don´t compare to the magnitude of the East-West schism that actually split Christianity in two groups. Still, you are right and I apologize for any confussion. Regardless, my commment was to explain the history of the Roman adjective. Thanks for the feedback.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians by the Romans

The current text reads "Conversely, early Christians refused sacrifices to Roman gods, or to worship Roman rulers as gods, and consequently became subject to persecution." I have raised this issue before and yet the current text still provides a glib explanation of the persecution which favors the Christian POV without providing the Roman POV. The current text presents the Christians as poor faithful who are persecuted solely for their refusal to worship Roman gods and the emperor. This is the Christian side of the story. I think a secular historian might see other dimensions to the phenomenon.

Without saying that the Romans were right in persecuting the Christians, I think it's important to explain that the Romans were quite tolerant of other gods and religions. The Jews, after all, were afforded many privileges including not sacrificing to Roman gods or worshiping Roman rulers as gods. I'm not fully competent to argue why the Christians were treated differently from the Jews although I'm sure Roman attitudes towards the Jews changed after the fall of the Second Temple and the Bar Kokhba revolt. Another important difference is that the Christians were proselytizers. AFAIK, the Jews didn't try to get others to worship their god. They just wanted to be free to worship their god in their way. Christians, in contrast, did proselytize and thus brought dissension into families. It is important to take into account the concept of paterfamilias to appreciate the subversiveness of a religion asserting a higher power over a member of a Roman family. Once again, this is OR but I think it's not far from the truth. Are there reliable sources who make similar arguments?

--Richard S (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard, thanks for the comments. Karanacs and I and PMAnderson are in the process of reading and evaluating sources. Currently Karanacs is traveling, and I've been waiting for a few books to wend their way through the Interlibrary loan system. Certainly these sections all need to be evaluated and possibly re-done. It's a long slow job but I'm sure somebody can address these issues fairly soon. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And, unfortunately, I will have less time for WP. I will comment where I can.

I think Richard's comment on the paterfamilias (a purely Roman institution, remarkable even to the Greeks) takes the wrong level: Roman administration did not concern itself with the solidarity of subject families (and the first Christians were not usually Romani); they concerned themselves with the solidarity of subject cities - as long as they kept their alliance with Rome. This is why the Jews got a pass (mostly) - as long as they were amici et socii, it could be dealt with that they sacrified for the emperor, not to the emperor. But an Athenian citizen who declined to sacrifice to the emperor was undermining the league between Athens and Rome, which was formed by the cults of the emperor and of Roma. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

At least in the first century, Jews were avid proselytizers, and there were established procedures for bringing Gentile converts into the community and defining their rights and obligations. There are explicit references to this in the New Testament, and it has been plausibly suggested that the practice of Christian baptism is derived at least in part from the Jewish baptism of proselytes. Harmakheru ✍ 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Jews were active proselyters, although many gentiles were attracted towards Judaism in the 1st Century. On Richard's point, the difference between Jews and Christians - at least until the great revolts, was that the Jews were considered an ethnic-religious group that was no threat to the existing theology. The Romans were also very good at fitting other religions into their system through syncretism, so Isis, Diana and Artemis could be considered the same deity. Christianity threatened both "coping" mechanisms by refusing to have anything to do with the old gods, (and therefore with the divine attributes of Caesar,) while simultaneously recruiting pagans in large numbers. This was hugely subversive. The gods protected the Empire, gave Caesar his authority, and the individual legions were dedicated to them. The Romans were tolerant of religions that fit their system. Others, like the Druids, were wiped out. Xandar 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

OK... there are apparently a number of things wrong with my last comment but I think the thrust of the argument is valid even if some of the supporting theories were off the mark. (I did remember reading that the Jews were proselytizers in the first century but I couldn't remember if that was a mainstream idea or a fringe one.) Xandar writes that Christianity threatened the Roman system of fitting other religions into their system and that this was hugely subversive. That's the point I'm trying to make. The article isn't wrong, it just doesn't get across the right idea. In some sense, it's a question of not presenting Christianity as the victim but rather the aggressor. Xandar's comment suggests that Christianity was a threat which the Romans tried to suppress... and failed. I am not arguing that we should go into great detail on this topic. The detail could be discussed in Early Christianity or History of early Christianity. (Quick check: neither article does a good job of addressing persecution by the Romans). The article on Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire seems to do a good job of discussing the topic here. I'd like to see that section summarized in this article. --Richard S (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you should consider the question of "aggression" more carefully. For example, the British National Party's election manifesto published recently calls Islam a "threat" to British/Western society. Similar remarks have been made by many others. Jewish immigrants to Palestine under Turkish & British rule were attacked by many Arabs as "invaders" (& sometimes still are). Such concepts need careful thought. Peter jackson (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Jews proselytized extensively under the Maccabees; this is why the population of Galilee was overwhelmingly Jewish, even if the Rabbis didn't consider them very good Jews. In the first centuries BC and AD, some non-Jews converted to Judaism (we hear of the groups involved, but not of numbers), and more paid respect to the God of Zion without converting, being circumsized, or always giving up other worships. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with peterJackson that it would be hard to define people refusing to believe and worship as the government ordered, "aggression." The Imperial state was intolerant, although they had reasons (or fears) which thewy beleieved justified that intolerance. In fact Christianity did not destroy the Empire. Xandar 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The proper term is contumacy. The Romans never believed in religious liberty (and continued not to under the Christian Emperors); the Roman Empire was opposed to freedom of speech (and continued to be).

The knee-jerk irrelevance of Xandar's last sentence is one of the things that makes editing with him so tiring. Edward Gibbon has been dead for two centuries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I accept that "aggressor/victim" is not the best choice of words. I was trying to get across an idea, not specifically to make one side right and the other side wrong. My point, however, remains that any conflict has two sides to it and we have presented only the Christian side (the victor writes the history). Why exactly did the Romans view the Christians as a threat? Especially in the light of their willingness to co-opt other religions? I think we need to explain, if only briefly, this point.

Perhaps we could say something like

"Although the Roman Empire tolerated a wide range of religions as long as they could be reconciled syncretically with the Roman pantheon of gods, Christianity became the target of persecution because of its refusal to be co-opted in the worship of the Roman gods and the worship of the emperor as a god. This refusal was viewed as a threat to the stability of the state and thus the Romans made periodic efforts to suppress Christianity."

(NB: Given the separation of church and state in the 21st century, it's not necessarily obvious to the average reader why Christianity should be considered a threat to the stability of the Roman Empire. Moreover, the Christian narrative tends to focus on the persecution without explaining the socio-political context of the persecution.)

Pmanderson wrote: "The Romans never believed in religious liberty (and continued not to under the Christian Emperors)". It would seem to me that the Roman Empire before Constantine was more tolerant of religions than it was after Constantine. Another piece of "historical legerdemain" that has befuddled me is the way in which Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire. What caused this tectonic shift from syncretically accepting the pagan religions of multiple subject nations to imposing a single religion on all nations?

Was Christianity persecuted one month and legally tolerated the next? Presumably, this is not what happened. Why was it chosen to become the official state religion? Presumably, Christianity had grown to the point where it represented at least the largest plurality if not the majority of citizens in the Roman Empire. Did all the pagan religions suddenly become targets of the same kind of persecution as the Christians had before? Did worshipers of Isis become food for the lions in the Coliseum? If not, what was the conversion process like? Did the Christian Church immediately begin to persecute non-believers or was there a period of peaceful coexistence before being Christian was the only option? Once again, there is not room for a lot of detail about this topic in this article but I think it would help the reader if there were at least one or two sentences that explained how (and why) this transition came about.

--Richard S (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Some answers:

• Was Christianity persecuted one month and legally tolerated the next?

  Yes; in May 311 - in the East. Legal toleration in Italy took a whole year, but toleration had rarely been a matter of law; it was a matter of administrative decision.

• Why was it chosen to become the official state religion?

  Because it was the religion of the Emperor, and of his family, until there were enough aggressively Christian emperors that a pagan emperor became impossible. (Estimates of its popularity when Constantine took power vary, but 10% is likely.) Emperors had been looking for a unifying religion for a generation or two; if Aurelian had been succeeded by co-religionists, the result might have been less savage. One reconstruction of Constantine's plans is that Christianity was especially suitable for a unifying religion because it was not local in the sense that Jupiter Optimus Maximus was local to Rome, or Athena to Athens.

• Did all the pagan religions suddenly become targets of the same kind of persecution as the Christians had before?

  No, fairly gradually. The position that the worship of Mars and Jupiter was treason took a while to catch on; Constantine could not have enforced it.

• Did worshipers of Isis become food for the lions in the Coliseum?

  No, but the temples of Isis were closed, and sacrifice to her became a capital crime by 435.

• If not, what was the conversion process like? Did the Christian Church immediately begin to persecute non-believers or was there a period of peaceful coexistence before being Christian was the only option?

  There were two or three periods of co-existence; most of them with the Imperial thumb heavily on the scale - this includes Julian. whose thumb was in the other scale. The Imperial government rarely worked by central legislation - the persecutions of the Christians hadn't been "Now all of you kill all the Christians you can catch" either; they were orders to close this temple, or abolish that cult. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify some of that. Christianity was theoretically illegal until the Edict of Milan, but the law was only sporadically enforced. There were only 2, fairly brief periods of Empire-wide persecution: the Decian about 250 & the so-called Diocletianic (which would better be called Galerian) immediately preceding the Edict (& in fact continuing slightly after it in some areas). Apart from that it was a matter local governors decided. Peter jackson (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The success of Christianity was based on more than just the support of Emperors. Roman paganism had been losing its hold on the populace for some time, and Christianity provided a more morally-based religion. It also promised ordinary people a chance of reaching heaven. I think we could compare the adoption of Christianity in the later Roman Empire with the adoption of Christianity in Africa and elsewhere today, where no one has been forced to become Christian but majorities in many areas did convert. Xandar 20:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Every religion of late antiquity promised heavenly rewards to ordinary people; it was a mark of the epoch - it may have been a sign of political despair. (Every one of them had a high moral tone, also; as did ordinary non-enthusiastic late antique culture.)

If I thought he had an answer to the question, I would ask which cults Xandar intends by "Roman paganism". Of course the Lupercalia had no meaning to an Illyrian peasant (like Diocletian); that was one of the weaknesses of Diocletian's solution to the problem of a unifying religion.

Indeed the conversion of the Roman Empire does bear a certain resemblance to the colonial propagation of Christianity, but more to the Americas or the Congo than elsewhere. If the new government closes your temple (or even the one down the via), takes its treasure, spends it, and lightning does not flash from heaven in vengeance, your faith that the traditional pantheon is more real or more powerful than the government's God may well quaver. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Balance between history and doctrine

I find the history section now considerably more detailed than the beliefs and worship sections, which seem rather brief. The current version has 3938 words for history and 2073 words for doctrine + worship, for a ratio of 1.9:1. The version of 6 March 2010 had about 5450 words for history and 3350 words for beliefs + prayer, for a ratio of 1.62:1. I think either the history section should be pruned more aggressively, or the beliefs section re-developed to proportionate detail. Gimmetrow 03:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Both are probably desirable; however, unless we are going to basically cut everything before the Reformation (on the grounds that it really belongs in History of Christianity), the RCC does have more history than most subjects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The history section could be compressed. [1], for instance, seems to have redundant mentions of the significance of councils/synods. Gimmetrow 14:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I imagine, once it's finished there will be compression in the history section and a re-development of the beliefs section. Still working on cleaning up MoS issues, weeding out citations, and working on source verifications (which often includes waiting for books to get through the interlibrary loan system). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The beliefs and doctrine section certainly needs far more material restoring, to provide proper coverage and due weight. This was one of my main objections to the cutting that took place. Xandar 20:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Then add to it, citing sources as you go. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Trimming the History section

I've weeded out information that is presented and duplicated in History of the Catholic Church. Also, I've commented out the paragraph about the art, which in my view belongs in the History of the Catholic Church but doesn't seem to be there. If anyone objects, it's easy to uncomment. In my view more can be summarized, but the paragraph that begins with the mendicant orders is more developed in this article. For now, the information should stay, but be migrated to the history article and then summarized here. In my reading I've reached the Reformation and will post my thoughts about how to the work on that section when I finish the most current book I'm working on. Will be busy for the next week or two, so my involvement here will drop, but I'll check in. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

While I'm generally supportive of cutting out extraneous detail, it seems to me a mistake to leave out all mention of the Celtic church(es) especially in light of Cahill's book "How the Irish Saved Civilization".

--Richard S (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Relationship of Emperor to Pope

On a separate point, we say "The papal coronation of the Frankish King Charlemagne as the Holy Roman Emperor in 800 created a paradigm of Western emperors imposing control over the popes." This is a bit glib. As I understand it, the problem is that "if the Pope has the right to crown the emperor, then emperors want to control who is Pope". We should spell that out otherwise the reader will not understand the connection.

Also, we don't say anything about the fact that the Eastern Emperor had a lot of influence over the Patriarch of Constantinople and vice versa. I know we need to focus on the Western (Catholic) Church but where there are strong parallels between the Western and Eastern churches, it might be useful to point them out to the reader.

--Richard S (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Great Schism

The sentence "In the 8th century, iconoclasm, the destruction of religious images, became a source of conflict with the eastern church." assumes that the Western and Eastern churches are already differentiated and that a fissure has begun. This may be true but this sentence is the first inkling that the article gives the reader that this is an issue. If you know nothing about the Catholic/Orthodox schism, you may be wondering what the "Eastern/Western church" is about. We should give the reader some idea of what is coming down the pike.

In the section on "Late antiquity", we say "Pope Damasus I would round off his claim that the Western Church was the legitimate heir to the original Church in Jerusalem by commissioning a new translation of the Bible in fine classical Latin."

At the end of the section on "Late antiquity", we also say "Constantine moved the imperial capital to Constantinople, and the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) elevated the See of Constantinople to a position "second in eminence and power to the bishop of Rome".[31] From circa 350 to circa 500, the bishops, or popes, of Rome steadily increased in authority.[12] Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome had particular prominence over the other dioceses as recognized in the First Council of Nicaea.[32]"

These sentences sort of hint at a separation between the Western and Eastern churches but only indirectly and we never come right out and say what is going on i.e. the the split is already beginning around the time of Constantine and is palpable by the time of the Iconoclasm controversy of the 8th century. I think we should come right out and say that there are seeds of a schism as early as the 8th century and arguably even as early as Constantine or Chalcedon. (Someone with more familiarity with the sources should help me here.) We need to provide the reader a framework with which to understand the relevant events as they unfold over the centuries between Constantine and the Great Schism.

--Richard S (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look at the material in the article, which is appalling. It just repeats the myth that in 1054 the Pope & Patriarch excommunicted each other. Some facts:

1. By the time the excommunication was delivered the Pope had died, which brings the legality into question.
2. His successor haad not been elected by the time the Patriarch issued his excommunication, so that was directed against the legates.
3. Nobody in Constantinople thought the churches had separated until long after.
4. The main cause of the schism was the Crusades. The Crusaders deposed the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem & Constantinople & appointed replacements. Their actions were ratified by Rome. Naturally, the existing Patriarchs didn't take this lying down.
5. Even after this there were often people in communion with both sides simultaneously, until the 18th century.

Citations at [2]. Peter jackson (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a quick fix to address the most glaring problem (i.e. the bit about the Pope and the Patriarch excommunicating each other). There really isn't room to go into the details of what actually happened; better to link to a subsidiary article. I didn't address the points about the Crusades or the fact that many people were in communion with both sides simultaneously. These should be added in by someone who knows the details better than I. --Richard S (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Richard, for the fix. I see that part is cited to Duffy, but in fact is almost a word-for-word copy from Norman (complete with a date of 1054- p. 31). Generally I have not been impressed with Norman. Bokenkotter has the date of 1081 for Gregory's excommunication of Alexius, and Bokkenkotter also states the Crusades, though an attempt to mend the rift, were responsible for widening the rift - p. 140. On the other hand, in the newly published The History of the Medieval World, the following is presented (this is in note form): Henry III and Pope Leo IX march on the Normans in the traditionally Byzantine controlled south of Italy, Leo imprisoned and gives papal control of south to Normans. The Byzantines are furious and call the west corrupt and heretical. Leo sends delegates to speak to patriarch but the delegate ends up excommunicating the patriarch who in turn excommunicates the papal delegation. 1054 is the year of the great Schism. Leo dies, Henry III dies, and the next pope makes alliance with the Normans who promised to fight for the pope and against the holy Roman emperor. In 1059 "a church council declared that the pope should be elected by a gathering of high-ranking bishops: the College Cardinals. (page 592-593) So, more than one excommunication occurred, and clearly the east and west were on bad terms. Moreover, for context, an earlier mutual excommunication occurred under Pope Leo I in the 5th century (my notes): In 444 Leo I claims bishops of Rome have supremacy over all bishops and will make "final decisions" in church matters. Leo becomes first pope. Split with Alexandria and mutual excommunication Bauer p. 111

The best thing to do, in my view is to introduce the earliest excommunication, then to quickly allude to the two 11th century excommunications. Also, since the article is cites Duffy, I'd be interested to know his version. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We must mention the significance of 1054 because it is generally considered to be the date of that the Great Schism started even if a more sophisticated understanding would see the fissures of the schism starting much earlier and extending much later. --Richard S (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"generally considered": yes, by non-specialists such as compilers of general encyclopaedias, and by the mythology of both churches; but not by specialist historians.

I don't think Leo was the 1st Pope to claim supremacy. I suppose it might depend how you interpret exact wording, but didn't Pope Stephen say much the same? Peter jackson (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

pervasive bias of article

It is not unusual to find in Wikipedia articles of individuals and organizations, a section addressing controversy and established and verifiable wrongs of such party or organization. not only is it well known the Roman Catholic church has knowingly participated in such wrongs but even having admitted to such. There are articles on Wikipedia that link to this article in regards to such issues, but no link or list of links back to such articles. This clearly show a pervasive bias of this article. As a matter of providing unbiased though complete information on this article, Wikipedia should not show bias in cross linking, or not, its own articles. If one was to come to Wikipedia to get a clear and neutral picture of the article subject, would they. Clearly the answer is NO. This needs to be fixed, if only in providing a list of other Wikipedia links that reference this article in a manner that is of importance to those articles.

74.166.12.69 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you babbling about?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

After reading 74.166.12.69's comment for the umpteenth time, I finally figured it out. He is making a case for a "Criticisms" section which would link to various subarticles on specific criticisms. I can understand the desire for such a section. However, experience has shown that such a section tends to wind up being almost totally unwieldy and unmanageable. Moreover, such a section winds up being impossible to read because there are so many criticisms which are unrelated to each other and thus the prose winds up being disjointed rather than flowing smoothly. --Richard S (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the recommended WP procedure is to distribute the criticisms through the relevant sections. Peter jackson (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like trouble. Gingermint (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson's presence here

Dear colleagues: I come here because I have had reason to peruse the block log and contribs list of this user today. I noticed that on 15 December he evaded a 48-hour block by promising to avoid this article.

Please be aware that this undertaking had no time-limit. I believe that User:Pmanderson is in breach of that undertaking by posting here. Tony (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but this smacks of wikilawyering.

First of all, the block in question was 5 months ago and really is ancient history. The edit war over tags has long since ended.

Secondly, Pmanderson's unblock request read "I was careful to stay inside 3RR - and, to be fair, so was Xandar. More importantly, having made my point that he will do anything to defend the text he owns, I have no interest or motive in continuing - and will not; if there is further disruption, I will ask for page protection. In short, I didn't mean to go too far, and I'm sorry I did." The text of his request makes no promise to avoid the article.

Secret's unblock contained this text "Ok unblocked, just avoid the article, I know you are a good contributor, but you shouldn't have been edit warring over tags."

There is no evidence that Pmanderson agreed to "avoid the article" nor that there was any sort of article ban or topic ban imposed on Pmanderson. Secret's comment in the unblock does not have the force of law. It is perhaps a suggestion rather than an indefinite ban of editing the article. This becomes clear if one actually reads the exchange and the deference which Secret gives to Pmanderson as an "established editor" and "good contributor". In summary, this is a non-issue, the raising of which is unhelpful.

--Richard S (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the unblock text definitely states that there was a promise to avoid the article. Tony (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As I did, as long as those tags were the subject of edit war. They have long since been removed. Blocks are preventative, not punitive; there is nothing left to prevent.

If Tony thinks otherwise, his remedy is to consult with Secret. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Pmanderson. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. The continuation of the edit war was prevented by the block. There was no clear intent expressed by Secret to ban Pmanderson from the article forever. If he wishes to make such an intent clear, then let us hear it explicitly from him and not via loose interpretation by others. Such bans require more than the action of a single admin (e.g. a community ban or ARBCOM action). If Secret does not feel that his conditions for the unblock have been violated then there is no cause for action by anyone else.

Per Xandar's comment below, Pmanderson has been disruptive to this page but so have a number of other editors. An amazing amount of incivility has been slung around with impunity. Let's not dig five months back to try and find a technical point on which to hang one single editor. There is no current disruption to this page so it would be better to let bygones be bygones and wait for the next disruption to flare up before seeking admin action. Tony, have you read WP:POINT? If not, you might do well to do so. One also wonders how you, an editor with no recent involvement on this page, came to discover this ancient artifact and why you have chosen this as something worthy of your attention. Something stinks and it ain't just in Denmark.

--Richard S (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

PMAs presence on this page since the block has been heavily criticised by a number of users as disruptive. Xandar 20:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Diffs, please? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Xandar means himself; one is a number. For more on this than you want to see, there is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church and the pages there linked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"one is a number". Well, yes, but "a number of users" I think in standard English usage implies at least 2 if not more.

"Disruptive" is a pretty vague term anyway. It can mean pretty much what you want it to. Anything that stops you getting your own way is "disruptive". Peter jackson (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

A lot more than just me have said this, on the talk pages here and many other pages where these issues have been discussed. As for "disruptive", I was referring to repeated personal attacks on other editors, and constantly raising the temperature of disputes, among other things. I find it hard to think anyone would try to dispute this. Many diffs could be provided if it would serve some purpose. Xandar 00:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, and without thinking this is going anywhere, I was another one who was concerned about PMA's raising of the temperature here. But just so we're clear, when i made that observation, I suggested an article ban (perhaps ideally self-imposed) of PMA and Xandar and Nancy for some months, while a number of other editors such as Karanacs and Richard etc did some 'heavy lifting' on the content of the revised article version. Until the last few days i thought the process was probably going OK. I hope it isn't about to deteriorate. <disappears back into the shrubbery> hamiltonstone (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so; Tony is angry because I dared to disagree with his friends somewhere else, and is looking for mud to throw at me. Richard's reply should have settled this; I appreciate it twice from someone who also disagrees with me, but in a parliamentary manner. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all—actually, I'm disappointed in the behaviour of that friend towards Mr Anderson; and I came here to ask for clarification of what the situation was with regard to Mr Anderson's presence here and his undertaking to admin Secret (who has since retired, regrettably).

What really matters is that this page be host to a productive, harmonious environment. It's still unclear to me whether Mr Anderson is entitled to contribute here (and to be fair to him, the "promise" should have been expressed by the admin in the block log in termporal terms). If he is to contribute here, will he encourage good conditions for productive collaboration, given that this article has had a stormy history and needs editors to be aware of each other's sensibilities? Tony (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Please... I think this is a distraction because it is based upon "ancient history" and 5 months is "ancient history" in Wikipedia time. If you wish to pursue this, your remaining remedies (if Secret has, as you say, retired) are an user RFC or a note at WP:ANI. There are at least one or two admins active on this page and none of them has seen fit to act on your comment and I doubt that any of the admins at WP:ANI will either. Thus, your best bet (such as it is) would be a user RFC. For the record, I would enter a comment critical of Pmanderson's "over the top" incivility if a user RFC were issued. I would not, however, support an article ban regardless of what Secret's unblock comment was. --Richard S (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

At this stage, I will not be pursuing the matter; I trust that collaboration will be satisfactory on this page. Tony (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

General sourcing questions

Hamiltonstone brought up a good point on what types of books we should rely on - is it appropriate to rely on broad histories of the Church (Duffy's history of the Popes, Bokenkotter's history of the Catholic Church, McCulloch's history of Christianity) or should we instead focus on more targeted books (McMullen's Christianizing the Roman Empire: (A.D. 100–400)). In my opinion, we should rely on both. There has been a tremendous amount of scholarly text written about the Catholic Church/Christianity. I think we need to rely on the broad histories to determine which issues we cover and at what weight - one of the issues with the previous version of the article was that we were using very specific books for this point or that point and ended up with an unbalanced and non-cohesive section. With that framework in place, we definitely should read more focused books to make sure that we're reflecting scholarly consensus and are providing the right level of explanation for this article. I would not go down to the level of submissions to scholarly journals - those articles are likely going to be too specific. Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And journal articles are unlikely to state consensus. If you have nothing to say that hasn't been saaid by everybody else, you haven't written anything worth journal space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but a recent journal article can't be assumed not to represent consensus either. There's likely to be inadequate evidence to establish how widely its arguments have been accepted. I suppose you say something like "It has recently been argued/suggested".

Another point about specialist sources is that quite often somewhat less specialist ones haven't even heard of what they say. Peter jackson (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with PMA on this. He has a point, byt quite often, what happens in the Church can be that something is misinterpreted either unknowingly or with an agenda and it can take a while for it to correct. Take for instance, the moving of the tabernacle from the center altar to a side altar or chapel in many US Churches during the 70's. It has taken 30-40 years for this to be addressed and corrected. Certain journals often bring to the forefront certain things that focus has been lost on as well.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a good point, Mike, about journals often bringing a new focus on some issues. In my opinion, those issues are probably going to be too detailed for this article. I would wholeheartedly endorse journal articles for some of the child articles (or children of children), but I think that it is unlikely we'll need that level of detail here. Karanacs (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Duffy

From what I've seen (note that I do not have access to many scholarly reviews), Duffy's book is well-regarded. From my own reading, I would not have been able to tell the author's religious persuasion - it did a much better job than Bokenkotter's book of presenting positives and negatives of history.

• MacCulloch uses it as a source; at the end of his book MacCulloch gives an overview of books that he thinks are good reference books for Christian history. P. 1099 he states- "Christian history lends itself to particular themes treated over long periods. A model of popular history covering two millenia is E. Duffy, Saints and Sinners...". MacCulloch then goes on to describe several other books, including a few other histories of the papacy.
• Henry Chadwick, who is highly respected as a historian of Christianity, did a review of Duffy's book and two other histories of the papacy for the New York Times [3] and concludes that Eamon Duffy, a medieval historian at Cambridge University, includes both good illustrations and a distinguished text; his book, designed as the basis for a television series in 1998, appears to be particularly good value. All three books contain a catalogue of popes, with McBrien and Duffy offering plenty of historical facts and sobering, valuable judgments.
• From The Contemporary Review [4]- His present work, Saints and Sinners, is designed for a more general reader, indeed as a 'companion volume' to a television series. Yet this is no slight, pretty picture book. It is the best one-volume modern history of the oldest institution in the Western world.
• Anyone have access to this scholarly review from the Journal of Early Christian Studies? [5]

Here's the core of it: "Eamon Duffy is a professional historian of the modern period. His account of the papacy to Gregory the Great provides a readable, well-written and balanced guide. He weaves his way skillfully through Roman history, theological controversy, and East-West conflicts. He maintains this high standard throughout the book. ... Duffy has also provided seven maps, a glossary of terms and a good bibliography. Errors are few (Constantine died in 337, not 347). ... The book is best suited to a survey of church or papal history. Those teaching just the Early Christian period will probably prefer the work of our late colleague Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (1990), but if one does not wish to read or assign a book-length study of the early papacy, chapters one and two of this book will meet the need." Harmakheru ✍ 22:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Then Eno should go on the list of books to be read. I'll see what I can do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good source, and it has been recently updated. I think we can be justified in relying on it throughout the history section. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Karanacs and Harmakheru - this is exactly the kind of assessment I would hope for in the case of major sources for the WP article, in the cases where the author or publisher is closely aligned with the church. It certainly satisfies me as to the quality of the source - and i agree with PMA that it would be good to check that promising lead on Eno, for the early history section. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bokenkotter

I have less confidence in Bokenkotter than I do in Duffy. In the most recent edition of the book, he notes of his own work that "Some critics, for instance, have noted, with a certain amount of justice perhaps, a tendency to glide over the negative and dark aspects of the Church's history" (p. xiii). The book is widely cited, according to Google scholar, and NancyHeise had previously said that it is widely used as a university textbook (but I'm not sure how to verify that). I haven't been able to find many reviews of the book at all (not sure if that is because the first edition came out in 1977, pre-internet, but even the more recent versions don't seem to be reviewed much). I would not be comfortable relying heavily on Bokenkotter for more "negative" aspects of Church history (such as the Inquisition), and I won't object to removing it completely; for now, however, it provides a good baseline for some of the more noncontroversial background data. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the evaluation of Bokenkotter; however, this is paradoxically a value of using the book: where even Bokenkotter agrees that a negative or dark aspect exists, there is a strong case that it is consensus, even among conservative Catholic scholars. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick comment. Bokenkotter might agree that a negative/dark aspect exists, but not necessarily to the degree that others do. Every Catholic will admit that the inquisition happened, for example, but you would be hard pressed to find on that thinks the Church put to death anywhere near 50 million people as I have heard some people claim. Acknowledging that the inquisition happened does not necessarily mean that one agrees to someone else's understaning of itFarsight001 (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Historiography of early Christianity

We have discussed on a couple of occasions the need to discuss the historiography of early Christianity, possibly in a separate article. On numerous occasions, I (and others) have stressed the need to keep this article a summary-level article, relegating the details to subsidiary articles. IMO, this approach is absolutely valid but it suffers from the fact that the historiography of early Christianity is currently dispersed across a number of articles and "the history of the history" is thus almost impossible to piece together from the existing articles. For example, if a reader didn't already know who Walter Bauer and Bart Ehrman were, it would take an intrepid and astute reader to figure out that they were important figures in the development of the modern historical perspective of early Christianity. Even if you disagree with their theories, it is important to know who they are (were) and what their theories are.

For this reason, I have decided to start working on an article that will eventually be titled Historiography of early Christianity. To this end, I have collected bits of text from a number of articles such as Early Christianity, History of early Christianity, Saint Peter, Paul of Tarsus and Primacy of Simon Peter and compiled them into a draft article which is currently at User:Richardshusr/Historiography of early Christianity. Since this represents only an hour or so of work, it is really still in the very early conceptual stages. The draft is a poorly-structured mish-mash of information and is in desperate need of an organizing framework. I invite all who are interested to review my draft and provide comments at User talk:Richardshusr/Historiography of early Christianity. I would particularly appreciate feedback concerning the organization of the article and any key topics that I have missed.

--Richard S (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Walter Bauer and Bart Ehrman? Our best source on them is almost certainly their articles. An overview, putting together all the major scholars on early Christianity, would certainly be useful, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You may not have noticed but Bauer and Ehrman have their own subsections in the section at the end of my draft titled perspectives. I suspect that F.C. Baur needs to be added in but I need some help summarizing his work.

I have several questions...

1) Is the structure of the draft article appropriate? I'm not so interested in presenting history (that should be covered in History of early Christianity) as historiography (how the historical understanding of that era has changed over time).

2) Walter Bauer and Bart Ehrman are the leading proponents of the heterodoxy over orthodoxy perspective. What other "major scholars" need to be presented here? Is "heterodoxy vs. orthodoxy" the only major debate that should be presented here or are there others?

Feel free to continue this discussion over at User talk:Richardshusr/Historiography of early Christianity as this is really not directly germane to editing this article.

--Richard S (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... I've moved the draft into mainspace as Historiography of early Christianity. It's almost entirely a cut-and-paste job from other Wikipedia articles and, as such, is a bit of a jumble. I could really use some feedback on how best to organize the article. I also feel that the article doesn't capture all of what we have discussed about the "traditional narrative". What little the article does cover is a bit of unsourced text taken from Harmakheru's comments on this Talk Page. That text needs supporting citations. Your feedback and suggestions are solicited and would be warmly appreciated. --Richard S (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Early Christianity proposal

I've been doing lots of reading on Early Christianity and have developed a proposal for revamping this section of the history. This proposal would replace the first paragraph of what is now there - I'm still working on the paragraph that deals with persecutions.

Catholic tradition holds that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. The New Testament records Jesus's activities and teaching, his appointment of the twelve Apostles and his instructions to them to continue his work. The Church teaches that the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, in an event known as Pentecost, signaled the beginning of the public ministry of the Church.

Conditions in the Roman Empire facilitated the spread of new ideas, and Jesus's apostles gained converts in Jewish communities around the Mediterranean Sea. As preachers such as Paul of Tarsus began converting Gentiles, Christianity began growing away from Jewish practices, and by the mid-2nd century was recognized as a separate religion. The new religion was most successful in urban areas, spreading first among slaves and people of low social standing, and then among aristocratic women.

The early Christian Church was very loosely organized, resulting in myriad interpretations of Christian beliefs. In part to ensure a greater consistancy in their teachings, by the end of the 1st century Christian communities evolved a more structured hierarchy, with a central bishop having authority over the clergy in his city. The organization of the Church began to mimic that of the Empire; bishops in politically important cities exerted greater authority over bishops in nearby cities. The churches in Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome held the highest positions, and by the 3rd century, the bishop of Rome began to act as a court of appeals for problems that other bishops could not resolve. As early as 160, bishops held regional synods to resolve doctrinal differences. Doctrine was further refined by a series of influential theologians and teachers, known collectively as the Church Fathers.

Notes

References

Sources

• Bokenkotter, Thomas (2004). A Concise History of the Catholic Church. Doubleday. ISBN 0385505841.
• Duffy, Eamon (2006), Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (3 ed.), Yale University Press, ISBN 9780300115970
• MacCulloch, Diarmaid (2010). Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. Viking. ISBN 9780670021260. orginally published 2009 by Allen Lane, as A History of Christianity
• MacMullen, Ramsay (1984), Christianizing the Roman Empire: (A.D. 100–400), New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ISBN 9780585381206

I have included a paragraph on the traditional viewpoint for 2 reasons. First, the history realllly needs to give at least some information Jesus and the Apostles, as this is the basis for the Christianity. Second, this is the Catholic viewpoint of its own history, and should be mentioned. Are there any concerns with this proposed text before I replace the first paragraph of what is currently in the article? Karanacs (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This looks pretty good. I do have some comments which I hope you will take as constructive criticism. Your text is weaselly (perhaps deliberately so) about the historicity of the tradition. For those who know the "code words", "Church tradition" may suggest "ahistorical" but your text doesn't come right out and say that and, as we know through much discussion, there is a substantial group of historians who see a gap between Jesus and the apostles on the one hand and the early Christian church on the other. I think we do the reader a disservice by not bringing this controversy to the fore.

Based on discussions with Pmanderson and others, it is not clear to me what "the Catholic viewpoint of its own history" is. There is what most Catholics of a certain age (including myself) were taught and what Bokenkotter says "many scholars including some Catholic ones" prefer. That's why we have called it the "traditional narrative"; we have been trying to differentiate it from a more contemporary view which suggests that Peter was not indisputably the monarchical bishop of Rome (because the concept of monarchical bishops did not arise until much later) and therefore there is not necessarily a direct lineal succession from Peter through Linus to Benedict XVI.

Also, on a different and less important topic, I wonder if we should mention the Bar Kokhba revolt which is argued by some to have been the breaking point at which the Christians separated from Judaism because the Christians did not recognize Simon bar Kokhba as the Messiah.

--Richard S (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A few comments

• "and by the mid-2nd century was recognized as a separate religion" - by who? Christians were seen as separate enough to be persecuted by Nero in the 1st century, and mentioned by other writers. So this statement could be misleading. Best to remove.
• "The early Christian Church was very loosely organized, resulting in myriad interpretations of Christian beliefs" - I'm not so sure about the support for "myriad". Perhaps "differing" would be more accurate.
• "The organization of the Church began to mimic that of the Empire; bishops in politically important cities exerted greater authority over bishops in nearby cities." - It wasn't just about being "politically important". The leading patriarchates owed their prominence to apostolic descent. Rome - Peter and Paul; Antioch - Peter; Alexandria - Mark.
• "The churches in Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome held the highest positions," - Rome should be mentioned first in this list to reflect its special position from the 1st century onward.

On Richard's comments, mentioning the alleged "gap" favoured by certain liberal scholars would mean putting both points of view and require careful drafting. Is that needed here? Xandar 00:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Pmanderson, Bokenkotter describes this "liberal" viewpoint (i.e. the retrojection perspective) as a view preferred by "many scholars including some Catholic ones". I figure that, if Bokenkotter thinks it worth mentioning and spending a few pages explaining it, its worth mentioning here as well. Not in great detail, that would belong in History of early Christianity. However, I think we must mention it (especially since some sources suggest that "few serious historians" would accept the traditional narrative in its entirety). --Richard S (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The bar Khokba revolt could be mentioned as a waypoint of the split. However, there was also earlier jewish persecution of Christians, and the later anathemas of Jamnia that made the split complete. Xandar 00:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The leading patriarchates owed their prominence to apostolic descent. A half-truth. Clement of Rome (who should, if the legendry were correct, have a particularly strong claim) does not assert apostolic descent; nor does Ignatius of Antioch. Is there any claim of authority through apostolic descent, or even instances of Christian hadith before the Antonine persecutions? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And, again, the dismissal certain liberal historians would be more persuasive if Xandar managed to find a conservative historian. Without that, this is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The sources specifically relate the rise of importance of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria to the political importance of those cities; for this timeframe there is much less emphasis in the sources on the relation of these cities to the Apostles. At this early point in time, also, per the sources, Rome was not considered more special than the other two. The proposed text points out that in the 3rd century Rome did gain some prominence over the other two, but that was a bit later. The order given in the proposal is the same given in the source. Karanacs (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That view may depend on the sources used. As examples, Christianity through the centuries, by Cairns, and A world History of Christianity by Adrian Hastings, both highlight the special position of Rome in the early period, partly due to its Apostolic credentials. Hastings p 32 states: "Alexandria, Antioch, Carthage, Athens and Rome stood head and shoulders above anyone else... However in Apostolic terms Rome remained in a class of its own because it did possess the burial place of both the principal apostles of the Gentile world - Peter and Paul. It could claim in consequence to be an 'Apostolic See' in a way that none of its potential rivals could plausibly imitate. And it did so. It was probably Pope Anicetus (155-166) who erected a noted memorial shrine for Peter on the Vatican Hill at the place of his burial about 164, maybe precisely the centenary of his death." Xandar 21:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The immediately preceeding sentence is But it is clear that in reality the emerging regional primacy of a few churches had little to do with the apostles and much with a combination of secular importance and the contemporary strength of the Christian community.

• It is disgenuous to quote a source which dismisses the apostolic succession as of little importance for the opposite.
• Even more important, this dates the passage as dealing with the third century. That's the other half of the truth: by the third century all these cities (and others) claimed descent from the apostles (and Rome claimed the burial of Peter and Paul - although the archaeology of the alleged cenotaph is by no means clear). But that's a statement about the third century, not the first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

<prepares to get pelted with tomatoes from all sides> I can ask this now, or later when this article turns up at GAN or FAC, so i'm running with now as the better time. By the account of editors above, this early period is one where the nature and emergence of the church is debated amongst scholars. In this context, is it wise to be using a reference by a pastor in the Catholic Church teaching at a Catholic University (if I have my facts right; if not I apologise), the neutrality of whose work may not be clear? I went seeking reviews / assessments of this author, and was not encouraged by the only scholarly one that I found, of his book Church and Revolution: Catholics in the Struggle for Democracy and Social Justice, in the Journal of Markets and Morality. That review included the following:

With the exception of references to the published writings of certain individuals, Bokenkotter does not utilize any primary source documents or engage in any original historical research. Instead, he relies almost entirely on secondary sources, and it would seem he fails even to consider systematically the available secondary studies. In most chapters, Bokenkotter relies heavily on a few select books for his biographical information...By focusing so exclusively on biography (specifically, biographies of people he admires), Bokenkotter allows his book to adopt a triumphant tone in which the heroes of the story are those courageous individuals who challenged conservatism and produced an awakening of social conscience...In short, the author makes few attempts to understand sympathetically the historical conditions under which the Church and individual Catholics adopted certain conservative anti-liberal attitudes...Bokenkotter is, above all, someone whose personal views and passions are an integral part of the story he tells.

I am aware that Bokenkotter's Concise History is well-known and widely read. I would however welcome some scholarly journal reviews that speak more favourably of its scholarship and neutrality than does the above review in respect of his Church and Revolution text.<goes away to wash off the debris> hamiltonstone (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I doubt that paragraph applies to pre-Constantinian Christianity, where biography is not really possible. I would have far more qualms about using him for later periods; the chief reason to use him here is that it is difficult to dismiss as a liberal flake someone that the dismissor has cited himself.

• The proposed text, however, confounds several different levels of sets of claims about early Christianity:
  1. Church doctrine, which is reasonably well defined (and has a section of its own, which may be too short).
  2. Theology: Did Christ found the Church? That's not a question about observables; it depends on what you mean by found and what you mean by Church. I distinguish from doctrine since Catholics in good standing disagree on it.
  3. History: that which is deducible reliable secondary scholars from evidence, literary, inscriptional, and archaeological.
  4. Legend, some of it inherited from Eusebius -who did not have a modern academic training, and did not consider whether the first century might be a foreign country that did things differently from his own time-, some of it descending from works of fiction, like the Clementine Recognitions, but much of it a mediaeval congeries of miracle stories.

We must distinguish clearly and accurately between these; that's WP:V. I think this is best done by giving all four of them separate sections. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should make these distinctions but I fear that we don't have space for four separate sections on each of these. Such detailed discussion belongs in History of Christianity or History of Early Christianity. In this article, I suspect we will have to limit the discussion to a sentence or two on each of these. --Richard S (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We already have two of the sections. I don't think the other two heads need more than a paragraph each (and disputable theology may not need that much) - but it should be clear that those paragraphs are not describing history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

<comes back for more splatting>Since I am on the subject, I must raise the question of Eamon Duffy's book. No question about the reputation of the publisher. But when I read that Duffy was a member of the "Pontifical Historical Commission" (that is on Duffy's university biography web page - as far as i can tell no such organisation exists, but i presume it is a misquoting of a similar term), and read an interview in which he describes himself as "orthodox" (meaning conventional) and "practising catholic", and then read a Vidmar review in The Catholic Historical Review of another book which in passing refers to the above Duffy text as a "coffee table book", then I am once again left unsure as to the independence or quality of the source in this context. I appreciate i would be being somewhat fringe were i to question whether Duffy were a scholarly researcher, but again can i ask for evidence of the reputability amongst his scholarly peers of this particular book?
To clarify my tentative position, I am not flagging any objection to Karanacs words, as I am not an expert. I note the queries raised by other editors and would watch the developments with interest. But were this to come to FAC (a regular subject on these pages), I would oppose unless the reputation of these sources was established. In a field where there are so many scholars, and journals publishing peer reviewed papers (such as the Journal of Early Christian Studies etc etc), only the most respected sources should be relied upon, and for both of these books by Bokenkotter and Duffy, a couple of red flags are up for me at present. On a related point, do other editors have a concern that reliance on these kinds of general books (Duffy and Bokenkotter - contrast their nature to MacMullen's work) tends to mean we are working from tertiary rather than secondary sources? Separately, I would remark that other works used elsewhere in the whole article raise more serious questions, as I once previously mentioned, but that will do for now.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they probably are; so is Thomas Cahill. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether it's right to say tradition regards Jesus as founder of the Church. According to Hugh of St. Victor, the Church began with Abel (Coolman, The Theology of Hugh of St. Victor, Cambridge University Press, 2010, page 125, citing Didascalicon 4.1). Peter jackson (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm having a hard time taking this comment seriously. Jesus is either the actual, physical founder of the Church or else its motivating inspiration i.e. people who heard the Gospel from the apostles (not necessarily the original Twelve) believed in it and founded a Church around it. Abel is, if anything, a precursor of the Abrahamic Judaic religion. I can understand an argument that Judeo-Christianity began with Cain and Abel's sacrifices to God but that's not the line of reasoning most theologians use. --Richard S (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The Church Triumphant began before Abel; and Hugh would probably reply with Toland that the righteous before the Flood believed in the true religion. But this is the sort of issue which makes this a theological question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives as one meaning of the word "Church": "It is employed to denote all who, from the beginning of the world, have believed in the one true God, and have been made His children by grace. ... Thus St. Gregory (Book V, Epistle 18) writes: ... "The saints before the Law, the saints under the Law, and the saints under grace — all these are constituted members of the Church." Justin Martyr also refers to those who were "Christians before Christ", not only the saints of the Old Testament but even righteous pagans. Thus, theologically speaking, one must distinguish (as the CE article does) between "the Church before the Old Covenant, the Church of the Old Covenant, or the Church of the New Covenant". From the perspective of secular history, the term "Church" generally refers only to the last of these; but from the standpoint of theology, it can refer to all three (which are, like the three persons of the Trinity, essentially one!) Harmakheru ✍ 17:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The real problem here, which has not yet been squarely faced, is that the mainstream of modern historiography has diverged so completely from the traditional narrative that the two seem to be on different planets. Merely to frame the discussion in accord with the traditional narrative, even if only in opposition to it, is to implicitly accept elements of that narrative which secular scholars have entirely rejected; but to tell the story in any other way will leave most readers dazed and confused, and raise charges of "liberal revisionism" and "fringe history". To be fair to the sources, one would have to write something like this:

The Catholic Church has traditionally maintained that it was founded by Jesus Christ on the twelve Apostles, with Simon Peter at their head, and that as a matter of divine institution this apostolic authority has been passed down ever since in an unbroken chain through the bishops of the Catholic Church, among whom the bishop of Rome holds the same primacy as Peter. Few serious historians today would endorse the entirety of this claim, and many would reject virtually every element of it.

But it is not hard to imagine the howls of outrage that such a statement would provoke, even if it were documented from a hundred reputable sources.

For a good discussion of the problems in this area, see The Early Church: History and Memory, by Josef Lossl. You can read the first few pages online at Amazon. Harmakheru ✍ 14:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Welcome back. I've missed you. It is precisely the sentiment in your proposed text that led me to characterize Karanacs' proposed text as weaselly in sidestepping the controversy. Your proposed text is actually very close to what I can support. My only "weasel" would be to water down the locution "few serious historians" and use something closer to Bokenkotter's "many scholars including some Catholic ones". It may be that we need to create a new article such as Historiography of early Christianity to delve into the details.

I disagree that we cannot find a way to present this controversy in a cogent manner. This is the domain of what StormRider calls "sacred history". What's missing from your proposed text is a positive description of what the modern view is. If it rejects the "traditional narrative", what does it say explains the origin of the Christian church as an institution and the development of the ecclesiastical hierarchy? Reading the Lossl's introduction, it appears that monarchical bishops are in place by the end of the 2nd century (i.e. fully a century before the Edict of Milan). This suggests that the institution of monarchical bishops are not a consequence of becoming the official state religion but significantly predated that event.

What I gather is that a more modern view is that the institution of "monarchical bishops" developed during the second century with a hierarchy developing sometime after that so that we wind up with patriarchs, the Patriarch of Rome being recognized as having primacy (and later the Patriarch of Constantinople being recognized as being in second position). The Catholic and Orthodox claim authority via apostolic succession from these early bishops and patriarchs. The Protestants and Restorationists dismiss such claims as having no value relying on the Scriptures instead. To me, these are the core ideas which we need to present. We need to explain to the reader early on that these claims of ecclesiastical authority are what differentiate the Catholic Church from the Orthodox, the Anglicans and the Protestants. Yes, there are also doctrinal differences but, even absent those differences, there is the ecclesiastical authority nut to crack.

--Richard S (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I originally had a few sentences on the tradition as is relates to Peter and apostolic succession, but I removed them. Given that I have yet to find a serious scholar to support the historicity of that information, I became convinced that we didn't need to mention it at all in this article. I think it belongs instead in the article on apostolic succession (or possibly in the doctrine section. The text should describe the formation of the hierarchy in the appropriate timeframe (this proposal begins that explanation with the paragraph on the formation of bishops). Later in the history section we should cover the emergence of the doctrine of apostolic succession. With that type of coverage - linear and based solely on maintream scholarly opinion, readers should be able to reach their own conclusion, without us picking out this information and making a big deal about it at the beginning of the section. If I remember correctly, we only got into this large discussion because of attempts to say that scholars agreed with the tradition; before that, the article never mentioned the histiography.

The history section needs to begin with some type of reference to Jesus, and some type of reference to those who carried on his ministry (starting with the Apostles), because that is, at the root, the basis of the religion. Whether the proposed wording is the best, I don't know (probably not).

I'm open to being convinced that we really do need to cover the histiography. If it helps, Bokenkotter clearly states that The traditional Catholic view of the organization of the Church is that Jesus himself organized it by appointing the twelve apostles and giving them authority to assume control of the Church after his death. (p 30) Karanacs (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd need to draw out the point that Protestants consider the Apostles' authority ended with them, whereas Catholics & Orthodox believe they handed most of it on to the bishops as their successors. Peter jackson (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

To summarize what I read of the discussion above:

• Xandar would like to see Rome listed first of the three churches that gained greatest prominence in the early centuries based on its apostolic claims. Sources don't appear to count the apostolic claims as a reason for this prominence as early as the 1st-early 3rd centuries, which is what that sentence is covering.
• We have not yet come to an agreement on how to present Church tradition and its historicity. Richard has created a new article, which I think should be linked as a Main article in the Early Christianity section.
• There is a question as to whether Bokenkotter is an appropriate scholarly source to use. For now, Bokenkotter is used to source relatively uncontroversial information.
• There is disagreement/confusion on how to present when Christianity split from Judaism.

I should get Owen Chadwick's History of Christianity today, and there are a few other books on my list to read to see if we can either a) remove Bokenkotter and/or b) provide clarity for some of the points above. It's going to take me a bit to read through those, and then we'll likely need to have more discussion. In the interim, is it okay if I move the proposed text to the article? I think it is an improvement over what is there now, and I know we'll change it anyway later. Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not as it stands. The objectionable sentence is by the end of the 1st century... with a central bishop having authority over the clergy in his city. This is an implausibly early date for Ignatius; but - far more seriously - Ignatius does not give his single bishop authority over the clergy; rather, the bishop and the clergy act in concord with authority over the laity. Changing 1st to 2nd would solve this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can reword as by the end of the 1st century Christian communities evolved a more structured hierarchy, with a central bishop having authority over the clergy in his city --> by the end of the 1st century Christian communities began evolving a more structured hierarchy, with a central bishop having doctrinal authority for his city. Both Duffy and MacCulloch point out that some cities (Jerusalem and Antioch among them) had a central bishop long before others (like Rome) adopted the practice. Karanacs (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. Let's at least give it a try to make progress. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

With a few tweaks, I've added the proposed text into the article. Karanacs (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and Judaism

The sources I've read are fuzzy on when Christianity actually split from Judaism (my guess is because the actual split was fuzzy). I think it is important to note that Christianity was originally a Jewish sect and that it split. MacCulloch said it took about 150 years for Christians to decide how far to move from Judaism, and that was what this text was trying to convey. I'm definitely open to rewording, but we need some good sources; the ones I've consulted have glossed over this. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Christians ceased to be required to follow the Law by AD 48, at the latest, at the Council of Jerusalem. By that point, Christianity was no longer a subset of Zudaism
• Few Christians still found it necessary to do so by Ignatius' time.
• The last mention we have of Christians following Jewish practices is in Justin Martyr (c. 160), who says he doesn't mind Jewish-Christians as long as they don't try to Judaize others, but some of his colleagues do object.

The first point is from Acts, the others from Joan E. Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places, p. 21 - citing Ignatius, Magnesians 9; Justin. Epp. 46 and 47. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole other set of questions about when the Rabbis found Jewish-Christians not-Jews, connected with whether minim "heretics" means Christians - and never, sometimes, and always seem to be sourceable answers to that question. Bar Kachba persecuted Christians, and Akiba hated minim; but these do not have to be the same statement - and they do not represent all of Judaism by any means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

When you say "The last mention we have of Christians following Jewish practices", I assume you mean "orthodox" Christians. There are references to "Judaizing heresies" much later. Peter jackson (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much the point. Justin considered the people he wrote of as orthodox; his colleagues presumably didn't, and yet they were the same people. . The claim that Judaizing is in itself heresy is the breaking point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Reformation and Counter-Reformation

Diarmaid MacCulloch book The Reformation (description here) appears to be a good source for the Reformation section. If we were to use this, would it be too much from a single author? If everyone agrees, I'll order the book from the library. The section needs some work, and, although I have books about the period, I'd like one that covers the entire period in the whole of Europe. Input welcome. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that this book is one of the best on the Reformation. He definitely pulls heavily from it for the one I'm reading on the history of Christianity (from a skim, I haven't read those sections yet). If I were writing the article on my own, I'd likely be using the broader book in all of the sections. If we don't use it for this section, and instead rely on the Reformation book (which in WP terms is more like the "Main" article for the section in the broader book on the Reformation), I don't see a problem - provided we're also consulting other books for alternative points of view. Karanacs (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

My library had MacCulloch, so I got that, plus two others: The New Cambridge Modern History: The Reformation (which is a compilation), and Will Durant's The Reformation. Plenty for alternative points of view. This is almost 3000 pages of reading, so I'll be busy for awhile. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't rely on the Durant. He's not a specialist historian and he's somewhat dated (It's at LEAST 30 years old, probably closer to 50). Stick with the Cambridge and the MacCulloch (assuming the Cambridge is relatively recent). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth. I'll return Durant. I've read the first few chapters of MacCulloch, and think it is very good. The context he provides and the connections he makes are important: for instance, he explains Gregory VII's reforms created a centralized organization and a Latin speaking culture, which was challenged in the Reformation. If no one objects, I think these connections should be added to the article. In other words, rather than writing this happened and then this happened, and so on, explain (if relevant) the importance of an event in one or two phrases if possible, using MacCulloch as a source to add the connections. In my view, it would help clarify the information. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That (the context) is one of the key thing that the history has been missing. I've tried to add some of that in the Early Christianity paragraphs, and I think the rest of the history section needs to have a similar model, as you've proposed. Karanacs (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's simply the issue of having a good source. None of the other sources I've read have provided connections as MacCulloch does. I'm a bit busy elsewhere, but will soon begin with some tweaks to the middle ages section. Also, think it should be renamed, but don't know what to call it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I expect you would have found that in Durant. The big picture hasn't changed in the last century or so - although this particular point can be taken to excess. Protestants (like Milton and Linnaeus) continued to write in Latin; they stopped holding services in it - for many of the same reasons Vatican II did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the important point was the Bible was written in vernacular - or rather that people such as Wycliffe, Luther and Tyndale felt the need to write the Bible in the vernacular. Establishing Latin's importance early on helps to explain the heresy of writing (and reading) a vernacular Bible. Also important was the wording used in the translations - Tyndale substituted congregation for Church, hence as some have argued adding the rift. But, it is true the point can be taken to excess, so that's a valid point to bring up. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I read somewhere that in those countries where the Bible was already available in the vernacula the Reformation didn't happen. Maybe someone can find a reliable source for this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Middle Ages

I've been working on the text for the Middle Ages for some time, and have come to the conclusion that writing a new text might be more efficient. The following is the result of much reading and note taking. I have commented out one paragraph which is no longer visible, and believe this can be trimmed even more, although I think for the sake of brevity some of the flow has been lost. Let me know if we should keep what we have, or if this is a viable alternative. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In 444 Leo I claimed the bishops of Rome had supremacy over all bishops, which led to a split with Alexandria. The bishop of Constantinople, in opposition to Leo I, proclaimed himself Patriarch in 451, thereby beginning the enmity between the clerics of the Roman (west) and the Byzantine (east). During the latter half of the 5th century Ireland was Christianized by St. Patrick – an escaped Irish slave of Romanized British descent, while in the east the Roman Empire fell to the Ostrogoths in 467. At the end of the 5th century, the king of the Franks, Clovis I married a Christian wife and he converted in 496 to orthodox Chrisitanity. Ten years later he attacked the Arian Visigoths and drove them into Hispania. A decade later in Italy, St. Benedict built Monte Cassino monastery where he initiated an order which included the following rules: relieve the poor; clothe the naked; visit the sick; bury the dead; indulge in silence and manual labor; and eschew personal ownership. When St. Gregory became Pope late in the 6th century he sent Augustine of Canterbury on a mission to the British Isles; a few year later St. Gregory consecrated the first bishop of Canterbury.

Beginning early in the 8th century Arabs began invading Europe and Byzantium. In Constantinople Emperor Leo III, who believed religious images were used as magical talismans during the siege of Constantinople, banned religious icons. In a council in 731 it was decided that iconoclasts were to be excommunicated. Consequently Leo proclaimed Byzantine outside the authority of the Pope. In 754 the first of the Carolingians, Pippin the Younger, was crowned in a lavish ceremony (including anointing) by Pope Stephen II. Pippin then vanquished the Lombards and added more territory to the papal state. When Charlemagne came to the throne he quickly consolidated his power, and by 782 he was considered the strongest "king in the west, and also the king with the strongest sense of Christian mission."

In the latter half of the 9th century, Micheal III of Byzantium sent Methodius and Cyril on a mission to Moravia in reponse to a request from the newly created kingdom where they created a new alphabet (the Glagolithic script) to bring the liturgy to the Slavonians. However their work was interrupted when Cyril died and Methodius was imprisoned after a Frankish invasion. Moravian exiles continued the work in Bulgaria by creating a different script called Cyrillic (to honor Cyril) which the Bulgarians adopted as means to gain independence and quickly forbade services in Greek in favor of Cyrillic. During this period a new wave of Viking invasions threatened Christianity in England which had been the official religion since the Synod of Whitby in 664.

By the mid-10th century when King Edgar gained the throne in England he gave sweeping power to monasteries: "He restored the monasteries of England, giving the abbots and monks the power to govern their own lands: 'They are to have in their court the same liberty and power that I have in my own court.' " By the 10th century it was customary for kings and other nobility to build churches and monasteries and to choose the clerics, positions which often became hereditary. In 962, at the coronation of Otto I to the Holy Roman Empire, Pope John XII him to swear an oath not to use power against the papacy or the papal state. Otto I immediately chose a new pope—the first instance of a king choosing a pope.

In 1046, during the reign of Henry III there were 3 popes at once and none were "clearly legitimate." Once crowned Henry III took control of the church. Henry III and Pope Leo IX then marched against the Normans in the traditionally Byzantine controlled southern Italy; Leo IX was imprisoned and gave up control of the south to the Normans. The Byzantines, furious at having their territory taken away, called the west corrupt and heretical. Leo IX sent delegates the patriarch who excommunicated the patriarch; he in turn excommunicated the papal delegation. 1054 became the year of the great East–West Schism. In 1059 the college of cardinals was created to free papal elections from interference by Emperor and nobility. Lay investiture of bishops, a source of rulers' dominance over the Church, was attacked by reformers and under Pope Gregory VII, erupted into the Investiture Controversy between Pope and Emperor. The matter was eventually settled with the Concordat of Worms in 1122 where it was agreed that bishops would be selected in accordance with Church law.

The Cluniac reform of monasteries sparked widespread monastic growth and renewal. The 11th and 12th century saw internal efforts to reform the church. By the early 1300s a centralized Church organization had been established, a Latin speaking culture was prevalent, the clergy were literate and celibacy was required.

References

Comments

• This is better than the present text, but it needs an awful lot of work; which should indicate what I think of the present text.
• There are significant errors of fact (the Archbishop of Constantinople did not declare himself Patriarch - the Emperor would have exiled him; Patrick was a Briton who was enslaved in Ireland, not the other way around...) and implication.
• More seriously, however, there is no indication of why you are choosing these facts, or what they have to do with each other. Topic sentences, please, and each paragraph should stick to its topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We can keep the present text. I'm not bothered, either way. FWIW, this text does indicate that St. Patrick was an Irish slave of British descent. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the pre-Charlemagne paragraph need work; to me it is a little overly detailed in some places and leaves out some things in others. I've got notes from several books on this time period that we can incorporate, it's just a matter of me switching gears to think about that. I haven't done as much reading on the rest of the time period covered here, but I think it's missing some of the tensions between the East and West, as well as the period when the papapcy was essentially a tool of the wealthy Roman families. My Duffy notes have good information on this time period if you want to try to incorporate any of that into the draft. Karanacs (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reinstated a sentence that didn't survive the copy/paste and uncommented a paragraph, but I think it's too long and rests on a single source. I wanted to move it out of my sandbox to see the daylight, and am fine if it's not used. If any of it is better than the existing text, then perhaps pieces could be used or combined with anything you have written - or just allowed to go to archives. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's almost entirely better than the present text; it just needs more work.

On a separate note: Patrick was born in Britain. British descent is odd. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Separate note - Gregory did NOT consecrate Augustine as bishop of Canterbury - there are several things wrong with this. First, Augustine was archbishop, not bishop. Second, we're not sure where/when he was consecrated a bishop (see the Augustine article for details on the discussion). There is some thought that Augustine was consecrated before he left Rome or was consecrated on the way to Kent, or that he left Kent after some sucess in conversions and went to Gaul for consecration. The sentence as written is incorrect. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Btw - the source is this: Bauer, Susan Wise (2010). The History of Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-05975-5. My notes for that section are: p. 258 Gregory sends Augustine to the British isles. Augustine balks but is told to go; arrives on Kentish Thanet Island 596. King of Kent, Ethelbert, marrried to a Christian Frank. Ethelbert agrees to convert and slowly others convert. 601 Gregory consecrates Augustine as Bishop of Canterbury. I've sent the book back to the library, but sounds as though it's wrong. I checked out the most recent, and the author does use primary sources, so I thought it would be better than some of the sources currently used. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Augustine's article is rather extensively researched, as you can see, and from works that are much more focused on the time frame. The only "primary" source we have that mentions Augustine's consecration is Bede - Gregory's letters don't assign a time to Augustine's consecration. Bede claims that Augustine was consecrated by a Frankish archbishop. Gregory's letters imply that Augustine was consecrated by German bishops. See Augustine of Canterbury for full details. Also here's the page from Google books, but she's clearly wrong, honestly. The fact that this book is the second in a series she's writing on the history of the world kinda gives me pause on using it. You'd be better off using Richard Fletcher's Barbarian Conversion or Peter Brown's The Rise of Western Christendom or Judith Herrin's The Formation of Christendom. Fletcher's is a bit more "non-academic" but Brown is a scholar of the period. Also, note that Augustine landed probably in 597, not 596. (this is reinforced in Brown, Fletcher and Herrin, by the way). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I had just wandered across Brown in a googlebooks search - nice to know that he does seem like a good source. Unfortunately, my library doesn't have it :( I've added it to my list of books I want to get over ILL eventually. Karanacs (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Since we have two MacCulloch books, is it better to use a date (i.e. MacCulloch (2010) or MacCulloch (2003) or should we use the book name (MacCulloch, Christianity or MacCulloch, Reformation)? Karanacs (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be comfortable using both. Can't find it here (will continue to look) but normally I follow MLA Style with author, and book title. Personally I prefer to see the date as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Author and short title will help the poor reader's memory, especially since date (which will often mean date of reprinting) is often misleading. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to clarify, short title is acceptable. Fine without the dates. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Putting up this text has been useful, if only to establish more sources and to begin the discussion about the middle ages. Septentrionalis' question about why I chose these points is reasonable, and I took time to mull over the answers:

• Leo I was mentioned in this source, in Bokkenkotter and Kung. We don't mention him, but others seems to think he's important, so I added him.
• The Christianization of Ireland should mention St. Patrick, in my view. We don't, so I added him.
• Clovis is important because he realized that by converting he gained power, and other tribes followed him. I mentioned his wife to provide context (he didn't wake up and decide to convert one day, though apparently he did convert after winning a battle and had his soldiers partake in a mass babtism).
• St. Benedict is important because the rule, the order, is important to the Church. I did not know the name of the monastery he established and considered interesting.
• The information about Augustine in England has been discussed - but if I recall correctly, at some point on the talkpage an editor was annoyed that I'd removed the missions to England, so I included it here.
• The Muslim invasions are important.
• The background I added about the icons seemed to give context - what caused that conflict? Also, the source we use could be replaced, in my view.
• Pippin's anointing seems important because it shows the change in relations between rulers/monarchs and the Church.
• Charlemagne is important for the same reason, but the relationship has shifted somewhat.
• Initially I was unconvinced that Methodius and Cyril were necessary to a summary - but they created a vernacular liturgy and Bible very early, which is important. The information in the article is incomplete - but perhaps good enough.
• England's King Edgar's relationship with the Church sets the context for the next half century and the Reformation.
• Otto I shows the power shift occurring that will culminate in the investiture controversy.
• Henry III and Leo IX - they supported the Normans (according to this conceivably flawed source) who invaded the last bits of Italy the Byzantines had - perhaps sparking the Great Schism - and the Normans were much involved with the Crusades.
• The last paragraph already exists in the article.

That's my justification. Now all that's necessary is to decide what to include and what not from those 800 years. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

But none of that comes through to the reader; that's where you have to explain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revisions to Truthkeeper88's text

I find it difficult to say that this text is "much better" than the current text. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. I agree with Pmanderson that the text needs to have more topic sentences to communicate to the reader what the point of these facts are. Unfortunately, it is beyond my time and ability to rewrite the text today. I have made an initial effort to give a flavor of the direction that I would like us to pursue. The revisions that I have made to Truthkeeper88's text are not comprehensive but they are all I have time to do today. More work is necessary but this should give some initial direction to our efforts...

During the Middle Ages, there arose increasingly sharp divisions in the church over theology and ecclesiastical authority. Although some parts of the Church separated from the main body over doctrinal issues, the majority of the Church remained nominally unified throughout most of the Middle Ages. In succeeding centuries, conflicts over iconoclasm, Hesychasm and the Photian schism would become points of friction between th East and West. Economic, political, social and cultural issues also contributed to the continued separation between the East and West, culminating in 1054 with the start of the Great Schism which continues to divide Catholics from Orthodox Christians to this day. In 444 Leo I claimed the bishops of Rome had supremacy over all bishops, which led to a split with Alexandria. The bishop of Constantinople, in opposition to Leo I, proclaimed himself Patriarch in 451, thereby beginning the enmity between the clerics of the Roman (west) and the Byzantine (east).

Missionaries continued the spread of Christianity to Ireland and the Slavic nations. During the latter half of the 5th century Ireland was Christianized by St. Patrick, while in the east the Roman Empire fell to the Ostrogoths in 467. At the end of the 5th century, the king of the Franks, Clovis I married a Christian wife and he converted in 496 to orthodox Chrisitanity. Ten years later he attacked the Arian Visigoths and drove them into Hispania. When St. Gregory became Pope late in the 6th century he sent Augustine of Canterbury on a mission to the British Isles; a few year later St. Gregory consecrated the first bishop of Canterbury.

Monasticism flourished in medieval Europe. St. Benedict built Monte Cassino monastery where he initiated an order which included the following rules: relieve the poor; clothe the naked; visit the sick; bury the dead; indulge in silence and manual labor; and eschew personal ownership. By the mid-10th century when King Edgar gained the throne in England he gave sweeping power to monasteries: "He restored the monasteries of England, giving the abbots and monks the power to govern their own lands: 'They are to have in their court the same liberty and power that I have in my own court.' "

Beginning early in the 8th century Arabs began invading Europe and Byzantium. In Constantinople Emperor Leo III, who believed religious images were used as magical talismans during the siege of Constantinople, banned religious icons. In a council in 731 it was decided that iconoclasts were to be excommunicated. Consequently Leo proclaimed Byzantine outside the authority of the Pope.

In 754 the first of the Carolingians, Pippin the Younger, was crowned in a lavish ceremony (including anointing) by Pope Stephen II. Pippin then vanquished the Lombards and added more territory to the papal state. When Charlemagne came to the throne he quickly consolidated his power, and by 782 he was considered the strongest "king in the west, and also the king with the strongest sense of Christian mission."

In the latter half of the 9th century, Micheal III of Byzantium sent Methodius and Cyril on a mission to Moravia in reponse to a request from the newly created kingdom where they created a new alphabet (the Glagolithic script) to bring the liturgy to the Slavonians. However their work was interrupted when Cyril died and Methodius was imprisoned after a Frankish invasion. Moravian exiles continued the work in Bulgaria by creating a different script called Cyrillic (to honor Cyril) which the Bulgarians adopted as means to gain independence and quickly forbade services in Greek in favor of Cyrillic. During this period a new wave of Viking invasions threatened Christianity in England which had been the official religion since the Synod of Whitby in 664.

By the 10th century it was customary for kings and other nobility to build churches and monasteries and to choose the clerics, positions which often became hereditary. In 962, at the coronation of Otto I to the Holy Roman Empire, Pope John XII him to swear an oath not to use power against the papacy or the papal state. Otto I immediately chose a new pope—the first instance of a king choosing a pope.

In 1046, during the reign of Henry III there were 3 popes at once and none were "clearly legitimate." Once crowned Henry III took control of the church. Henry III and Pope Leo IX then marched against the Normans in the traditionally Byzantine controlled southern Italy; Leo IX was imprisoned and gave up control of the south to the Normans. The Byzantines, furious at having their territory taken away, called the west corrupt and heretical. Leo IX sent delegates the patriarch who excommunicated the patriarch; he in turn excommunicated the papal delegation. 1054 became the year of the great East–West Schism. In 1059 the college of cardinals was created to free papal elections from interference by Emperor and nobility. Lay investiture of bishops, a source of rulers' dominance over the Church, was attacked by reformers and under Pope Gregory VII, erupted into the Investiture Controversy between Pope and Emperor. The matter was eventually settled with the Concordat of Worms in 1122 where it was agreed that bishops would be selected in accordance with Church law.

The Cluniac reform of monasteries sparked widespread monastic growth and renewal. The 11th and 12th century saw internal efforts to reform the church. By the early 1300s a centralized Church organization had been established, a Latin speaking culture was prevalent, the clergy were literate and celibacy was required.

--Richard S (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Themes

Some months ago, I proposed that we identify certain "themes" and organize the history section around those. I think my proposal was poorly presented and thus did not garner much support. Truthkeeper88's text provides an example of how my idea can help us improve the article. IMO, the key themes for the Middle Ages are:

1. The widening rift between East and West
2. The increasing power and wealth of the Church
3. The rise of monasticism (and its subsequent corruption which contributed to the Reformation)
4. The clash between Church and secular rulers as each seeks to control and limit the other's power
5. The spread of Christianity to Ireland and the Slavic nations

Most of these themes are applicable in periods other than the Middle Ages. The idea is that we should introduce these themes and then reference them at appropriate points in the text. If the reader is not already familiar with History of Western Civilization, a non-thematic recitation of facts and events will not make much sense to him. We need to show the reader the forests, not just the individual trees.

--Richard S (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've seen these repeated in several of the sources I've read (Duffy has been an excellent source at digging out some of this context) and I think we should be sure to adequately explain the roots of these. Karanacs (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good suggestion and the best way to cope with the timespan involved. Once the themes are identified (and I think these are good) it's easier to write the text accordingly, and to plug in sources. We should consider doing the same on the other history sections as well (and as such I'll note the thematic events as I'm reading about the Reformation). I have to be away from this article for a week or so, but will continue to monitor the talk-page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Name of the Church

The name is the Roman Catholic Church, and not the Catholic Church. The Anglican Catholic Church, the Church of England, is not in communion with Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.146.251 (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that the title should be changed, but for within-Wikipedia reasons: it is policy to use the name most recognizable by English-speakers in general as the title, whether or not it is "correct".

I would also argue that the present name is both POV, and doubtful even from that POV:

• The subject of this article (as opposed to possible theological sub-articles) is an observable: the set of people in communion with the Bishop of Rome, now Benedict XVI. The common English term for that, averaging over all speakers, over all sorts of Christians and non-Christians together, is Roman Catholic Church.

• The central meaning of Catholic Church is the whole Body of Christian believers - a theological term. These are not the same statement.

Now there is a widely held point of view (in these days of ecumenicism perhaps somewhat less widely held than it used to be) that the two are coterminous, but it's a point of view; most people who call themselves Christian do not hold it, and non-Christians are unlikely even to understand it. Wikipedia would serve them better, and make an account of the Tractarians intelligible, if we reserved Catholic Church for an article on the theological term - but I don't insist on that.

Some people do hold it; Father Newman spent six years deciding that the Roman Church was indeed the only Catholic Church and the whole of the Catholic Church. But this title says much more: that the two terms mean the same - and it seems unfair to his troubles to imply that he spent so long on a tautology. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the obvious solution to this conundrum is to remove the word "Church" entirely, and title the article simply "Roman Catholicism". I don't see how anyone could be confused about what that means. Harmakheru ✍ 06:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I reject completely both suggestions. The name of the Church is the Catholic Church. That is not a statement of POV, but one of fact. It is not a statement of belief, but the actual name of their church.

Anglicans created this term Roman Catholic Church to define it (ridicule it) for being both Papists and idolaters. More importantly, the name is offensive to the Catholic Church. In addition, this was a long, drawn out conversation was held and it was consensus that the name of the article be the Catholic Church. Let it rest for a while before digging it up anew.

The Catholic Church is not the same thing as the catholic church or the universal church. This is a misunderstanding of language, which was fully explained in a note in the article. --^StormRider 07:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please cite any reliable and neutral evidence that "Anglicans created this term Roman Catholic Church". The fact that Anglicans and others have generally used the term since the Reformation period is no evidence that the term wasn't alreay in use before then and used by the church in communion with the Roman Pontiff. As I recall, evidence has already been provided in previous discussions that the term - or near equivalents such as the "Holy Catholic and Roman Church" - was already in use prior to the Reformation. Afterwriting (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The OED will do; Anglicans did create the English term Roman Catholic Church, around 1605, when only Anglicans were permitted to print in England; the irresponsible and unsourced lie is that it was intended to riducule that Church, which adopted it. It is a translation of Ecclesia Apostolica Romana, which the Church had long used, and still uses; it was adopted at the coming of peace with Spain, as an eirenic gesture, instead of the plenitude of terms which the Elizabethans already had to ridicule their enemies with (Papist, Romanist, idolater, but you know the list...). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I would be interested in reading the OED's comments about this if you can quote them. Contrary to Storm Rider's claim above that the name is "offensive to the Catholic Church" is the clear evidence that the church at its highest levels sometimes uses the name for itself ( at least in its English translations ) as shown in the Vatican website pages I've provided links for in my comments below. Afterwriting (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish, which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the 17th century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-24), and appears in formal documents relating to this, printed by Rushworth (1659), I. 85-89. After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term, and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. The last clause appears to come from the First Edition, and is presumably true of Murray's Oxford. (Their first quotation is from Sandys in 1605.)

Under Catholic they say The earlier history of this lies outside English, and may be found in such works as Smith's Dict. Christian Antiq. or in Lightfoot's Ignatius I. 398-400, 605-607; II. 310-312. He katholike ecclesia ‘the catholic church’ or ‘church universal’, was first applied to the whole body of believers as distinguished from an individual congregation or ‘particular body of Christians’. But to the primary idea of extension ‘the ideas of doctrine and unity’ were super-added; and so the term came to connote the Church first as orthodox, in opposition to heretics, next as one historically, in opposition to schismatics. Out of this widest qualitative sense arose a variety of subordinate senses; it was applied to the faith the Church held, to particular communities or even individual members belonging to it, and especially in the East, to cathedrals as distinguished from parish churches, then later to parish churches as opposed to oratories or monastic chapels. After the separation of East and West ‘Catholic’ was assumed as its descriptive epithet by the Western or Latin Church, as ‘Orthodox’ was by the Eastern or Greek. At the Reformation the term ‘Catholic’ was claimed as its exclusive right by the body remaining under the Roman obedience, in opposition to the ‘Protestant’ or ‘Reformed’ National Churches. These, however, also retained the term, giving it, for the most part, a wider and more ideal or absolute sense, as the attribute of no single community, but only of the whole communion of the saved and saintly in all churches and ages. In England, it was claimed that the Church, even as Reformed, was the national branch of the ‘Catholic Church’ in its proper historical sense. I have transliterated their Greek; the first usage is from Queen Elizabeth in 1559: Ye shall praye for Christes holy Chatholique church, that is, for the whole congregation of Christian people, dispearsed throughout the whole worlde, and specially for the Church of England and Irelande. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think people are having trouble with the difference between the name Catholic and the adjective catholic. The official name of the church that has the pope as it's earthly head is "Catholic Church". Both words qualify as the same, individual, proper noun, like "Washington Monument". If other to claim that they fit the adjective "catholic", that is just fine. But they are not part of the proper noun "Catholic Church". Period. I don't understand why this is such a problem. No one seems to get their knickers in a twist about the Orthodox Church calling themselves "Orthodox Church", even those who also claim to be "orthodox" the adjective.Farsight001 (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

But they, all of them that use the Nicene Creed, hold that they are (or are part of) the one "Catholic Church", so spelt. That's the theological sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Two small observations on Farsight's contribution: The Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian and other churches of what is called Oriental Orthodoxy certainly do object to the Eastern Orthodox Church calling itself simply the Orthodox Church, a title now given in Wikipedia to the article previously called the Eastern Orthodox Church, in imitation of and for the same reason (what I would like the title to be) as the change from "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church". Second observation: The claim here repeated that "Catholic Church" is the official name of the church that has the pope as its earthly head has no basis in any document of the church itself, which makes use of other names too as official names. (I am not proposing to reopen the voting on what each editor would like the title to be.) Esoglou (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 'Catholic Church' is by far the most commonly used title used by the Church to refer to itself and the one we should use but as the page already makes clear the Church has also used 'Roman Catholic Church' at times, belying the claim that it finds the name offensive. Haldraper (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we please put to rest this ridiculous ongoing argument. The simple facts are these:

1. The church in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) generally calls itself the Catholic Church.

2. This same church also at times - and by its own choice ( not just for reasons of ecumenical sensitivity ) - calls itself the Roman Catholic Church ( and this terms refers to the whole of the church - not just the Latin Rite ). For evidence of this fact read the following webpages from the Vatican's website:

1. http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2007/documents/ns_lit_doc_20071124_titoli_en.html

2. http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_documentazione/cardinali_documentazione_generale_en.html

( see the prayer in the last section for the new cardinals ) Afterwriting (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

3. We don't usually call institutions what they call themselves, when most people don't. It is against policy to do so.

4. Most people, averaging over all English speakers, call this body the Roman Catholic Church. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism is perfectly acceptable, sensible, and should be adopted, since it avoids the questions of rite. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think using "Roman Catholicism" as the title of the article solves anything. What are we to call the church, when we write of it? Then we're back to the old problem. Esoglou (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We leave the lead as it is. We then use "the Church" (as already defined) and have "Roman Catholicism" to fall back on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, we distinguish between "Roman Catholicism" as a religion and the "Roman Catholic Church" as the institutional backbone of that religion. This would be similar to what has been done with the articles on Mormonism and The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints. Harmakheru ✍ 21:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be better stilll, and would solve the problem of length; Roman Catholicism could also mention briefly some related bodies, like the Old Catholics and the sedevacantists, as I believe Mormonism mentions the Reorganized LDS. Could you draft a note on how material should be divided? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised that the OED has not been updated. Has no supplement been issued? As far back as 1912 Herbert Thurston pointed out, in an article that he wrote for the Catholic Encyclopedia, that the use of "Roman Catholic" in English "is distinctly older" than the OED suggested. He cited an anti-RCC instance from what I presume is 1581 (the date 1801 is an obvious error and, because the phrase was used in a response to something written in "about the year 1580", the date 1581 is highly likely) and another from 1588. In any case, these instances – like those in OED – are of the use of the phrase in English. Thurston mentioned an even earlier case of the use of "Catholic Roman Church" (old spelling: "Catholique Romane Church") in English by a Catholic/RCC writer in 1575. Thurston, who was arguing that Catholics/RCCs should not use the term "Roman Catholic" (at least in English?), said of this usage: "But this was simply a translation of the phraseology common both in Latin and in the Romance languages 'Ecclesia Catholica Romana', or in French 'l'Église catholique romaine'." This seems to be a clear admission that in Latin and French the two-adjective name (with the adjectives in the natural order for those languages, as can be seen also in present-day usage) was "common phraseology" in those languages before ever it was used in English. To me it seems to show that the two-adjective name is by no means really an Anglican invention. What may very well be an Anglican invention is the use, in English, of "Roman Catholic Church" to mean a subdivision of "Catholic Church". But that is a very different thing from inventing the name "Roman Catholic Church", which was in use before there was any separate Anglican Church. Esoglou (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Since I am quoting the Second Edition of 1989, I can only suppose that Mr Thurston's quotes have problems. In any case, none of them are older than the Church of England, which has (all conceivable debates aside) had continuous existence as a body out of communion with Rome since at least 1559. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that "Roman Catholic Church" can suddenly have become established as "the phraseology common both in Latin and in the Romance languages" in the merely sixteen years between 1559 and 1575. It seems much more reasonable to understand it as having been common phraseology in those languages for quite some time before 1559. Esoglou (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Precisely so. The earlier history [of the word "Catholic"] lies outside English, as the OED says; so does the earlier history of "Roman Catholic". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

StormRider says above, "Anglicans created this term Roman Catholic Church to define it (ridicule it) for being both Papists and idolaters. More importantly, the name is offensive to the Catholic Church." This is hard to square with the use of the term in the Baltimore Catechism:

• "... of all the religions claiming to be the true religion of Our Lord, only one can be telling the truth, and that one is the religion or Church that can show the four given marks. The Roman Catholic Church is the only one that can show these marks, and is, therefore, the only true Church ..."
• "That is why we are called Roman Catholics; to show that we are united to the real successor of St. Peter, and are therefore members of the true apostolic Church."

StormRider also claims that "The Catholic Church is not the same thing as the catholic church or the universal church." Farsight001 makes a similar claim with respect to "the difference between the name Catholic and the adjective catholic", saying that if others want to call themselves "catholic" with a small "c", "that is just fine." But the Baltimore Catechism says it is not fine at all, asserting:

• "... the title catholic belongs to the Roman Catholic Church alone."

Does anyone seriously want to maintain that one of the most widely used and respected English-language Catechisms in history simply got all this wrong? Harmakheru ✍ 21:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Catholic Church" is the most commonly used term, although the terms Roman Catholic Church and Catholic Church are used. "Roman Catholic" is often used to refer to Western Rite of the Church; the Eastern Catholic Churches don't call themselves "Roman" (at least not in English.) Majoreditor (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic Church" is also sometimes used - as in the Vatican webpages above - to refer to the *whole* church in communion with the Pope - *not* just the Latin Rite (as it's properly called - not the "Western Rite"). The custom of many Eastern Catholics to refer to the Latin Rite as "Roman Catholic" is understandable but is a somewhat idiosyncratic useage. Afterwriting (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Another example can be found in Mystici corporis Christi, a 1943 encyclical by Pope Pius XII, which refers to the "true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church". Pius could not possibly have meant that the one true Church is to be found only in the Latin Rite, or in the Diocese of Rome, so he must be using the word "Roman" to refer to the entirety of the Catholic Church throughout the world. (And just to make sure, the encyclical footnotes this to chapter 1 of Vatican I's Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, which begins: "The Holy Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses ...") Harmakheru ✍ 21:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth the equivalent article on the Latin version of Wikipedia is entitled Ecclesia Catholica Romana: http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_Catholica_Romana Afterwriting (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I also commend the wonderful brevity of this article - how very appropriate that in Latin all that is needed to be said is done so succintly instead of in the turgid prose of so much of the convoluted English version. Afterwriting (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Social programs and institutions

A source has been requested for the statement "It (the Church) operates social programs and institutions throughout the world including schools, universities, hospitals, missions, shelters and charities." I don't now have access to the Statistical Yearbook of the Church, which, I know, gives the number of institutions in each of these categories worldwide and by continent and country. Does someone else have a copy, even if not the latest edition? Would it be enough to give examples? How many? And for how many countries? Indeed, do we really need to quote anything for such a well-known fact? I would not like to think the requester is quibbling and demanding proof that the Church has all of these institutions in every country - I suppose it is possible that the Church has none in North Korea and Saudi Arabia, and there are small countries that have no university, whether Catholic or not. Esoglou (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why include the statement at all? It is true of every major Christian denomination; it is probably now true of all major non-Christian hierarchies. It's puffery, which attempts to suggest that others don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. There are few institutions which operate as many schools, universities, charities and hospitals as the Catholic Church. This article should provide at least cursory, high level details on the scale, scope and nature of the CC's affiliated institutions - supported, of course, with proper references. Majoreditor (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Majoreditor. I have raised this issue before. We should provide the reader with some indication of the relative involvement of the Catholic Church in these social welfare ministries. Is the Catholic Church the largest Christian operator of social welfare ministries simply because it is the largest Christian denomination (i.e. all Christians engage in social welfare ministries roughly in proportion to their number or their wealth)? Or is it the case that the Catholic Church is more heavily engaged in social welfare ministries than its numbers would lead one to expect? --Richard S (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would guess the answer is that the Church is the major educational/health provider in those parts of Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and South America where Catholic European countries such as Belgium, France, Portugal and Spain were formerly the colonial power. Haldraper (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a good start but it states the most obvious conclusion. What I'm interested in are questions like: "In countries where Catholicism is not the dominant religion (e.g. U.S., U.K. vs. France, Spain, Italy), are there more Catholic schools, universities, hospitals per capita than there are Protestant schools, universities and hospitals?" One might also wish to compare former colonies of Catholic countries vs. former colonies of Protestant countries except that the major Protestant colonial empires were Dutch and German and there aren't a lot of large former colonies of those countries except for Indonesia which is predominantly Muslim and so the question is inapplicable. So what we're left with is the possibility of two assertions: one about Catholic social welfare ministries in the Western "First World" countries (e.g. U.S., U.K., France, Germany) and Catholic social ministries in the former colonies of Catholic countries (e.g. Brazil, Latin America, Africa, etc.) Does anybody know of any scholarly work that has looked at these questions? --Richard S (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"the major Protestant colonial empires were Dutch and German"? Ahem. What about the largest empire in history? Peter jackson (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeeeps! I did consider the British Empire but I didn't mention it because of the question of whether Anglicanism is Protestant or not. But, now that I focus on "the largest empire in history" aspect, I see that we must consider the British Empire. So, let me ask, is there any substantive difference in the way that between the way that the Catholic Church approaches and executes its social welfare ministries and the way that the Anglican Church does? We have to be careful about avoiding OR here. What I want to know is whether anyone knows of reliable sources that have attempted to answer these questions. --Richard S (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No I am not back - just curious to see what has happened here and saw this thread. I have the book "Global Catholicism" published by Center for the Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA). It is the source that all major newspapers go to for Church statistics. I also have the Annuario Pontificio and we already have referenced article text that can be used to reinsert this information into the article. It is here [6] and answers all your questions put forth in this section. NancyHeise ^talk 02:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The text previously in the article does give raw numbers, but it doesn't do any analysis or provide much context, as Richard has been asking for above. Do either of those books give that type of context as to how the Catholic Church social ministry compares to that of other religions? Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Try World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in The Modern World, edited by David B. Barrett. It's as close to a comprehensive statistical analysis of everything connected to world religions as I've ever seen. It should be in the reference section of any good research library. Harmakheru ✍ 19:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - that looks like exactly what we are looking for. It appears that the first edition (pub 1982) is available in many more places than the 2nd edition (pub 2001). Is anyone else interested enough to get these and see if we can use any of the information? Truthkeeper and I are working on history, and it would be easier to use up all of our ILL requests on history-related books rather than switching gears. Karanacs (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Our campus has it, but it's not available for checkout so I'd have to use it in the library. If you can formulate a list of specific questions you want answered, I can take a shot at it next week. Harmakheru ✍ 22:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We have the new edition. Though I might not be too keen on lengthy research in it, I don't mind doing the odd straightforward lookup. Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering, both of you! I think we're basically looking for information on how the Catholic Church compares to other religions in terms of operating hospitals, schools, and other social programs. I'm not sure what is in those books, so I wouldn't even know where to begin constructing more detailed questions. Karanacs (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of the data in WCE is country by country, so probably not particularly useful for these purposes, but there is some global info too. Peter jackson (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a look in the global section & it doesn't seem to answer this question. It does, however, answer an ealier question. The total annual income of Catholic churches & agencies is given as US$124,000,000,000. Peter jackson (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything either. It's hard to believe that a gigantic two-volume statistical analysis of worldwide Christendom would have virtually no aggregate information on this subject, but that does seem to be the case. Very disappointing. Harmakheru ✍ 22:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Irish monasteries and missionaries

Probably you want to connect the Gregorian mission (Augustine's mission to britain) to the later efforts of the various monks such as Alcuin and Boniface to convert and teach on the continent. The Gregorian mission interacted with the Hiberno-Scots missions in the British Isles, and both groups (along with Irish monks) contributed heavily to the conversion of northern Europe, especially the saxons. Rather than mention the first Archbishop of Canterbury, the space would be better spent with detailing how the missionaries converted Germany. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I composed my comments below independently of Ealdgyth's comment above but have juxtaposed them in this section since they are discussing more or less the same topic.

This text is from History of Roman Catholicism in Ireland, an article which I created...

Monastic schools in Ireland became centers of excellence for peoples from all over Europe, as can be seen by tracing the English who came to study and train as missionaries in them. The historian Bede and an earlier English contemporary Aldhelm report that sizeable contingents of English students trained as missionaries in Ireland, specifically at Rath Melsigi, Co. Carlow, in Leinster. These English monks trained in Ireland in order to convert their pagan Germanic relatives on the continent. Several of them had successful ecclesiastical careers after their Irish training.

During the early decades of the seventh century many Anglo-Saxon nobles were educated at Irish monasteries in northern Britain, specifically at Iona. When these Irish-educated English nobles returned to England, they invited Irish missionaries into their pagan kingdoms to evangelize. For example, the Anglo-Saxon King Oswald invited the Irish bishop Aidan from Iona into his kingdom, and Aidan founded the monastery at Lindisfarne on the coast of Northumberland around 635. The English historian Bede shows that Irish missionary activity in northern England was more successful at converting the pagan English than that started by Rome in 597 from Canterbury in the south of England.

Missionaries from Ireland to England and Continental Europe spread news of the flowering of learning, and scholars from other nations came to Irish monasteries. The excellence and isolation of these monasteries helped preserve Latin learning during the Early Middle Ages. The period of Insular art, mainly in the fields of illuminated manuscripts, metalworking, and sculpture flourished and produced such treasures as the Book of Kells, the Ardagh Chalice, and the many carved stone crosses that dot the island.

During the Dark Ages in Europe these monasteries served as sanctuary to many of the continents great scholars and theologians. It was here that the lamp of Latin learning was preserved for the ages. During this age, the great illuminated manuscripts of Ireland were produced. Arguably the finest such work, is The Book of Kells which may still be viewed at Trinity College, Dublin.

The first significant renewal of learning in the West came with the Carolingian Renaissance of the Early Middle Ages. Charlemagne, advised by Peter of Pisa and Alcuin of York, attracted the scholars of England and Ireland, and by decree in AD 787 established schools in every abbey in his empire. These schools, from which the name scholasticism is derived, became centres of medieval learning. During the early Scholastic period, knowledge of the Greek language had vanished in the west except in Ireland, where it was widely dispersed in the monastic schools.

Irish scholars had a considerable presence in the Frankish court, where they were renowned for their learning. Among them was Johannes Scotus Eriugena, one of the founders of scholasticism. Eriugena was the most significant Irish intellectual of the early monastic period, and an outstanding philosopher in terms of originality. He had considerable familiarity with the Greek language, and translated many works into Latin, affording access to the Cappadocian Fathers and the Greek theological tradition.

None of the points in the above text are made in Truthkeeper88's text. This is essentially Thomas Cahill's claim that the Irish "saved" Western Civilization and yet we make no mention of it at all. Why not?

I'm not arguing that we should go into much detail. A sentence or two summarizing the above text would be sufficient. However, to ignore the contribution of the Irish completely seems wrong to me.

--Richard S (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Because Cahill is a tendentious Irish nationalist. As many Anglo-Saxon notables were educated at Jarrow and Wearmouth as at Iona - they were closer. The mission to the Continent was as much Anglo-Saxon as it was Irish - and most of it was paid for by the Franks. (And anybody who believes everything Emperors decreed happened hasn't read enough imperial edicts.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"And there went forth a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed" "This decree seems to have been enforced ever since" (Cyril Northcote Parkinson). Peter jackson (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Early Christianity last paragraph - persecutions

I think I'm done with my first draft of the last paragraph of the Early Christianity section. I've tried to place the persecutions in the context of what was going on in the Roman Empire, and I'd like opinions on whether I've succeeded in balancing the efforts.

Unlike most religions in the Roman Empire, Christianity required its adherents to renounce all other gods. Christians' refusal to join pagan celebrations meant they were unable to participate in much of public life. This refusal caused non-Christians to fear that the Christians were angering the gods; Christian secrecy about their rituals spawned rumors that Christians were orgiastic, incestuous, atheistic cannibals. Local officials sometimes saw Christians as troublemakers and sporadically persecuted them. A series of more centrally organized persecutions of Christians emerged in the late third century, when emperors decreed that the Empire's military, political, and economic crises were caused by angry gods. All residents were ordered to give sacrifices or be punished. A small number of Christians were executed; others fled or renounced their beliefs. Disagreements over what role, if any, these apostates should have in the Church led to the Donatist and Novatianist schisms.

References

Sources

• Chadwick, Henry (1990), "The Early Christian Community", in McManners, John, The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, Oxford University Press, pp. 20–61, ISBN 0198229283
• Duffy, Eamon (2006), Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (3 ed.), Yale University Press, ISBN 9780300115970
• MacCulloch, Diarmaid (2010). A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years.
• MacMullen, Ramsay (1984), Christianizing the Roman Empire: (A.D. 100–400), New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ISBN 9780585381206

Comments

Thanks for any feedback. If we can get this paragraph in shape I'm going to consider the Early Christianity section initial draft done and move on to Late antiquity. Karanacs (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This isolation, combined with secretiveness about Christian practices, caused other citizens to fear the religion was angering the traditional gods is beating around Robin Hood's barn; it was enough, surely, that the Christians were refusing to join in the rites that appeased the traditional gods. The riots against the Christians need no more explanation than the trials of the profaners of the Eleusinian mysteries in 415 BC (the Christians did that too, of course, five or six centuries later). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Several of the sources also stressed the secretiveness - since Christians wouldn't talk about their practices and didn't admit any non-baptized person to the eucharist, many pagans believed the eucharist was an opportunity for cannibalism, orgies, and incest. So not only were the Christians ignoring the gods, many pagans thought the Christians were actively working to anger the gods with their poor behavior. I could add a brief bit or a note on that if needed. Karanacs (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, almost any source will do for that, from Gibbon onwards; we could even add his point that Christians proceeded to claim that it wasn't true of themselves, but was true of those heretics over there. But all that seems wordy, especially since all religions were secretive. This refusal caused non-Christians to fear that the Christians were angering the gods; Christian secrecy about their rituals spawned rumors that Christians were orgiastic, incestuous, atheistic cannibals? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I like that wording - it's concise and gets the meaning across. I'll amend the draft. Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to pursue this subject further, an excellent article is chapter 3 of Stephen Benko's Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (Indiana University Press, 1984/1986). Entitled "The Charges of Immorality and Cannibalism", it goes into great detail as to where such charges came from and why they were taken seriously by non-Christians (in part because of misunderstanding of Christian vocabulary, but in part because some Christian groups did in fact do such things--as even contemporary Christian sources admit). Harmakheru ✍ 21:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh come now. The "orthodox" Christians were perfectly willing to admit that their enemies, the Gnostics, did such things; doubtless the Gnostics were willing to return the favor. That's a perfectly normal example of odium theologicum at work, just such charming slanders as Josephus and Apion already practiced - and their appalling successors to the present day. But it's no evidence of actual practice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

But as Benko points out, the distinction between "orthodox" and "gnostic" was not always clear even to members of those parties, much less to outsiders; and the evidence of actual practice comes in some cases (e.g., Epiphanius on the Phibionites) from "orthodox" who had themselves practiced such things as part of a gnostic caucus within the orthodox congregations, and in others (e.g., Irenaeus on the Nicolaitans) in accusations by orthodox against other orthodox. One must also take into account the fact that in the history of religions such practices are far from unheard of; see, for example, the Left-hand Tantra in Hinduism and Buddhism. Harmakheru ✍ 00:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Where does Benko call the Nicolaitans, of all people, orthodox?
• not always clear suggests much more than Benko says: one side might be "easy to mistake" for the other, but it is a mistake.
• Epiphanius may be the first moral policeman to come back with a "no s---, there I was" story, but he is not the last; they usually involve beautiful girls and unspeakable orgies.
• In any case, the Phibionites are a minority, even among the Gnostics; perhaps only the one congregation in Alexandria. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think we need to go into any more detail in this article? My thought is no, as long as the short summary that we use is accurate. Karanacs (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a bit more detail is in order, especially given that the persecutions were such a central element in Christian self-definition. How about: Christians' refusal to join pagan celebrations meant they were unable to participate in much of public life, which caused non-Christians--including government authorities--to fear that the Christians were angering the gods and thereby threatening the peace and prosperity of the Empire. In addition, the peculiar intimacy of Christian society and its secrecy about its religious practices spawned rumors that Christians were guilty of incest and cannibalism; the resulting persecutions, although usually local and sporadic, were a defining feature of Christian self-understanding until Christianity was legalized in the fourth century. Harmakheru ✍ 22:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Much too long for this, and makes unfounded claims of causation. Again, other people feared Christians angered the gods because they didn't worship the gods; no other causation is necessary or attested. Christian self-identifications in the fourth century belong in the next section, if anywhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps too long, but not at all unfounded; see Benko and Brent for details. Harmakheru ✍ 00:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put the first proposal (with additions from PMAnderson) into this article and incorporated Harmakheru's suggestion into the corresponding section in History of the Catholic Church. Karanacs (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good compromise. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Scandal and Sex Abuse Cases

This article seems to me as if it has been carefully tweaked to present as delicate an image as possible. I'm assuming good faith, so I don't think there was anything deliberate, but this article certainly presents an image of the Church completely absent of the current HUGE news that is pretty much EVERYWHERE.

The word "scandal" does not appear anywhere in the article. In fact, the only reference to the sex abuse cases (which are a huge topic and very big news) is a tiny, unimportant-looking link under vatican 2 and beyond, which seems to be a slightly inappropriate place for such a link. The main article is absent of the topic which is arguably the biggest thing on the public's consciousness in regards to this topic.

I'm not suggesting that the article should be a deliberate highlight of the current scandals surfacing in the church, and the subsequent coverups, but I don't see how an article about the most powerful institution in the world can be absent of the biggest story regarding that institution in the last several decades. It is all over the news, and it is a story spreading like wildfire. It is certainly worth its own section, perhaps titled "Abuse Cases," "Abuse Scandals" or just "Scandal and Abuse Cases." This section (or these sections) would include the facts on the cases, perhaps early reports and the subsequent torrent of multiple reports, and the current and previous popes' reactions and how it was dealt with. They should be fact-based, though-- not a smear attempt. Perhaps a summary of the main article. This could also send more attention to the main article and speed the improvements there as well.

--Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 04:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is because the sex abuse cases already have their own article at Catholic sex abuse cases Farsight001 (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think there should be a heading summarizing that with a link, "Main article, Catholic sex abuse cases" (Y'know, as is often the custom). I just think it's foolish to have the abuse cases made to seem so tertiary (almost hidden), especially because they're at the forefront of public consciousness right now. A summary and main article link would make sense. Perhaps a controversy section, highlighting various things the church has been involved in, various noteworthy criticisms. --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 13:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The biggest issue with inclusion of the topic in this article is undue weight. The Catholic Church has a 2000-year-old history. The sex abuse cases, while extremely serious, are a relatively tiny piece of that history. I think the coverage of them does need to be expanded a bit to mention the toll the lawsuits have taken, but we can't make a whole section devoted to the topic. 13:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What's missing here is a recognition of how the current scandal ties in with similar scandals throughout Catholic history. There is a longstanding pattern here, deeply rooted in theology and culture, which goes back at least to the early fourth century. For details, see:

• Thomas P. Doyle, A. W. Richard Sipe, and Patrick J. Wall. Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church's 2,000 Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse (Volt Press, 2006).
• Leon J. Podles. Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church (Crossland Press, 2007).

Also, as recent events have made clear, the handling of the current abuse scandals is strongly linked to incompetence and corruption not only in the episcopacy but also at the highest levels of the Vatican, and that is a topic worthy of mention for its own sake. Harmakheru ✍ 14:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

While I might personally agree with Harmakheru, I would be leery of relying on that argument as it represents a POV, not a fact. However, I have long opposed the undue weight argument because it has clearly resurfaced despite the wishful hoping that the Church had resolved these issues and had moved past it. As long as the issue remains in the forefront of the public perception of the Church, it is not undue weight.

The argument that the Church has a 2000-year history is an argument that this topic should not dominate the article on the History of the Catholic Church or the "History" section of this one. However, it is not an argument against having a separate section in the portion of the article that describes the present-day Church. It should not be Catholic Wikipedians nor even Catholic leaders who determine what is or is not a significant issue facing the Church. We must make that judgment based upon an NPOV assessment of the Catholic and non-Catholic world opinion.

--Richard S (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Church has been wrestling with this problem for 1600+ years; and the issue has been (and certainly still is) of sufficiently high profile to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article. The interpretation of the facts may be POV, but in that case the solution is to give a balanced representation of the various POVs that attempt to explain the facts. It is not necessary for us to arrive at the actual truth of the matter, but only to provide cogent descriptions of the "truths" that are being offered by others, along with the references that would allow readers to pursue the matter further and arrive at their own conclusions. Harmakheru ✍ 16:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree fully with everything you wrote except the first half of the first sentence. I would say that is an interpretation of history not a "historical fact". However, this is not the place to debate that. Most of that kind of discussion should take place at Talk:Catholic sexual abuse cases (an inferior article title, IMO). The question that we should address here is how much coverage to give the topic in this article. I would say a paragraph would be about right although perhaps two might be needed. Three paragraphs would be excessive. I should also comment that prior versions of this article (prior to the UberCryxic cataclysm) did treat the topic but the textg was a magnet for POV warriors who kept wanting to adjust and expand the text to attack or defend the Church. It is very difficult to hit what I call the "NPOV sweet spot" which asserts just the facts and presents the significant perspectives (i.e. POVs) without canting the presentation unduly towards any one side. I do think it is worth trying but I'm just providing the perspective of past experience with this minefield. --Richard S (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I confess to not having looked at the article text lately. Given the amount of space given to Vatican II, the sexual abuse scandal should be treated in no more than one paragraph. I do think it is a major issue that the Church is grappling with but it would be disproportionate to give the scandal more space than is given to Vatican II (or even as much space). I remain convinced that there should be mention of the scandal and a link to the main article on it. --Richard S (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. At the very least, it shouldn't be absent like it is now since, as has been said many times, it is at the forefront of public consciousness on the Catholic Church. --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 02:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We had a paragraph in the much longer version of the article - which was considered too long by many editors. Coverage of the issue has to be Due Weight, and reflect its importance in the 2,000 year history of the Church. As an encyclopedia article, we do not over-weight due to recentism, or the amount of media coverage in certain sectors. Xandar 21:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Any excuse will do, won't it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the same argument I gave, by the way. The previous paragraph was heavily weighted to apologetics and was synthesis. I'd agree that we could spend a whole (short) paragraph, but no more, and only as long as it discussed the effects the scandal is having on the church - financial, membership levels?, etc. This article is not the place to detail the ins and outs of the scandal. Karanacs (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm... financial effects such as settlements and bankruptcies are easy to comment on as are resignations of clergy and bishops. There are subsidiary articles Effects on donations and membership are probably a bit more dicey and should be couched in weaselly terms such as "in some sees, donations and membership dropped off at the peak of the scandal in that see, whether these are transient changes or long-term effects remains to be seen". Or maybe just take the easy way out and don't say anything at all about drops in donations and membership in this article. Definitely stay away from the attack/defense "ins and outs" of the previous text. --Richard S (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

But not the same conclusion. I would agree on a short, neutrally worded, paragraph; this is part of the present condition of the church - at least as surely as hospitals are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Persecution by Romans

The current text addresses most of the points that I raised but I remain unsatisfied with the resolution so forgive me if I try one more time to make my case.

When we talk of Roman citizens or Roman authorities fearing that the Christians were "angering the gods", the mental picture that I get is one of superstitious primitive tribesmen literally fearing that the gods will be angered and rain down retribution on them if they tolerate the perverse social deviance of the Christians. I am not an expert in any of this but I find it difficult to conceive of such a posture being taken by the ruling elite of the Roman society of that era. "Angering the gods" may have been the official story that was used to justify persecution of the Christians but I have difficulty believing that it was anything more than a cover story.

I have to believe that modern scholars have a different view of what the motivations of the Romans were even though the "angering the gods" text is supported by ancient (and presumably modern) sources. Noting once again that the Romans tolerated a multiplicity of religions including the Jewish religion which insisted on not being co-opted into the Roman pantheon, I think we need to explain to the reader what the motivations of the Romans were in persecuting the Christians and not other religions. Since the great empire-wide persecutions came later, I presume that the reason for this is that, by the time of the persecutions, there were enough Christians to persecute on an empire-wide basis. Why were they a threat? Well, emperors may have felt more threatened and more inclined to rely on cult-of-personality emperor-worship. Refusal to participate in emperor worship is more threatening to the ruling class than refusal to worship gods that the Romans probably didn't really believe in anyways. In addition, the Christian insistence that their God was the one true god was also socially disruptive because it was basically religiously intolerant. The "live and let live" approach was specifically rejected.

I understand that we cannot go into any great detail. Reviewing the current text of the article, I find that most of the points above are in the current text. I think what I'm looking for is just a change in tone which shifts the focus from solely what the emperors said and provides some of the subtext which explains why they said and did what they did.

Also, we have mentioned here on the Talk Page the fact that persecution is a central piece of Christian self-identity but we don't say that in the article itself. Once again I am not an expert but there is definitely a theme in Judeo-Christian religious writing and thought about being "persecuted for righteousness' sake". This meme continues beyond the Roman era and permeates the Christian perspective with martyrs being canonized as saints to this day. Protestants also revere martyrs but martyrology has its fullest expressions among Catholics and Orthodox. It may even be worth mentioning that martyrdom was considered by many early Christians as a fate to be sought after, an attitude and teaching that continues to this day. I think we should add a sentence or two that links the persecution of Christians by Jews and Romans to this enduring meme. Does anyone know of a suitable source who discusses these points?

--Richard S (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What I want to know is, what have the Romans ever done for us?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Roman numerals, Roman candles, Roman Catholics - all obsolete or useless.  ;<) --Richard S (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We have to be careful with how far we take the martyrdom question. Per Henry Chadwick (in McManners' Oxford Dictionary of Christianity), pp. 43-44, in the 3rd century "There were internal arguments about the honouring of martyrs and about the proper way of ensuring that the honours did not become confused with old heathen practices". Some areas (Rome included) didn't have a problem with reinstating those who bent to the persecution - that's what led to several schisms with areas, especially in Africa, which wanted to keep the Church purer. Yes, some people actively sought martyrdom; others acoided it. p 45 says that "By the fourth century, relics of martyrs would be placed beneath the altar in the Christian basilica" but it doesn't really connect the dots, and neither do the other sources I've seen.

As for the question of persecution causation, the sources I've seen are in general agreement that the last great persecutions were because Christians were a scapegoat for the other problems facing the Empire - civil wars, invasions, economic recession and rampant inflation. These are briefly mentioned, as is Christian secrecy and refusal to recognize the gods (which were reasons for some of the early sporadic persecutions), but do we need to go into further detail in this article (rather than History of the Catholic Church)? Karanacs (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Re

martyrdom - I do think we need to mention that persecution and martyrdom as being central pieces of Christian self-understanding, not just prior to Constantine but afterwards. My understanding is that the blood of martyrdom washes away many of the sins of those who were considered for sainthood. Even for those who tried to avoid martyrdom, the point is that Christianity makes a virtue out of remaining loyal to one's religion even to the point of martyrdom. (So do the Jews. I suspect some of this meme was inherited from them).

Re: Christians as scapegoats for the Roman Empire's woes... the current article text sort of makes the point that you are making here but it doesn't quite make this point quite as clear. I would look for a way to work in an explicit assertion along the lines of "Christians were a scapegoat for the other problems facing the Empire - civil wars, invasions, economic recession and rampant inflation".

--Richard S (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard, if you have trouble believing that the Romans took this stuff seriously, it may be because you are thinking like a 21st-century secularist instead of like an ancient Roman. It is not just "primitive tribesmen" who sincerely believe that the gods will rain down retribution on them for tolerating deviance; consider, for example, the comments made by certain conservative Christian leaders in the U.S. in recent years, attributing hurricanes and terrorist attacks to God's judgment on America's lax sexual morals. If you want a clear-eyed view of what the Roman ruling class really believed about this stuff, and why those beliefs led inevitably to the persecution of the Christians, you really should read Allen Brent's A Political History of Early Christianity. He chronicles the growth of a Roman imperial ideology along much the same lines as the sacral kingship in earlier cultures (most notably ancient Egypt) in which it was the duty of the ruler to act as mediator between gods and men, propitiating the gods with proper sacrifices and religious harmony here below, and in return receiving from above the benefits of divine favor upon both state and people. This is why auguries were conducted before significant state events (including elections and declarations of war), and why when the auguries went badly it was so very important to figure out why and fix it. If the gods were unhappy, it became everyone's job to make them happy again as quickly as possible, before really bad things happened to everyone.

The Emperors themselves were no less superstitious than anyone else (oftentimes they seem to have been more so), and at least some of them took their role in all this very seriously. The Emperor Elagabalus, for example divorced his wife and married a Vestal Virgin so that the two of them could enact in their own persons the sacred marriage of sun and moon and, as he himself put it, "make godlike children to be begotten from my office as high priest, and from this woman's office as high priestess." The goal was to make the imperial line into the high priesthood for a new religious order of universal solar monotheism; as Brent says, "Thus there would be one political, imperial order that would embrace and subject to itself all other peoples, cultures and religions within its syncretistic embrace." Needless to say, the Christians wanted no part in this sort of thing; but when the most powerful person in the known world is pursuing a program like this, and has the political and military muscle to force it through, anyone who refuses to go along is likely to find themselves in a world of hurt sooner or later. Harmakheru ✍ 02:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The principal source on Elagabalus is notoriously unreliable - and if accurate protrays him as an exceptional Emperor, being himself a high priest in an irrational Levantine cult. He also, like Caligula, didn't live very long - an example of the Roman imperial system editing itself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Although there must be a paper out there on the resemblances between the solar monotheisms of Elagabalus, Aurelian, and Constantine.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... I stand corrected. Thanks for being gentle in enlightening me. That's why I love Wikipedia. I learn a lot of stuff.. some of it is even true. ;^) --Richard S (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"When we talk of Roman citizens or Roman authorities fearing that the Christians were "angering the gods", the mental picture that I get is one of superstitious primitive tribesmen literally fearing that the gods will be angered and rain down retribution on them if they tolerate the perverse social deviance of the Christians. I am not an expert in any of this but I find it difficult to conceive of such a posture being taken by the ruling elite of the Roman society of that era. "Angering the gods" may have been the official story that was used to justify persecution of the Christians but I have difficulty believing that it was anything more than a cover story."

In 1834 a judge sentenced 2 homosexuals to death, saying that, if this sort of thing were allowed to go on, London would be liable to suffer the fate of Sodom & Gomorrah. Peter jackson (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Read Livy, who wrote to and for that elite. If disasters can rain down for allowing a slave to limp across the field dedicated to a religious ritual, why not for the Christians?

But it is conventional to distinguish the actions of the elite "who found all religions equally useful" from the actions of the mob "who found them equally true". Most of the events recorded as Persecutions are actions carried out, or at least inspired, by the mob. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Influence of persecution and martyrdom on the development of Christianity

This section presents an issue that I think is more pertinent than the discussion we've been having about the actual number of Christians that were martyred.

NB: There are a number of points in what follows. I am not seeking to put all of these into this article. All I'm looking for is to insert the simple assertion that the pre-Constantine persecutions and martyrdom made an indelible impression on the construction of the Christian self-understanding, one that continues to this day.

G.W. wrote "(Macmullen emphasizes) the irrelevance of the martyrs to the history of Christianization. The impact of the martyrs to the history of the Church, as Karanacs has noted, is important largely for the questions it raises about ecclesiastical governance and the treatment of apostasy. If the martyrs are noteworthy at all, it is on this point and, later, on Christian self-construction. "

I am perpelexed by the comment that the martyrs were irrelevant to the history of Christianization although this is perhaps due to my not being sure what G.W. means when he says that the martyrs might be noteworthy on "Christian self-construction."

My interpretation of what G.W. wrote about Macmullen's perspective is that the actual number of martyrs did not materially affect the growth of the Christian Church in the sense that few were killed and, in the long run, the rate of growth was not materially diminished. If this is what Macmullen's view is, then I can agree with it.

However, it is hard to for me to conceive that martyrs are irrelevant to the Christian faith, especially if we consider the Catholic and Orthodox faiths where martyrology has occupied a fairly central position, although perhaps somewhat less so in the last few decades.

Karanacs wrote "I think we will have a hard time sourcing 'One emphasis of the Christian teaching is faithfulness to the point of being willing to be persecuted for one's faith', and if we can we will likely be indulging in synthesis. This may very well be a modern Church teaching, but it was not necessarily the teaching of the 4th century. The scholars I've read point out repeatedly that not everyone thought martyrdom was the right answer. An overwhelming majority of Christians did not choose to die for their faith during the persecutions."

I agree with what Karanacs wrote but I think she misunderstood my point. I am not arguing that the 4th century Church taught as unchallengeable doctrine that one should be faithful to the point of being willing to die for one's faith. Yes, I understand that not everyone sought martyrdom any more than every Christian seeks martyrdom now. However, "being persecuted for one's faith" and the veneration of martyrs have been important components of the Christian faith for centuries, especially in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The point is not that everyone should become a martyr but that everyone should seek to have the same virtues and faith as the martyrs. AFAICT, the origin of these teachings comes from Eusebius and other Church Fathers.

I have two theories why this point may not be in the sources that you have been looking at. One is that you may be looking at "History of Christianity" sources which focus on secular perspectives of history i.e. who did what to whom and when as opposed to sources which take a "History of Religion" perspective that focuses on the evolution of theology and practices. The other theory is that this idea although obvious to me may actually be relatively new. Here are some sources that I have dug up in the last day or so....

• Philosophy as Training for Death Reading the Ancient Christian Martyr Acts as Spiritual-Exercises (2006)

Excerpt from article:

In recent years several notable studies--including those by Judith Perkins, Daniel Boyarin, and Elizabeth Castelli--have assessed the importance of martyrdom and suffering in constructions of ancient Christian identity.(n1) This essay takes as its starting point the observation by Perkins that in early Christian communities, the threat of suffering (whether real or perceived) worked to create a particular kind of self.(n2) In Perkins's view, many ancient Christians came to believe that "to be a Christian was to suffer."(n3) Christian martyr acts, when understood as textual vehicles for the construction of culture and the articulation of Christian identities, emerge as one mechanism by which such selves were constructed. In the pages that follow I will explore how the reading and hearing of narratives about martyrdom constituted an exercise derived from Greek philosophy, adapted to inspire a largely nonliterate audience. This exercise not only trained early Christians to be ready for death and the world to come, but also worked to shape their perceptions of the Christian way of life in this world.(n4)

• The Christian Coalition: Dreams of Restoration, Demands for Recognition by Justin Watson 1999

“Notions of persecution by the "world," after all, run deep in the Christian tradition. For evangelicals who read the New Testament as an inerrant history of the primitive church, the understanding that to be a Christian is to be persecuted is obvious, if not inescapable”

• Martyrdom and memory: early Christian culture making by Elizabeth Anne Castelli 2004

From the Introduction: "My thesis is that the memory work done by early Christians on the historical experience of persecution and martyrdom was a form of culture making, whereby Christian identity was indelibly marked by the collective memory of the religious suffering of others."

• The Sect-Church Dynamic and Christian Expansion in the Roman Empire: Persecution, Penitential Discipline, and Schism in Sociological Perspective by Joseph M. Bryant

The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Jun., 1993), pp. 303-339 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science

"Martyrdom for the faith accordingly became a central feature in the Christian experience."

• There is no crime for those who have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire By Michael Gaddis 2005 University of California Press

Page 70 "The Christian experience of violence during the pagan persecutions shaped the ideologies and practices that drove further religious conflicts over the course of the fourth and fifth centuries... The formative experience of martyrdom and persecution determined the ways in which later Christians would both use and experience violence under the Christian empire. Discourses of martyrdom and persecution formed the symbolic language through which Christians represented, justified, or denounced the use of violence."

• Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church By William H C Frend (2008)

From the Book Overview: "Persecution was seen by early Christians, as by later historians, as one of the crucial influences on the growth and development of the early Church and Christian beliefs. (Fremd) shows how the persecutions formed an essential part in a providential philosophy of history that has profoundly influenced European political thought."

--Richard S (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, this is what I meant by "Christian self-construction", which you call "Christian self-understanding". I agree that, if we are to give this much space, the cultural aspect of this should be emphasized. The thing Richard is trying to do here is useful. But I am bad at dissolving cultural history into something that is at once interesting, true, and representative of consensus. Some time back, I asked Ealdgyth for literature on the martyrs' cult in the middle ages and she couldn't think of anything off the top of her head. She suggested PRL Brown, Cult of the Saints, which I never ended up getting. (I'm more interested in monasticism and doctrinal disputes than martyr-saints, just as Ealdgyth is more interested in politicized bishops than theologians.) I am unfamiliar with the literature here; I can't be of much help, unfortunately. Wish you best of luck, though! G.W. (Talk) 03:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• On the point in which I was specifically named, Richard has given a fair summary: "My interpretation of what G.W. wrote about Macmullen's perspective is that the actual number of martyrs did not materially affect the growth of the Christian Church in the sense that few were killed and, in the long run, the rate of growth was not materially diminished. If this is what Macmullen's view is, then I can agree with it." Yes, this is what I present MacMullen as stating and believe to be his view. G.W. (Talk) 04:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... so how about this... "Although the general consensus of scholars is that relatively few Christians were actually executed, the experience of persecution and martyrdom would be memorialized by successive generations of Christians and thereby become a central feature of their self-understanding continuing even to modern times. Thus, many Christians would come to view persecution as an integral part of the Christian experience. The implications of this self-image have had far-reaching ramifications, especially in Western cultures." I think the sources provided above support this proposed text. --Richard S (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what you meant earlier, Richard, I did misunderstand. You are right also that I am not focusing on the development of doctrine as much as the development of the organization and its practices, and we may need to have a discussion on where we draw the line. I think the development of doctrine really belongs in its own article (Development of Catholic Church theology, anyone?). In this particular issue, I am slightly concerned about taking matters out of context - the cult of martyrs was not everywhere in this time frame. By discussing it here, are we misleading?

Another concern is that this is very, very vague and includes some sweeping generalizations. What exactly do we mean by "become a central feature of their self-understanding". What exactly are we talking about with "The implications of this self-image have had far-reaching ramifications"? With the apostasy, we can point directly to the schisms that resulted. What can we point to for the martyrdom/"persecution complex"? If we are going to be discussing the ramifications later in the article, then I think that would be the appropriate place to point back to the persecutions (as a result of the earlier persecutions, ....), rather than point forward into history from here. Karanacs (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict with G.W. below]

Of course most of the details of the development of the cult of martyrs belongs elsewhere. We have History of Christian theology and History of Catholic dogmatic theology. Discussion of the cult of martyrs could kind of fit into History of Christian theology but my impression that this is an area where theology and praxis overlap and somehow discussion of the cult of martyrs doesn't seem to be a completely natural fit in either of those articles. Those articles are overly long anyway and so a long addition about martyrology is probably inappropriate. There is an article titled Christian theological praxis but apparently that term has a specialized meaning in liberation theology. There is also the article Christian martyrs which could use some expansion. This is my preferred candidate to put most of the detailed discussion into.

• RE "Central feature of their self-understanding": "to be a Christian means to be 'IN this world but not OF this world". Jesus' kingdom is not "of this world". Christians have been claimed by Jesus and because he was persecuted and martyred, they too can expect to be persecuted and martyred. Such persecution is not only to be expected but undertaken joyfully for one's faith and even, to some extent, sought after. To be persecuted is to share in Jesus' suffering and thus also in his triumph. If we need to explain this, we should find a less preachy way to say it. I bet you could find a source in the Catechism.

• RE "Implications of this self-image": I am referring to the sources that say "Discourses of martyrdom and persecution formed the symbolic language through which Christians represented, justified, or denounced the use of violence." and "persecutions formed an essential part in a providential philosophy of history that has profoundly influenced European political thought." Of course, these are just two sources and I would not want to argue that either of these assertions is unassailable fact. Rather, they are two interpretations of the importance of "martyrdom and persecution" to the Christian psyche and to the Western psyche. The development of these ideas requires at least one article unto itself. The question is what can we say that makes the point without being overly vague or overly detailed. One problem is that my sources were found via Google Scholar and thus tend to be from journals or the introductions to books on specialized topics. It would be great if we could find a source that is more generalized (i.e. oriented towards "History of Christianity") that makes this point. Such a source might help us to strike the right balance between overly vague generality and excessive detail.

• RE "Appropriate time frame": I agree that the cult of martyrs was not fully developed at this time. However, it's not clear to me that there is a particular period in the history of the Church where martyrology developed. If you can find one, I guess I'm OK to defer discussion of these topics until that section. It would seem to me that veneration of the martyrs begins with the Patristic writings and then develops into a cult in the Christian Roman Empire and the Medieval period. However, I would guess that it's been a gradual evolution over the centuries. One of the criticisms of the Protestant Reformation was an excessive focus on the saints and martyrs. Consider the Five Solas, especially Solus Christus and Soli Dei gloria.

• RE "Referencing forward": As a matter of style, I prefer to reference forward but I could live with referencing backward if an appropriate section can be found to discuss this topic. My critical concern is that the central importance of persecution and martyrdom to the Christian mindset be mentioned.

By the way, consider this question. Why do Catholic crucifixes have the crucified Jesus on them and Protestant crosses do not? The answer I 've heard from a Protestant source is that Protestants prefer to focus on the risen Christ implying that Catholics tend to focus on the suffering Christ. Because the evidence is anecdotal, this is just OR but it might shed some light on the topic.

--Richard S (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the earliest Evangelicals (most notably those in Switzerland) smashed religious art. In fact the 10 commandments is numbered differently for Catholics/Lutherans and non-Lutheran Protestants, specifically to support the admonishment against "graven images". I do have a source for this: MacCulloch's The Reformation (p. 150 for the art smashing and p. 686 for Commandments numbering.) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

According to MacCulloch's Christianity, pp. 194-5, the cross did not become a prominent Christian symbol until the era of Constantine (post-persecution). Colin Morris, "Christian Civilization (1050-1400)" (in the McManners Oxford History of Christianity), p. 218, says the crucifix did not become really popular as a Christian symbol until the 11th or 12th century and (p. 211) that by the 12th century some priests were already unhappy with the idea of devotion to the crucifix. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The first point is correct as far as art goes, the second not; crucifixes were prominent from Carolingian times, but too expensive to probably be very common. If you are going to look at art history, for heaven's sake use art historians. I recommend Schiller, Gertrud, Iconography of Christian Art, Vol. II, 1972 (English trans from German), Lund Humphries, London, ISBN 0853313245 as a standard work with 80 pages of text and 200 illustrations on the development of Crucifixion images. The use of the cross as a sign (as in sign of the cross & similar things), seems from literary references to have long preceded the making of physical cross images. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A point: It's going to be very difficult to speak of histoire des mentalités/cultural history at all. Perhaps, to satisfy the vague/generalization bit, we could find a representative cultural artifact/cultural figure to pin the generalization to? There's probably some literature on martyr-portrayals in distinctly Catholic art. So something like a trimmed version of Richard's sentence plus another that says: Look at this example of martyr-kitsch/art! Also: "persecution complex" is, uh, kind of a loaded term and hasn't been cited to the literature yet, Karanacs! G.W. (Talk) 16:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, G.W., please excuse my (poor) joke! Thanks, Richard, for the clarification. I don't have any disputes with the ideas that you are presenting; although it isn't an area I've done any reading on, what you present fits with my own understandings. To me, though, this is more of a doctrinal and cultural issue, and as G.W. points out, that is very difficult to cover. Unless we can find a more generalized book that deals with cultural history of Christianity/this organization, then I wouldn't include any of that in this overview article. Karanacs (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Do remember that the martyrdoms which have the most lasting influence on Christian art, from St. Lawrence to St. Catherine [of Alexandria], rank from dubious to evidence-free; are there artistic traditions even of spurious martyrdoms of real people, like Clement and his anchor? (To avoid the obvious, I'm not discussing the Crucifixion; putting it under the head of persecutions of Christianity would be an original - although not unreasonable - synthesis.) This may belong in a section or subarticle on Roman Catholic culture, but not history; and I agree sourcing will be a bear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say here. The martyrdom of St Catherine, as opposed to images of her with her attribute of a wheel, is in fact an pretty rare subject in art, & I can't see how either type can be said to have had "lasting influence on Christian art". Few saints were shown as other than standing portrait figures much before the Romanesque, & Peter, Paul & John the Baptist were the most common of these, all real people and martyrs, I think we can agree. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a thing we remember, if it is not already a thing we know. But separating "culture" from "history" is unwise (unless we are speaking of contemporary Roman Catholic art, in which a thematic approach, separate from "Traditions", "Demographics", &c., might be wise). Culture and art are part of history. To the extent that we do not wish to annex history to fiction, we should (as Karanacs suggests) discuss them later on in the narrative, but that does not mean we cannot discuss them. It just means that, as in all things, we need to be careful. G.W. (Talk) 18:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am befuddled by this desire of some editors to talk about Christian art as part of culture when what I was describing was a deeper sociological phenomenon of which art is just an expression. The critical point here is that Christians built a self-understanding of themselves as persecuted based upon the persecution of the early Christians by the Jews and the Romans. --Richard S (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well if you think sociology is "deeper" than culture, then I'm befuddled too. I'd better go back into hibernation. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If we consider culture analogous to a disease, then art is a symptom and sociology is the study of the disease's pathology. That is art is an expression of culture while sociology seeks to understand the culture, its origins and how it operates. Sociology is not "deeper" than art in the sense of being more profound. Sociology is analytical social science while art is sublime. They cannot be compared and contrasted with each other as they operate in two entirely different planes of human understanding. --Richard S (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Origins of martyrdom in Judaism and Christianity

The consensus is that this focus on martyrdom is a legacy from the Jewish tradition (cf. 2 and 4 Maccabees). However, there is one scholar who asserts that Christian attitudes towards martyrdom influenced Jewish attitudes. Some scholars also comment on how quickly Christians moved from being the targets of persecution to being the persecutors (i.e. in persecuting pagans and heretics). --Richard S (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this consensus, though? This is Frend's take, but others (the literature escapes me at the moment; maybe Lane Fox and Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome?) point to independent origins. My attempt to bring up art as an expression of sociological trends is to avoid the "vagueness" Karanacs pointed out; art (and cultural artifacts more generally) provides granular examples of sociological phenomena that might otherwise be difficult to elucidate for the reader. G.W. (Talk) 21:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha! I managed to find this source that I had run across yesterday but failed to bookmark. Dying for God by Daniel Boyarin 1999

Excerpt from description: " Not long ago, everyone knew that Judaism came before Christianity. More recently, scholars have begun to recognize that the historical picture is quite a bit more complicated than that. In the Jewish world of the first century, many sects competed for the name of the true Israel and the true interpreter of the Torah—the Talmud itself speaks of seventy—and the form of Judaism that was to be the seedbed of what eventually became the Christian Church was but one of these many sects. Scholars have come to realize that we can and need to speak of a twin birth of Christianity and Judaism, not a genealogy in which one is parent to the other.... [Boyarin] argues that, in the end, the developing discourse of martyrology involved the circulation and exchange of cultural and religious innovations between the two communities as they moved toward sharper self-definition."

From Page 93: "...at present there are two major theses with regard to the origins of Christian martyrology, which [can be referred to] as the Frend thesis and teh Bowersock thesis... According to Frend, martyrdom is a practice that has its origins securely in "Judaism" and the Church "prolongs and supersedes" the Jewish practice. For G.W. Bowersock, on the other hand, Christian martyrology has virtually nothing to do with Jewish origins at all. It is a practrice that grew up in an entirely Roman cultural environment and then was "borrowed" by Jews. ... both of these seemingly opposite arguments are founded on the same assumption, namely that Judaism and Christianity are two separate entities, so that it is intelligible to speak of one (and not the other -- either -- one) as the point of origin of a given practice. I (Boyarin) shall be trying to show that the making of martyrdom was at lest in part, part and parcel of the process of the making of Judaism and Christianity as distinct entities."

--Richard S (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to the sociological aspects of persecution and martyrdom

Myth and legend can influence society and historical events and, when they do, it is the influence that is the subject of historical discourse not the historicity of the myth or legend. The importance of "manifest destiny" and "American exceptionalism" as components of American self-understanding provides an example. In this view, myths and legends are stories that we tell ourselves because they tell us something about ourselves that we want to believe. Whether the martyrs were few or many becomes irrelevant in light of this model of the Christian as "persecuted for righteousness' sake". This attitude combined with the Great Commission provides the motivation to proselytize and to embark on missions to the unevangelized world. --Richard S (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As so expressed, isn't this more characteristic of Radical Reformation sects and Low Church evangelical Protestantism than the Roman Catholic Church (at least until the 19C)? I'd expect most religious movements without a living tradition of martyrdom/persecution don't have self-perceptions of this type. G.W. (Talk) 21:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm lost. It's like I understand all the words but I can't parse the paragraph.

What are you asserting is "more characteristic of Radical Reformation sects and Low Church evangelical Protestantism than the Roman Catholic Church"? The self-perception of the Christian as "persecuted"?

You wrote "I'd expect most religious movements without a living tradition of martyrdom/persecution don't have self-perceptions of this type." Well... yes, it would be hard to manufacture such a self-perception if there wasn't some history of martyrdom/persecution. The issue seems to be one of whether there is a concerted effort to memorialize that history into a component of that religion's faith and culture. The point is that Judaism and Christianity have made that concerted effort.

Interestingly, in my research, I read that initially Jewish and Christian perceptions of martyrdom were pretty similar but that, at some point, the Jews decided that encouraging such attitudes was undesirable which is why Jews do not revere as many martyrs as much as Christians do. Which is to say they have the martyrs of the Maccabees and they have Rabbi Akiva but there are relatively few martyrs since those. NB: This is not arguing that no Jews have died for their faith since then. Simply that they are not individually identified and held up as martyrs. My own OR perspective is that the Jews choose to focus on the suffering and persecution of all Jews rather than the suffering and persecution of individual Jews.

Of course, this comparison of Jewish and Christians attitudes towards martyrdom is getting far afield from the focus of this article. I'm just sharing stuff that I found interesting while researching the specific topic of Roman persecution of Christians over the past couple of days.

--Richard S (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You missed the keyword living. My point being that a community's self-construction in martyr ideology should only subsist in cultures that have been persecuted in living memory. Thus, perhaps certain early Christian communities had such a self-understanding, but that it would not last much longer than perhaps fifty years after 313 except in the cases of marginal Christian sects persecuted by the state.

(Hence the Africans were able to have a Donatist church that could call itself the "Church of the martyrs" both because it believed it had stood more firmly against the state in 303–11, but also since the orthodox Roman state obliged them in refilling their cup with martyrs' blood in periods thereafter.) Otherwise it should die out when Christianity becomes the hegemonic religion. Now, that would still produce martyrs' cults for Catholics under Arian rule, or under the Julianic restoration of the old-time relijun (as indeed it did), but in the long peace of the Catholic Church in the West and Orthodox in the East from perhaps 600 to 1515 and 1648 to 1789, and in most countries thereafter (except Spain, France, Latin America, Africa, Japan, the independent or princely Subcontinent, 19C United States?, and, more recently, Communist and ex-Communist nations, the postcolonial Middle East, Nazi Germany and occupied territories, Ireland (where it is characterized more as anti-English and Irish National but no doubt retains a flavor of Catholic martyrdom), but most definitely not in liberal pluralist nations like the United Kingdom and Empire and the United States, the Swiss Cantons, modern Europe, hegemonic Catholic nations (like pre-Enlightenment Catholic Europe, and Austria, South Germany, Italy in all periods), we should not see such. We would, however, see it in marginal sects like Radical Protestantism, which have nowhere been hegemonic (except the Inland West and Inner South?) and everywhere marginal.

That is to say: Martyr cultures should be marginal except where there is a living tradition of martyrdom and persecution (which is a lot of places, admittedly, but not characteristic of huge swathes of Catholic history and lands), which is more characteristic of marginal sects of Protestantism than magisterial and hegemonic Catholicism. Uh, I assume. Perhaps your literature says otherwise? G.W. (Talk) 22:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be a clamor from other editors to insert my proposed sentence into the history section, I guess I'll just let it go for now. Based on a review of the current article text, there doesn't seem to be an obvious other place to make these points. Most of the stuff on Catholic doctrine reads as if it was pulled from the Catechism and the tone of the writing in that section is not the kind that lends itself to this more analytical discussion of the components of the Christian faith from a sociological perspective.

--Richard S (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually think the martyrs had a great effect on the development of several aspects of Christianity. Chidester in his "Christianity: A Global History" has a whole chapter on the effect of martyrs such as Perpetua on the self-image and view of the Church on what it was to be Christian. There is more on this in Leeman's "More than a memory". These martyrdoms and their early commemoration are also considered to be highly important in the development of specific Saints Days and devotions from the 300s onwards. Xandar 22:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Last paragraph, misprint concerning numbers.

Under the last paragraph, titled "Membership" it says that there are 1.166 millions catholics. Obviously it should say either 1.166 thousand millions or, simply, 1.166 billions. The same goes for every use of the word "million" in this paragraph. If you would require proof for this quite obvious fact, just check the cited source. /H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.186.88 (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Billions, please. The British adopted the short scale in 1974; this may be a misplaced comma. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the section, all figures are in millions; the current one is 1,166 million. I have made this a comma, in accordance with English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

PMA, what do you mean, "the British"? Do you think everyone in the country suddenly changed the way we use the English language? It was the government that changed. Peter jackson (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox vs. heterodoxy

We say nothing in the Early Christianity section about Walter Bauer's revisionist view of Early Christianity (see this section in Historiography of early Christianity). I think it's worth a sentence or two.

We also don't really say anything about the nature of theological disputes. Reading the current text, one could imagine that these were armchair battles fought primarily with the pen. My understanding is that Christian suppression of heresies was quite bloody even in late antiquity. There is a famous quote by some Roman (I forget who) that characterizes the Christians as a "bloody lot" or something like that.

--Richard S (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources I've consulted don't mention Bauer at all (or if they did it was in passing and didn't make it into my notes), although they do talk about the diversity of opinion in the Early Church - something I thought we covered (resulting in diverse interpretations of Christian beliefs) but apparently not well enough. The sources I've read describe incidents of violent behavior against those with differint interpretations, but I didn't get enough from them to determine if that was a standard behavior or if those were exceptions (at least for the Early Christianity section). I'm still working on pulling various notes together for the Late Antiquity section, and there is stuff in there about persecutions against those with differing Christian beliefs. The big question is how much of this needs to be in this article, and how much would belong in History of the Catholic Church. Karanacs (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs, as always, I write the following with respect and affection... the problem with "resulting in diverse interpretations of Christian beliefs is that it is too vague and namby-pamby. It doesn't really present the Bauer/Ehrman/Pagels thesis which is quite shocking and hard-to-swallow for anyone who has been taught the Christian party line. Gnosticism is still a derogatory term among most Christians. The Christian party line is that the story told in the four canonical gospels are (what else?) the gospel truth. Any deviations from the facts presented in these gospels is simply heretical fabrication that are the work of the devil.

Having been taught the "party line", I myself am not sure if I accept the Bauer/Ehrman/Pagels thesis and so I am less interested in presenting it as "the TRUTH" than in asking whether it needs to be presented here in the interest of NPOV. Should we come right out and mention the Gnostics? What about other Christian heresies that existed prior to Constantine and the seven ecumenical councils? As I understand it, the point of the Bauer/Ehrman/Pagels thesis is that there were many kinds of Christianity with different sacred scriptures and different cosmologies. These differences are not characterized adequately as "diverse interpretations of Christian beliefs. That suggests to me the differences between Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. The difference betwen Gnosticism and orthodox Christianity was much greater.

I will take this opportunity to advertise the existence of the article on List of heresies in Catholicism. I did a lot of work on this article when it was titled List of Christian heresies. I would like to find a way to link from this article to that one if possible.

--Richard S (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the phrase "diverse interpretations of Christian beliefs" does rather suggest there were an agreed set of beliefs first, doesn't it? Peter jackson (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a hard to find that thin line between providing an appropriately simple overview for this level of article and being overly "namby-pamby" (I love that phrase). I don't think we should go into the various forms of Christianity, like the multiple strains of Gnosticism, in this article. Richard and Peter are both right that there wasn't a defined set of beliefs (or canon) at this point in the history. How can we make that clearer without diverging into describing the other forms, since those aren't the focus of this article? Karanacs (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's start by determining what we believe to be true and then figure out how to summarize it. I'll start with my understanding and then let's tinker with that until we can get something that we can all agree on:

The vast majority of Christians believe that orthodox Christianity represents the one, true faith which is based upon historical events and teachings encapsulated in the four canonical gospels, the New Testament and the writings of the Church Fathers. The Catholic Church teaches that it is the continuation of the original, true Church of Christ. Most non-Catholic Christians assert that the Catholic Church is not the only such continuation and many criticize the Catholic Church for having strayed from the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Nevertheless, the common theme of all Christians is a reliance on the New Testament as authoritative scripture. In the early 20th century, Walter Bauer proposed a radical departure from this model, suggesting that there never was an original "one, true orthodox faith" but rather a multiplicity of heterodox Christian faiths from which the "orthodox Christian faith" emerged triumphant, partly by suppressing its competitors whom it labeled and persecuted as heretics. Most Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church, reject the Bauer model.

That, I think, is a succinct summary of the Bauer challenge to the concept of orthodox Christianity. Even that may be too much for this article so I am open to summarizing it down even further.

--Richard S (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a fairly good overview of doctrine, but we don't want to cover more of the doctrine in the history section, I don't think. The sources I've consulted appear to agree with Bauer in general that there were multiple strands of belief in "Christianity", but most of these imply that many of these belief systems (gnostics excluded) thought they were part of the same church (although at this time, organization was very, very loose). Over the first 400 years of its existence, there were lots and lots of fights as to what Christian beliefs should be, or what practices Christians should use, and these resulted in many small schisms. The Donatist church and the Arian church survived for centuries after splitting from the rest of the church. There were Arian bishops of Constantinople - often following and being succeeded by "orthodox" bishops; similar things happened in North Africa with the Donatists. The impression I get from the sources was that things were very fluid, but that most believed themselves to be part of the same "church" meaning body of believers until the "orthodox" set kicked them out/did mob violence against them/convinced the emperor to persecute them. Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree although I think it is important to point out that "orthodox Christianity" (meaning the Christianity that survived the first few centuries) asserts that the others were always wrong and never part of the true Church. Otherwise, we are taking sides in this dispute. AFAIK, standard Christian teaching doesn't portray the picture that Bauer and your other sources do. --Richard S (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Which of these points are you asserting is original with Bauer - or indeed controversial? What you've written could be a summary of Adolf Harnack's History of Dogma. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict: text below written at the same time as Karanacs' comment above] Here's a little bit extra to tie in the above text with the rest of the article...

A critical step in the development of Christianity as a religion involved the regularization of scriptures and doctrines into a uniform, orthodox faith. To this end, certain scriptures were declared to be canonical, others as valuable but not canonical and still others were anathematized as heretical. Similarly, certain doctrines were endorsed by the Church Fathers while others were criticized as heretical. Eventually, these canonical scriptures and orthodox doctrines would be formally established by a series of councils known as the Seven ecumenical councils. Not all Christians accepted the results of these councils and the resulting divisions gave rise to splinter groups which have continued to the present day. Even to this day, there is not a single, universally accepted New Testament canon.

--Richard S (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I read somewhere (I doubt I can find it) that, before about 200, there simply isn't enough hard evidence to establish whether the great majority of Christians belonged to the "orthodox" church. When the mists clear then, they did. Peter jackson (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And we have to recognize that the very understanding of what was "orthodox" changed over time. That is why there were seven ecumenical councils. Each council dealt with new, emergent heresies. Since we have no idea whether there were more Gnostics than orthodox Christians, we must say nothing or assert that we don't know. I do think it is important to clarify for the reader that Gnostics were further away from orthodox Christianity than, say, the LDS church is from "mainstream Chistianity" today. Some of the other heresies such as Arianism are easy to understand and some are based on fairly fine distinctions (e.g. monophysitism vs. miaphysitism). The key point that I would like to communicate to the reader is that the Christian Church became progressively more uniform in canonical scriptures and doctrine by identifying heresies and suppressing them.

I would also like to make it more clear to the reader that Arianism was, for a long time, a viable and thriving variant of Christianity. It was not out of the realm of possibility for Arianism to have taken over the Western church. In fact, I have learned through my interaction with certain Orthodox Wikipedians, that some well-esteemed Orthodox theologians such as Romanides consider the Western church to have been tainted with Arianism through the influence of the Franks. These Orthodox Wikipedians would likely argue that this article gives scant attention to that purported influence.

This was by no means a minor sect. St. Jerome wrote afer the council of Arles (359) "the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian".[7]. The suppression of "heretical" christianity by the party that won out ought to be mentioned along with the suppression of paganism. The Theodosian decrees included not only the banning of public displays of the old religions but also private ritual carried out in the family home. Capital punishment was the penalty for trangressing the latter. Within a few years of these decrees being promulgated the Christian Roman Empire collapsed and those who still adhered to the old religion blamed this on Christians and their religion. The city that had been "protected by the gods" for several centuries had now fallen within years of the new intolerant regime coming to power. It would also be helpful to contrast the number of estimated deaths caused as a result of the Roman Empires persecution of the Christians, who were trouble from the earliest days - disturbing the "Pax Romana" - e.g. causing riots with traditionalist Jews, who unlike them felt under no compulsion to ensure a happy afterlife by buying their way into heaven through proslytising and thus avoiding the eternal fires reserved for those who didn't worship the "jealous God" in Christian form. 194.81.124.199 (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I know that there is some question as to how much of this "History of early Christianity" should be presented here as opposed to being presented in other articles. My primary concern is not to provide a comprehensive history of the early Church but to present key factors that influenced the development of the early Church. These concepts of "orthodoxy" and "heresy" are themes that crop up again in the Inquisition, the Reformation and in the modern era. I will go out on a limb and assert that there are many who consider Christians to be a fractious lot who are more inclined to engage in divisive, sectarian conflict over matters of doctrine than other religions are. It is an unfortunate part of our history.

--Richard S (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

One key thing to keep in mind is that in the earliest days the question wasn't the same as what we think of today with the term "heresy". According to one of my books, that term didn't exist/start being used in this way until the timeframe of the Albigensian Crusade. In the earliest days, there was more of a struggle to determine what exactly Christians should believe, since there weren't any real sets of rules/books/etc, and different bishops chose different paths. What may have started as a fairly simple question - "to what extent do we forgive people who gave sacrifice to the idols at the order of the emperor" became really large issues because there was a wide range of opinions among bishops. The ecumenical councils usually came about when the range of opinions grew to a critical mass so that some decision had to be made. At that point, the larger body of bishops could say "no, we don't accept that", and those who continued to believe/act in the other manner would be shunned. The concept of the ecumenical councils and the gradual development of a system of common beliefs - including the attempts to stifle Arianism in the Roman Empire - should mainly be covered in the Late Antiquity section (I'm still going through my notes to come up with a proposal for that). For the early Christianity section, we may need to more clearly mention the beginnings of the development of a set of canon works, but that it certainly wasn't completed in that timeframe. Sorry if it feels like I keep trying to pull you back to focus on the Early Christianity section, but keep in mind that only the first section has been "revamped" with a closer look at the sources previously used as well as opening up to new sources. I think we're all in broad agreement that the rest of the history sections need lots of work. Karanacs (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I confess that I have melded "early Christianity" with "early Roman Empire Christianity" in the above discussions. I am OK with you moving forward with the "Late Antiquity" section and then coming back to ensure that these crucial themes are adequately presented across the two sections. All I ask is that, when you're done, the messages come across to the reader that, at the end of Late Antiquity, the Western Church had become much more uniform through these successive steps of "Catholicization". --Richard S (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm playing around at User:Karanacs/Catholic Early#Constantine. I have a few more sources to incorporate, but while I work on that you are welcome to take a look and make any changes you see fit. It's a good thing I'd looked - I had forgotten half of what I'd already written - and I think it may cover most of the themes you are concerned with. Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Waiting to chime in - Karanacs is correct to point out that the so-called heresies (not considered heresy by those who espoused the beliefs) were more prominent in the section not-yet done in the history. As for Luther, from my reading, it appears he was influenced by St. Augustine and Pelagius which falls in the Constantine and post-Constantine period rather than the earliest period. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a trifle too much emphasis is being put on heterodoxy here - perhaps in line with some modern revisionists. However in the Early Church fathers, and significantly Irenaeus in the 2nd century, we find a strong and consistent central core of orthodox Catholic belief. Xandar 22:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

More accurately, Irenaeus, at the very end of the second century, invented the heresy-list as a means of imposing his (more or less) clear beliefs on the church as a whole. Or at least some of them; the same Irenaeus rebuked Victor for excessive severity in attacking Quartodecimianism, which was not yet a "heresy".

The other posters, however, have been discussing the crystalization of the idea of "orthodoxy" out of the Marcionite mess, half a century before Irenaeus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"in the Early Church fathers, and significantly Irenaeus in the 2nd century, we find a strong and consistent central core of orthodox Catholic belief." Well of course you do. Anyone who didn't share that core wouldn't get to be a Church Father, would he? Peter jackson (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Four or five separate issues have been discussed in this section; in all of them, the winning side called themselves "orthodox" and the losers "heretics" (as far as we can tell the losers did the same in reverse, but their records have often been destroyed). Only one of them, strictly speaking, involved which books were canonical.

• The "great Church" v. the Gnostics. This involves whether there is a canon of scripture at all; the Gnostics denied the accuracy of the Old Testament, and accepted a very wide list of works as equal to or better than the Gospels or the letters of Saint Paul.
• Marcion [and Tatian who] attempted to reconcile the four Gospels, and use his own harmony, the Diatessaron, instead.

After Marcion, there was still some discussion as to which books were Scripture, but it involved a dozen books in the Bible we now have; whether to exclude II Peter or include Tobit was not the line between heresy and orthodoxy.

• The disciplinary question: whether the Church should, or whether God could, treat the people who had bribed Decius's persecutors for a certificate saying they'd sacrificed more leniently than the actual emperor-worshippers.
• The Arian controversy: largely late Antique.
• The Nestorian and Monophysite controversy: entirely late antique. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant Tatian, not Marcion. Marcion used only a truncated version of Luke and rejected all the other gospels as too "Jewish" to be trusted; it was Tatian who created the Diatessaron as a harmony of all four canonical gospels. Both ended up condemned as heretics, but for different reasons. Harmakheru ✍ 04:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction; a reminder to write from sources. But I meant both; Marcion also edited the Gospels, and had a canon of his own. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• On the first appearance of the concept of "heresy", it was surely fully mature by the time of the Byzantine Iconoclasm in the 8th & 9th centuries, and I suspect arose much earlier, probably from the time of the first Christian Emperors and especially the First Council of Nicaea. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It arose from the controversy over Tatian and Marcion; its literal meaning is the choice among the Gospels (for later heresies, this becomes the choice of proof-texts). IIRC Irenaeus applied it to the Gnostics; I'm not sure if this was novel. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Both the term and the concept are found in the New Testament: "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled." (2 Peter 2:1-2) Ignatius of Antioch (ca. AD 107) sounds the same theme in his letters: "Do not be misled, my brothers: those who adulterously corrupt households 'will not inherit the kingdom of God'. Now if those who do such things physically are put to death, how much more if by evil teaching someone corrupts faith in God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such a person, having polluted himself, will go to the unquenchable fire, as will also the one who listens to him." (Ephesians 16) "Partake only of Christian food, and keep away from every strange plant, which is heresy. These people, while pretending to be trustworthy, mix Jesus Christ with poison ..." (Trallians 6) The heresies which Ignatius was particularly concerned about seem to have been Docetism (which denied that Jesus had a real human body, a point to which Ignatius returns again and again) and "Judaizing". Harmakheru ✍ 23:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be useful to point out that 2 Peter is very late; it may well be later than Ignatius, and may even be contemporary with Tatian. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

True. It is also interesting to compare 2 Peter with the Epistle of Jude, on which part of 2 Peter is based, and see how the emphasis changes between the two. In Jude the complaint is about sensualists and antinomians: "ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness ..." In 2 Peter the same language is used, but now the targeted deviation is more doctrinal than moral. (It is also worth noting that Jude seems to acknowledge the truth of at least one of the charges later made by pagans--i.e. the rumors about Christian orgies: "These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together ... wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame.") Harmakheru ✍ 18:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Misleading tag

I see that our most tendentious editor also ogjects to:

During the 1936–39 Spanish Civil War, the Catholic hierarchy allied itself with Francisco Franco's Nationalist crusade against the Popular Front government

Does anyone else, or is this more of Xandar objecting to sourced. verifiable, and factual statements because he would like the world to be different than it is? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't studied the question (and don't intend to), but is it possible that the Popular Front government (or rather its followers, except the Basque component) was first in attacking the Catholic Church, so that the statement would need to be completed for balance? I'm just asking. Esoglou (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The last book I got from Amazon is a volume called Orwell in Spain, and what's this, turning the second page of the Introduction, "Orwell..a front-line fighter against the European Right and its 'crusade' ( the term actually employed by Franco and his Vatican supporters) to immolate the Spanish Republic. " (Christopher Hitchens in the Intro. written in 2000 to the Penguin volume.) And this is from the bishops of Spain in a collective letter addressed to the bishops of the world ( 1 July 1937) , The war is an armed plebiscite...between a people divided: on the one side, the spiritual is revealed by the insurgents who rose to defend law and order, social peace, traditional civilization, the fatherland and, very ostensibly in a large sector of the population, religion. On the other side there is materialism - call it marxist, communist or anarchist - which wants to replace the old civilization of Spain by the new 'civilization' of the Russian soviets. To 'balance' the statement would involve falsification. Sayerslle (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou raises the question of who attacked first. That might depend what you mean by "attack". It's certainly true that anticlericals burnt down many churches in the period leading up to the war, & that was one of its causes, the republican government being unable or unwilling to stop them. Peter jackson (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

..which is mentioned in the next sentence. The tag is calling 'opinion', the facts about which side the hierarchy of the Catholic church was on. They were on the side that had the Condor Legion with it, Sayerslle (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And many of the attacks were immediately after the Nationalist mutiny, and in response to clerical support for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

PMA. Cut the personal attacks and concentrate on the content, please!

My point has been quite clear - there was more neutral wording in place until last week, then someone added emotive POV language about "the Church" allying with Franco in a "Crusade". I restored the less emotive language and PMA (as is his wont) immediately reverted. Misleading elements in PMAs wording include A) "The Church". In the context of the article this means the whole Catholic Church, which is not true, Franco's forces were backed by the bishops of Spain. B) And most importantly, the statements made by Spanish Bishops were made AFTER the unprovoked massacre of 6,800 Bishops, Priests and Nuns by Spanish "Republican" forces. (Not just "burnning down churches" Petr Jackson!) ALL of this information was in the article until recently. However someone chose to replace reference to the slaughter with the more weaselly "Republican violence". If, however, we are going to have emotive writing trying to link the Church through guilt by association with Franco, then we MUST have the context. In other words the Spanish Bishops were driven into the hands of Franco by the massacres launched by the atheist communist and Anarchist Republicans. Xandar 22:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In Ronald Fraser's Blood of Spain there's a quote from a Father Martinez and he says " the republic had shown its hatred of the church from the start; in consequence, we supported franco's rising as soon as it took place.." p.418 ISBN 0-7126-6014-3. But what does he know. He was just a priest alive at the time, saying how he saw it. You know the church was a-political until outrageously pogromed against and left with no alternative but to welcome fascists and Nazis to defend it. Sayerslle (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

See also Mary Vincent's essay, which Nancy brought to the discussion. The massacre was not unprovoked; in the short term, it was after the coup of July 1936; in the long run, it was produced by the conflict between the Church's conduct as a landholder and their tenantry. (In the very long term, to bring in other sources, "Intolerance is the fundamental law of Spain" was declared, not by any Protestant or Marxist or infidel, but by the Holy Inquisition; that this blew back on its proponents was only to be expected.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I was Googling "Christian martyr religious collective memory" to look for sources regarding the importance of martyrdom to Christian self-understanding and ran across this article about "collective memory" as it applies to the Spanish Civil War. Understanding that the Spanish themselves have not resolved these questions should suggest to us that our attempts to pin down "THE TRUTH" are perhaps wasted effort. Far better to look for an NPOV way of capturing the dispute than to try and establish which which side is "RIGHT". --Richard S (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at Wikipedia's article on the Spanish Civil War. It gives the impression that the lead & the main body were written by opposite sides. The lead doesn't cover causes, giving the impression that it was just dictatorship overthrowing democracy. The main body gives a lot of detail of persecution of the Church in the years leading up to the war, but doesn't discuss the causes of that. Odd. Peter jackson (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that odd, it just reflects the different biases brought to the article..Some editors follow the revisionist line of Stanley Payne, and Pío Moa - "He has had a publishing hit with The Myths of the Civil War - amongst his conclusions, Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt were both crueller than Franco, the Republican loyalists were more bloodthirsty than Franco's rightist rebels..His rewards included a top place on the best sellers lists and long interviews on state television".. Franco " rests under the altar of a Christian basilica"..(Ghosts of spain- Giles tremlett)... maybe there is a difference between an immediate context, and a wider context..like maybe in 20 years if the secularists in iran take revenge on the religious in iran and then someone said , well of course the religious sided with reaction look what the radicals did.., but that forgets what is happening now and leads up to all the opposition etc etc..I still think if you say 'its only natural that the bishops and church sided with franco..' etc, then stop the pretence that 'supernatural' ethics have a place in your organisation ..'it is no longer I that live but jesus lives in me' st.paul said, but its hard to believe jesus could have ended up on the side of the bombers of Guernica..Sayerslle (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"It's hard to believe that God was on the side of..."

Much evil has been committed in this world while invoking the name of God. I would prefer not to imagine God being on any side of a war but rather envision him wringing his hands and crying at human folly and man's inhumanity to man.

My point was that we should stop trying to determine which side was right and try instead to simply characterize the dispute. What are the facts? Among them are the facts that the Spanish bishops supported Franco and that 7000 clerics were killed. However, arguments as to justification and causality are interpretations of history. If we wish to discuss interpretations, then we should characterize who makes those interpretations. The article that I linked to makes it clear that even the Spanish have not come to agreement on these interpretations. We should absolutely stop trying to choose an interpretation and either describe both sides of the dispute or say nothing. And we should remember that this article is about the Catholic Church and its 2000 year history of which the Spanish Civil War is a miniscule portion. --Richard S (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the text as it stands is accurate I would say - no doubt it is not ideal but if people wonder, ' the church hierarchy sided with franco, they cited republican violence - what was this republican violence - if not political before the violence, why the violence against the churches...' they can explore further, this isn't the article for more detail. Sayerslle (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Davidquam, 31 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like to add the following sentence after footnote [57], regarding the year 1054:

"There was a supernova in 1054, which was visible even during the day, and this may have been interpreted as a divine omen."

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1054 Davidquam (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done There is little evidence that SN 1054 was observed in Europe at all, and no evidence that it was seen as an omen at all related to the great schism, so I don't see why it deserves mention at that point in this article. Algebraist 15:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from JessicaRamirez, 31 May 2010

I would like to add the following information after (Citation 4), regarding the Holy Trinity:

"The Holy Trinity is about three people that are: Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is the one who sends the Son to be incarnated in Jesus. The Son manifests to God in many ways. The Holy Spirit or also known as the Holy Ghost is the one that tells Jesus will be sent after his death."

jessiram2010 (talk) 3:00 p.m., 31 May 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

Jessica, your proposed text reads like facts rather than the Church's opinions. Haldraper (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of Christians executed

I would strongly challenge the statement recently added to the section which states "A small number of Christians were executed;[29]". I think this is misleading, and not based on sound sorcing. MacCulloch states that an attempt was made to wipe out Christianity. As well as mass executions, Churches were systematically torn down and scriptures destroyed. The sentence in the article certainly does not reflect this. Xandar 22:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Both eminently sourced, and perfectly accurate. In some provinces, no persecution took place at all; even in the East, as in Osrohene, the governor could drag his feet, so that the Three Martyrs of Edessa are likely to have been the only executions in that highly Christian city; see F. C. Burkitt's edition of their martyrologies. The only approach we have to figures is for Palestine, which was heavily Christian, directly under Galerius, and directly attacked; yet even there Eusebius' narrative (which appears to include every execution in the provincial capital and as many as he could hear of elsewhere) is a small percentage of the Christian population. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that few were martyred because most either complied with the law requiring burning incense to the Emperor or whatever it was, or bribed officials to sign certificates to say they'd done so. A few went into hiding. Even fewer were actually martyred. Peter jackson (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There was certainly an attempt to force Christians to give at least lip service to the emperor-worship (which, considering this was against the Christian concept of a single God, is seen by many historians and others as attempts to wipe out Christianity). However, I've found several sources that assert that the number of people actually executed was small, and none that assert the opposite (given the plethora of books, there may be persepctives out there that I haven't read). The sources I've seen that discuss the persecutions tend to put this as Peter Jackson did just above. Karanacs (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely worth saying. So is: The Emperors weren't trying to end Christianity by massacre, but by destroying their Bibles and breaking up their institutional structure (and one Emperor wasn't trying to do that much). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

None of the above justifies the recent change to the wording. What is "a small number of Christians"? Seven, Twenty, 140? These are clearly weasel words which give a misleading impression. Barnes Constantine and Eusebius Harvard University Press, 1981 reports 660 killings in Alexandria alone. Boer's Short History of the Early Church states "The persecution was utterly severe. At its end, if a church leader did not have the marks of the whip or other forms of torture on his body, he was suspected of having betrayed the faith. Thousands died and thousands more went through life maimed, blinded or disfugured by torture." Williams' Diocletian and the Roman recovery gives a thorough review, with descriptions of tortures with boiling lead etc, quoting Eusebius on axes made blunt by beheadings, and quotes the following incident: "A little Christian town in Phrygia was surrounded by soldiers, who set it on fire and completely destroyed it, with its whole population - men, women and children - as they called on Almighty God. Why? Because every one of the inhabitants, including the town prefect himself and the magistrates, all declared they were Christians and that they utterly refused to commit idolatry."

As I said, the current text belittles the persecutions, minimises the killings and fails to mention the rest of the events. Xandar 00:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Xandar should be ignored, and I will do my best to do so. His source quotes tne imperial edicts (in Lactantanius's version, I believe):

1. All Christians of the upper classes are to be deprived of their honors and enslaved. Bibles are to be burned
2. All Christian leaders are to be imprisoned.
3. All such imprisoned leaders are to sacrifice to the gods, under penalty of torture.
4. All Christians whatsoever are to sacrifice to the gods, under penalty of imprisonment or worse.

That is indeed a severe persecution - and we should say so. But what Xandar objects is the statement that it didn't kill many Christians; which it didn't. It lasted ten years; 66 deaths a year, out of one of the largest and most Christian cities in the Empire is not many - it may be less than the average rate of death in Alexandrian street riots.

There is one word missing from all four of those enactments: death. Diocletian didn't kill many people - he didn't intend to; they were his tax base. He did intend to terrify them, and the evidence (such as it is) is that he failed. And, again, most of the Empire did not enforce the edicts at all. Constantius, Constantine, Maximian, Maxentius did not, which means half the empire never persecuted; only the quarter under Galerius (which includes both Palestine and Alexandria) persecuted for more than a few years - and even there some of his governors resisted his orders, as more trouble than they were worth. (Even Galerius repented before his own death.) And Peter Jackson is correct in observing that the edicts were widely evaded where they were in force.

Try reading the sources to which you link; reporting what they do not say - and not reporting what they do say - are not helpful to Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

PMA. I know you seem to feel the need to take the opposite position on any point I make. However the enactments you quote were not the sum of the persecutions. The fact is that these and other decrees made Christianity a banned and anti-Roman religion, a status which was interpreted by the rulers, particularly of the Eastern (and most Christian) half of the Empire, as deserving the death sentence. This is all well documented. We do not have documented lists of those actually killed, however historians have concluded from the surviving evidence that at least "Thousands" were killed in many brutal ways, and many more were subject to torture so severe as to mark them for life. Brushing this aside with the words "a small number of Christians were killed", is simply wrong and misleading. Xandar 22:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No; I merely observe that your statements are unfounded, being supported by no source whatever. I have never needed to do more than to consult the sources you google for, to find that they never support what you say - and usually say the opposite.

You have an unpolished talent for historical fiction; but that's not what we want at Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen (and I use that term loosely), it is time to stop mudslinging and turn to the sources. I confess to abject ignorance of this topic but perhaps that will help me to mediate this dispute. So indulge me as I suggest a framework for discussion.

Part of the problem here is a question of how many is "a small number of Christians"? Are we literally talking only a few tens or a few hundred? How many Christians were there at the time? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? If we are talking about 5000 out of 70,000, that would be a lot (killing 10% would certainly terrorize the other 90%). On the other hand, killing 5000 out of 500,000 might not be quite so terrifying especially if those 5000 were killed over the course of many decades (say a maximum of 500-1000 in any given persecution).

Before Pmanderson jumps to deride and belittle Xandar, I would point out that it is a widely held conception promulgated by Christian teaching (not just Catholic but Protestant as well) that Christians were persecuted during the Roman empire. Perhaps the scholars know better but the story taught to the laity (including myself) is that many Christians were killed, most were in hiding or practiced their faith in secret. Perhaps the story does not say this explicitly but it is certainly the impression that is communicated. I myself confess to having thought the number was much greater until I read Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire a couple of years ago. (See the end of the "Reasons for persecution" section for a brief discussion of the topic.)

I daresay that even the average non-Christian in America shares the view that Christians were severely persecuted during that era in Christian history. (Maybe less so now but this is the story that was communicated by quite a number of 20th century films).

So while I trust that Karanacs, Pmanderson et al have solid sources to backup their assertion of "a small number of Christians were executed", I think this falls in the area of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary support".

NB: I'm not saying Karanacs et al are wrong, I am saying that they need to work harder to prove their point to the average reader.

I would propose the following:

1. Karanacs et al prove their point here on this Talk Page
2. Xandar presents his sources that assert a number larger than "a small number"
3. The text explicitly point out both sides of the dispute
4. The specific wording of the text will depend on the sources that are presented in steps (1) and (2) and our joint assessment thereof

The key issues are whether there is a consensus among historians and whether we can agree that there is a "common misperception" of what actually happened. In other words, what we must determine is whether there is a consensus among modern historians that "a small number of Christians were executed", whether this is a revisionist history and whether the public perception differs from the scholarly consensus.

--Richard S (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Christians were persecuted. Twice they were persecuted by the full force of the central government, over most of the empire, and severely (if for relatively brief periods). Nobody denies this. What is unsupported is that these persecutions included massive executions, which is a separate claim, and not extraordinary; degradation, imprisonment, and torture consistute persecution, even if the levels of the Duke of Alba or the Japanese shoguns were not reached. (By Diocletian's time, some 10% of the Empire were Christians; this would be millions.)

There was, in the middle ages, a list of Ten Persecutions, which included the two and also included some other affairs (once in the city of Rome) which appear to have been largely or entirely a matter of local authorities; there once was a wide-spread perception that these were all of the same kind, but I doubt there is any general perception at all on the matter now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The current text is cited here page 33. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And this from Peter Brown's The Rise of Western Christendom (starts on page 62) discusses the Great Persecution. I try not to use gbooks, but my library doesn't have it, and the research librarian was unable to put in an ILL for some reason today. It has to come from another part of the state. I'll try again in a few days, and in the meantime will have to read what's available from gbook version. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

None of the sources I've consulted gave actual numbers of how many people died; those that quantified the executions at all said there were few executed. I'm not at all disputing that people died, some quite horribly, in the roughly 200 years in which Christianity was considered fair game for repression, but that doesn't necessarily negate that it was few overall who died.

• Ramsay MacMullen, p. 33 "even the numbers it actually got hold of and put to death were 'only a few, from time to time, and very easily totalled up'." which appears to be quoting Origen. In an explanatory note (p 134), MacMullen states "The role of martyrs, however, must be considered against their small numbers, “hundreds rather than thousands,” says Frend (1965) 413, and, to the same effect, Grant (1977) 5; further, heresies produced martyrs, but (except perhaps for the Montanist, in the conventional picture) were not helped thereby." So perhaps more people died, but they were not considered "mainstream Christian", but splinter groups such as Montanist and Marcionites.
• MacCulloch, p. 173 "few died outside a small group of leaders".
• Ball, Warwick (2000), Rome in the East : The Transformation of an Empire, London: Routledge, ISBN 9780203159422, p 441 (Ball is known more as an archaelogist specializing in Christian sites rather than as a historian, which is why he is not used in the article) the martydroms were not "as numerous as commonly believed, Christian propagandists notwithstanding"

Note that Harry R. Boer, whom Xandar quotes, is a theologian and not a historian; the intro in the book quoted says "Dr. Harry Boer has drawn upon his considerable experience as a missionary and teacher in Nigeria to prepare a concise and clearly written account of the people, places, and ideas that made a difference in the development of the Christian faith."

• I don't have the Williams book and on Google books I could not access pp 177-178 or pp 184-190 (I usually try to read the whole chapter). I found page 183, which Xandar quoted. Further up the page was this paragraph: (speaking of the events in 304) "The worst affected provinces, where Christians were numerous and the persecutors zealous, seem to have been Bithynia, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, and Phrygia. The total number executed cannot have exceeded a few thousand. ... The Roman State was out to compel Christians to sacrifice, not exterminate them." It also states that many clergy were imprisoned and tortured, often severely. The page then gives examples of civil authorities finding nonviolent ways for Christians to get around the rules, concluding: "Often it was only the very noisy Christians, who shouted at the tops of their voices that they had never sacrificed and never would, who were maltreated - and then only to silence them and drive them away as if they had sacrificed." The next paragraph begins "Elsewhere, the atrocities reached a climax in acts such as this" and continues with what Xandar quoted.

Perhaps instead of "a small number", we could use "a small proportion" or just "few", and I think we'll still give the correct gist. Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How about "Despite the widely perceived image of early Christians as martyrs, relatively few were actually executed. The Romans preferred to use legal sanctions and social pressures to compel Christians to sacrifice and participate in emperor worship. Often the focus of the persecution was on the clergy, many of whom were imprisoned and tortured. Many Christians chose to renounce their faith, leading to subsequent schisms over whether such Christians should be allowed to rejoin the Church. One emphasis of the Christian teaching is faithfulness to the point of being willing to be persecuted for one's faith, even to the point of martyrdom. Many of the early Christian martyrs were beatified as saints, starting a tradition of venerating martyrs."

What I mean by "the widely perceived image of early Christians as martyrs" are images like "Christians being thrown to the lions". This is the stuff of popular film and television, especially in the 20th century. I would speculate on the part of Christian religious leaders in perpetuating such a myth but that would be OR. Suffice it to say that, if there is indeed a consensus that relatively few Christians were actually martyred, then it is incumbent on us to correct this bit of misinformation.

I think it's important that we get three points across:

1. Many people perceive the actual number of martyrs to have been far greater than scholars actually believe they were

1. Nonetheless, the Roman persecution was quite harsh, though perhaps harsher for clergy than laity
2. Persecution and martyrdom are salient features of the Christian psyche even to this day, especially in the Catholic psyche

--Richard S (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, Richard, but I have several issues with this proposal. I think you are trying hard to fit the history fit our modern-day biases, and it isn't matching what the historians are reporting.

• I don't think it's our job in this article to specifically point out "common knowledge" and then refute it. The article should be presenting the consensus of historians and let readers draw their own impression of whether this matches their own learning/biases/beliefs.
• The biggest problem is that this is being written not based on sources but based on our own perceptions of Christian teachings, which often run contrary to actual historical fact. The only source we have that the perception is greater than the actuality is Ball, and as he is an archaelogist and not a historian I don't think he's an appropriate source for this article. Some of the information at the end of the proposal is unsourced and I think we will have a hard time sourcing One emphasis of the Christian teaching is faithfulness to the point of being willing to be persecuted for one's faith, and if we can we will likely be indulging in synthesis. This may very well be a modern Church teaching, but it was not necessarily the teaching of the 4th century. The scholars I've read point out repeatedly that not everyone thought martyrdom was the right answer. An overwhelming majority of Christians did not choose to die for their faith during the persecutions - even a lot of the clergy, including bishops, chose to give up their books (or substitutes for those books), give a small offering of incense to the other gods, or in some other way get around the restriction. That is what led to several schisms, and that is the point which historians seems to be stressing about the persecutions: that there was disagreement in the Church on whether to comply with the regulations and on how much complicity disqualified one from being a member of the church. From the perspective of the histories, it's the aftermath of the persecutions and how the Church responded to them that is most important, not the details of the persecutions themselves (especially since "few" died).
• Even if I were to accept the premise that this is all supported by historical consensus, it is much, much too detailed for this article (although I think more detail, properly sourced, would belong in History of the Catholic Church). The torture of the clergy was often horrific, but it had little practical impact on the Church (at least the sources I've read haven't listed any). In the books, the persecutions are generally not given very much space, and the focus (in those books that have their focus on Christianity and not Diocletian/Galerius), is on the schisms that resulted.

According to the sources, there were also big arguments among bishops on whether/how to venerate martyrs. This contributed to the Donatist schism as well, because the Donatists venerated their marytyrs far more than many other groups did; in many areas the martyrs weren't given any special "role". Karanacs (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In a few words: I agree with Karanacs. Any claims made in the article will be sourced. If a person disbelieves the claims they can look up the source and have their preconceived ideas explained away or not. I have not read as extensively about this period as Karanacs has, nor do I have an thimble of PMAnderson's and Harmakheru's knowledge base of the period, but the sources say what the sources say. There were millions of Christians. There were some terrible persecutions, but our job is not to explain what Hollywood does or to guess what readers beliefs are. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to agree or disagree with the stated consensus here, but I have two concerns with this issue as framed: (i) that the core data to make these statements is absent, which sources can speak to, and (ii) that the focus on this particular statement does not reflect the preponderance of concern in the sources themselves. As Karanacs has previously outlined on this page, it is important not only that we construct an article that is true (viz., verifiable, well-cited), but also that it reflect the concerns of the literature (viz., weight). The "total number of martyrs" sought here is perhaps more a lay concern, or an inheritance from Gibbon's sixteenth chapter, than a professional one. I am prepared to bring statements from the literature on this. I wrote our article on the Great Persecution, so I've done some reading on this topic. G.W. (Talk) 01:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to this page! You're likely much more familiar with this time period than any of us, then, and we'll be happy to make use of your knowledge of sources :) Karanacs (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, Karanacs! I'll prepare some cited argument on this then, for presentation here. G.W. (Talk) 02:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I was on the verge of a smallish rant earlier in the evening from which I think you've saved me and the others. Indeed, welcome to the page. Cited arguments would be wonderful! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Truthkeeper! If we're going to emphasize cited arguments, then I should probably produce list of the relevant portions of my library. Through proxy at my university, I have access to JSTOR and other online sources. At home, I have W. H. C. Frend's Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church and Rise of Christianity, Robin Lane Fox's Pagans and Christians (this book is very good; I recommend it to anyone with a personal interest in the topic), Timothy Barnes' Constantine and Eusebius, MacMullen's Christianizing, Chadwick's Early Church (Pelican ed.), Williams' Diocletian, and the New Cambridge Ancient History. There are probably other works that are useful; this is just a top-of-the-head list. My full library is available for search at LibraryThing. G.W. (Talk) 02:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

First, on the statistics: There is no strong evidence for them, either on broad questions of early Christian number or on the narrow questions of the Christian martyrs. They are conjectures, and contested conjectures. PMA cites a figure of 10% for the whole empire. This is liable to be eminently sourced, I am sure, but the sources are usually cautious in the production of these figures. A key article here is Keith Hopkins' "Christian Number and its Implications" in the Journal of Early Christian Studies 6:2 (1998), which should be accessible to Muse subscribers here. Hopkins writes on the difficulties of the source matter at pp. 186–87:

And now to number. The conventional method is heavily inductive. Scholars string together snippets of testimony from surviving sources. This has been done with exemplary skill and intelligence by Adolph von Harnack in successive editions of Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums. The basic difficulty here is that ancient writers, whether pagan, Jewish or Christian, did not think statistically, and confused cool observation with hope, despair and polemic. As a result, to put it bluntly, most ancient observations about Christian numbers, whether by Christian or pagan authors, should be taken as sentimental opinions or metaphors, excellently expressive of attitudes, but not providing accurate information about numbers.

von Harnack produced the 10% figure, and he is alternately followed and contested by moderns.

On the number of martyrs produced by the persecutions, we are even less well treated by statistics. Gibbon offers perhaps the earliest treatment of the subject, and his methods are as modern as Hopkins'. Gibbon makes the same point as Hopkins, though on a more particular matter: "The more ancient writers content themselves with pouring out a liberal effusion of loose and tragical invectives, without condescending to ascertain the precise number of those persons who were permitted to seal with their blood their belief of the gospel." (Womersley ed., 1.578) Gibbon believes he has found a solution: a simple tally of the number of martyrs mentioned in Eusebius of Caesarea's Martyrs of Palestine seems to produce a total of all martyrdoms in Palestine. Some arithmetic transforms it into a total for the entire Empire. This figure has been accepted as a baseline in most modern trials at the question, including those of G.E.M. de Ste Croix, W.H.C. Frend, and Rodney Stark.

Unfortunately, the underlying assumption behind Gibbon's reconstruction—that Eusebius gives a full tally of the martyrs in Palestine—is invalid. As Timothy Barnes outlines in his Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), the selection of cases in the Martyrs is personal and limited: "Eusebius' Martyrs of Palestine is not quite what its conventional title seems to imply. Its author did not set out to give a complete list of Christians in Palestine who were executed for their faith between 303 and 311. Eusebius himself entitled the work "About those who suffered martyrdom in Palestine," and his intention was to preserve the memories of the martyrs whom he knew, rather than to give a comprehensive account of how persecution affected the Roman province in which he lived." (p. 154) Barnes proceeds to put the point more finely: "It is more than doubtful, therefore, whether the Martyrs of Palestine can be safely made the basis for any general estimate of how may martyrs perished during the persecution between 303 and 311. The selection of material is personal: the Martyrs is less a history of the persecution in Palestine than a memorial to the friends of Eusebius who dies for their faith." (p. 155)

On my second point, I am not certain that "the number of Christians executed" is a point worthy of treatment in the history of the Church. MacMullen only notes it in the margins, while emphasizing the irrelevance of the martyrs to the history of Christianization. I should note that the core thesis of MacMullen's book—that seemingly supernatural events were the major cause of Christian conversions—is not in our text. The impact of the martyrs to the history of the Church, as Karanacs has noted, is important largely for the questions it raises about ecclesiastical governance and the treatment of apostasy. If the martyrs are noteworthy at all, it is on this point and, later, on Christian self-construction. Unlike Gibbon, we are not in the business of disabusing a public of false history or reasserting ideological bona-fides. We are to represent the consensus of the histories in a neutral and weighted manner. This is not a point of consensus, and it is not a weighty matter. As Graeme Clark, in the chapter on "Third-Century Christianity" for the New Cambridge Ancient History, after reiterating Barnes' point on Eusebius, writes: "The Great Persecution amounts to more than the simple tally of the martyred dead." (vol. 12, p. 659) G.W. (Talk) 11:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry; I seem to have produced an argument rather than a proposal! I will address the text briefly here. I have some concerns with the following sentences: "The new religion was most successful in urban areas, spreading first among slaves and people of low social standing, and then among aristocratic women." This does not reflect the modern consensus on the class basis of ancient Christianity or early Christianization (MacMullen's Christianizing treats of this; check the rest of your sources). "Local officials sometimes saw Christians as troublemakers and sporadically persecuted them." I am concerned that this gives agency to local officials, rather than to the actual agitators, the town mobs. "A series of more centrally organized persecutions of Christians emerged in the late 3rd century, when emperors decreed that the Empire's military, political, and economic crises were caused by angry gods." The latter part of this sentence ("emperors decreed that the Empire's military, political, and economic crises were caused by angry gods") is an unfortunate caricature, and conflates context with cause. "All residents were ordered to give sacrifices or be punished. A small number of Christians were executed;[29] others fled[30] or renounced their beliefs." I understand that the first sentence raises a question that it is necessary to answer; this is why this topic has been raised. We might just as fairly, however, write: "A small number of Christians were executed; others were imprisoned, tortured, put to forced labor, castrated, or sent to brothels; others fled, or managed to go undetected; some renounced their beliefs." The necessary alternatives to execution, flight, and apostasy—torture, imprisonment, forced labor, and evasion—are not in our text. G.W. (Talk) 11:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, G.W. Interesting points - and the Diocletianic Persecution article is very informative. I think the main fact we have here is that there is nothing like an accurate statistical record of the Roman persecutions. Some reporters want to minimise them others to maximise them. It is interesting that in the article above, Galerius himself is quoted referring to "many" deaths, in his defensive edict of partial tolerance. As I said above, the more serious sources would seem to consider that at least "thousands" of Christians were directly executed under the "Diocletian" persecutions, with many more subject to torture, mutilation and other severe actions. As with most such events, (even in the modern day,) the number of people who died "unofficially", through flight, ill-treatment in prison or the mines, as a delayed result of torture, or in unofficial local killings, is likely to exceed numbers of official executions - although there is no way of enumerating this. Karanacs' quote of MacCulloch, p. 173 "few died outside a small group of leaders". actually referrs only to the Decian persecution. So the statements such as "a few" or a "small number", besides being subjective, are taking far too many liberties with the facts. It would be better to try to give a broad description of the "punishments" and a range of estimates for the numbers likely to have sufferred in the relevant persecution. Xandar 12:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think G.W. is right that there is no point in trying to quantify the numbers of those who died in the persecutions (or those tortured) - that's not the key point of the histories and there is no consensus on the numbers. In the grand scheme of things, the number of those who died/suffered is not important; the development of the church was most influenced by those who did not suffer and the arguments over what to do with them. I do like G.W.'s proposed sentence, -A small number of Christians were executed; others were imprisoned, tortured, put to forced labor, castrated, or sent to brothels; others fled, or managed to go undetected; some renounced their beliefs. (and we could change "a small number" to "relatively few" or "a small proportion"). Karanacs (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the source text for that sentence:

We cannot, therefore, be in any way certain that even for Palestine we have fully reliable statistics as some yardstick. Yet even these brute statistics go nowhere in reflecting the human suffering of confessors, enduring long years detained in the vile conditions of Roman prisons, the irregular bouts of gruesome tortures, young girls sent to brothels, the systematic maiming of batches of men, women and children condemned to the notorious drudgery and danger of Roman mines, some young men castrated, most others with one leg hamstrung and one eye gouged out and cauterized with branding irons – not to mention the mental anguish both of those who had succumbed to apostasy as well as of those who contrived to continue to escape detection. The Great Persecution amounts to more than the simple tally of the martyred dead.

Graeme Clark, "Thrid-Century Christianity", in the Cambridge Ancient History 2nd ed., volume 12: The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193–337, ed. Alan K. Bowman, Peter Garnsey, and Averil Cameron (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 589–671 at p. 659. G.W. (Talk) 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, to be clear: I am not this gentleman 194.81.124.199; he/she is somebody else. G.W. (Talk) 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Among all the Christians who lived through the ten persecutions by the authorities of pagan Rome, only a modest number were martyred; Gibbon, for example, speculates that the victims of the so called Great Persecution amounted to only two thousand or so, and Will Durant insists that fewer Christians died at the hands of Pagans during all ten pagan persecutions than at the hands of fellow Christians during the two hottest years of the theological civil war that would later be fought within Christianity over various beliefs condemned as heresies and apostasies." (From Jonathan Kirsch's "God Against the Gods"). If the article needs to cover persecutions there ought to be mention that they did not cease when Catholicism triumphed through the support of the state, but rather were transferred to "heretics" and pagans, or as Drake puts in his book "Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance", how Christianity changed from being a persecuted religion to a persecuting religion. Ramsay MacMullens books and Arnaldo Momigliano' "On Pagans Jews, and Christians" are very useful resources but difficult reads. IMO Kirsch, though not a specialist, gives the far better overview of the issues relating to the interlay between these different groups drawing on scholarly sources such as Macmullen, with much common sense, and in very readable way. He captures I think very well both Christian and Pagan perspective. 194.81.124.199 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the perspective and for providing good quality sources. In my view, the scope of this article is not to delve too deeply into each element of the history - hence the daughter articles. I'm happy with Karanacs' proposed wording above, and think I prefer "relatively few" as somewhat less subjective and weaselly than "small". Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the scope of the article and branching to daughter articles for a fair treatment of the issues of involved, however I don't think it's satisfactory to leave the issue of Christian persecution of heretics and pagans out of this passage, it reads too much like a failure to integrate the past, or as other commentators hint at, e.g. MacMullen, and more directly Kirsch, a certain reticence to highlight what has long been known about early Christianity in it's (using a common modern epithet), "fundamentalist" phase. Kirsch gives a good explanation why this should be. Catholic scholars right up to the early years of the 20th century were quite open about the suppression of paganism and heretics and why they were justified, i.e "One True God", "error has no rights type arguments". That's certainly not the position of the Church today. A recent Pope talked about "purification of memory" and since none of us should have any fears relating to the prospects of tenured position, or the vitroil that some Christian scholars can pour out as soon as one dares to tell the truth about the "dark side of early Christianity" - look what happened to Gibbon - we should not censor this information. I suggest simply a sentence or two which captures the essence of the above by mentioning the Theodosian decrees which proscribed paganism in all its forms, in the home as well as public ritual, with the threatened penalities, a "religio illicita", as well the the active state support for Catholicism, and it's consequences for Christian groups who held different beliefs. If you like I can give references from Catholic scholars, mainly pre Vatican 2, to support the above. 194.81.124.199 (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on daughter articles and agreed on word choice; better to have the emphasis on relative than absolute numbers. G.W. (Talk) 16:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but, IMO, "relatively few" is still not very clear. It's not my proposal that we delve into the details but I do think we need to communicate clearly what the situation was. If there is no clarity wrt to numbers, then we should say that. However, if we are going to get into numbers at all, then we must provide at least a ballpark estimate of the range. Are we talking tens, hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands? Is it possible to give a range and some context? something like "thousands or tens of thousands out of a total population of millions"? This is far better than "a few" which could be twenty or two hundred. It also provides context. I will comment that 10% of a Christian population of "millions" suggests a number upwards of 200,000. Does any source suggest that the total number was that high? Wording such as "Although historians agree that numeric estimates of the number persecuted are either unreliable or non-existent, it is generally agreed that the number persecuted was a relatively small number (at most 10% of a Christian population of millions)." Clearly the wording needs to be tightened up by someone familiar with the details (e.g. the difference between "persecuted" and "martyred") but I really think "relatively few" is not adequate to communicate any real information. The details of specific persecutions and specific primary sources can certainly be left to the daughter articles. --Richard S (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe our objective should not be to provide ballpark estimates but to avoid getting into numbers at all. First, not some but all Christians were persecuted. The purpose of the edicts under Decius, Valerian, Gallienus, Diocletian and Galerius was to compel a renunciation and reconversion. All Christians were expected to comply. This means that all Christians were persecuted. A much smaller portion, which we cannot put a number to, were martyred (viz., executed for the faith).

Our most recent and better sources, which we are expected to follow, do not provide estimates of this total. David Potter wrote a history of the Roman empire from Commodus to Theodosius in 2004 (New York: Routledge). He devotes a healthy number of pages to the subject of "Christians and the imperial government"; pp. 314–23, 337–40, more than we have here. He does not even estimate a range for the total number martyred. Timothy Barnes, who wrote a history of the Diocletianic and Constantinian period and full reading of the Eusebian corpus in Constantine and Eusebius, including a full chapter on Eusebius' writings on "Persecution", pp. 148–63, does not either; his concerns with the figures produced by others are listed above. Robin Lane Fox wrote a history of pagan–Christian interaction from the second to fourth centuries in 1986 (Harmondsworth: Penguin). He devotes one chapter to persecutions up to Decius in "Persecution and Martyrdom", and another to the Great Persecution in "Sinners and Saints", does not provide figures either. Graeme Clark's chapter on "Third-Century Christianity" in the Cambridge Ancient History doesn't attempt a total for the Great Persecution. On p. 659 he follows Barnes' caveat on Eusebius' Palestinian figures and makes no further attempt at calculation. Nor are there totals in his section on the Decian persecution (see p. 632–35). Warren Treadgold, who wrote A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997) covering the period from 284 to 1453, who gives notes on the persecutions under Diocletian on pp. 24–33, and who has such a fetish for quanitzation that he writes up budgetary allowances and GDP figures for the Byzantine state, does not provide figures on numbers martyred. He writes, of the fourth edict, on p. 25: "Many Christians were imprisoned and tortured, and a number were killed, usually for particular acts of defiance. Most escaped punishment by making themselves inconspicuous. The persecution failed to force many Christians to apostasize..." Here are our weasel words. In the next paragraph, Treadgold does refer offhand to "The few hundred martyrs, who served to inspire their fellows, were not a significant proportion of church members." This is our only numeric range. W.H.C. Frend's Martyrdom and Persecution (orig. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965, rept. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981) speaks wisely on this: "We shall never know the number of martyrs and confessors, nor of those listed in the reprisals that followed the victories of Constantine and Licinius." p. 536. (Then, of course, he proceeds to run Gibbon's calculation on the Eusebian figures, which Tim Barnes, our modern expert on Eusebius, denies all validity, to produce a figure of 3,500 for the Great Persecution on p. 537. We note that this is an order of magnitude above Treadgold's estimate for the same period.)

Where the sources do provide extremely tenuous estimates (which many, as far as I can see, do not), it is for one persecution alone: Decian, or Great, or the earlier local street riots and police actions; they have no reason to tabulate totals across centuries, which would only be useful for polemic. If the "weasel words" are troublesome, we should edit them out of the sentence. We should not be focused on gathering an impossible statistic, on which the literature is reluctant to provide even "ballpark" figures. G.W. (Talk) 23:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

I understand the difficulties in arriving at any numbers and I accept that many sources provide no numbers at all. Nonetheless, we have on the one side, estimates of a population of "millions of Christians" and estimates of a "few hundred martyrs" (Treadgold) or "3500" (Gibbon's calculation on Eusebian figures). Even if Gibbon is too low by an order of magnitude and the real number is 35,000, we are talking about significantly less than 10% of the Christian population. Would it be even plausible to suggest that as many as 10% of all Christians were martyred? That would be upwards of 100,000. If such a number would be mind-bogglingly unbelievable, then we ought to communicate that to the reader. I like what Treadgold wrote "Many Christians were imprisoned and tortured, and a number were killed, usually for particular acts of defiance. Most escaped punishment by making themselves inconspicuous. The persecution failed to force many Christians to apostasize..." "The few hundred martyrs, who served to inspire their fellows, were not a significant proportion of church members." We should either paraphrase his words or quote him directly, indicating of course that this applies to the Diocletian persecution. However, if what Treadgold wrote is true of that particular persecution, is it not reasonable to assume that it is more or less true of the other persecutions? I would suggest that we add for context that "the few hundred martyrs were not a significant proportion of church members who, at the time, numbered in the millions". That makes it really clear what we're talking about (i.e. less than 1%). --Richard S (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Careful. Where we take estimates of Christian population that are based on anecdotal evidence that includes the Eusebian figures, it is analytically improper to pair them to a separate estimate of the Eusebian martyr-figures that produces separate population figures. It is even worse here, where we are not allowed to make synthetic arguments. Meanwhile, our "on the one hand, "millions of Christians"" is a point of fact that has only been voiced by Truthkeeper, and is not yet cited. Moreover, it is grossly improper to put this evidence in our article, even as anecdote, even in neutral argument, when serious concerns have been produced with the methods of the only data series we have, and accepted by the modern literary consensus (Barnes to Clarke).

We are a top-level article. We should not be engaging in marginal controversy with dubious data when there is so much more we can say that the literature has consensus on, and deems worthy of discussion. This is weight: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Treadgold is one man, who has produced a history on a period far outside of his specialty (the military and fiscal history of High Medieval Byzantium), and who has a marked predilection for numbers even where the evidence cannot support them. Gibbon was published in 1776. As PMA previously remarked, he is long dead. He should not trouble us here. I can accept "the few hundered martyrs were not a significant proportion of church members the Christian population [it is improper to exclude the dissenting and heretical groups who also happily claimed their own martyrs] who, at the time, numbered in the millions", which the sources can find consensus on. I am still doubtful that this deserves any air time here. G.W. (Talk) 01:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I was a little concerned about the "numbered in the millions" but I was trusting that Truthkeeper had a source to back up the assertion. If the source is not forthcoming, I'm OK with dumping that bit and sticking with just what Treadgold wrote if it represents the scholarly consensus. Unless what you're saying is that the scholarly consensus is that there is no consensus and we have no idea whatsoever as to whether the number of martyrs was "relatively few" or "quite substantial". If so, then even the text proposed by Karanacs is unacceptable and I would propose stating explicitly that there is no scholarly consensus as to numbers because no reliable calculus is available to estimate the numbers. Please clarify your position. --Richard S (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't find it at the moment, so I'll strike it, and apologize for mentioning it.. I think the time has come for me to bail out. Good luck. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Several points:

• I like G. W.'s text.
• I think he goes much too far in saying invalid when quoting one book against Gibbon and Harnack, Treadgold and MacMillan and Brown.
  • And no argument can make the fewness go away: It would not surprise me if Eusebius' figures are as unreal as his chronology; but all any such calculation can do is establish an order of magnitude - and for that he is reliable.
• I agree with the point he quotes from Clarke. If the original complaint had been that our text ignores that persecution was not limited to killing, there would have been little discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I was quoting Brown and our own PMA with the comment about millions, but G.W. is quite correct to note it was uncited. I like the text. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Alright. Some points: I am quoting two books, Barnes, who is followed by Clarke in detail (or, if independent, he re-creates the same argument). Gibbon has a distinct polemical intent, as does Harnack, and while we may respect their work, they are ancient and far outside the modern historiographic continuum. (Also: Did Harnack provide an estimate for the number of martyrs? I have not read him.) Treadgold is outside his area of expertise. MacMullen is making a marginal note cited to W.H.C. Frend; Frend's own argument is cited to Henri Grégoire. We should not rely on ancients against moderns, especially where the argument is transparently flawed.
• I can agree that "no argument can make the fewness go away" (and believe the consensus of sources speaks to fewness), but the quantification of that fewness is not well-established. The argument is not that they are not few; but that the only apparently comprehensive index of martyrs in any given place is not in fact comprehensive. The problems of using this text to establish what it has no intent to establish are manifold. Clarke can give us a flavor:

That constitutes our best statistical guide to actual deaths in one province as some sort of model for elsewhere in the east. But other governors may have been even more vigorous in their pursuit of Christians – and the presence of the imperial court, whenever it progressed, undoubtedly stimulated action in its immediate environment. And there is one important caveat to make on Eusebius’ own figures. He is not necessarily giving the full tally but recording for posterity those with whom he was personally conversant:

It is meet, then, that the conflicts which were illustrious in various districts should be committed to writing by those who dwelt with the combatants in their districts. But for me, I pray that I may be able to speak of those with whom I was personally conversant, and that they may associate me with them – those in whom the whole people of Palestine glories, because even in the midst of our land, the Saviour of all men arose like a thirst-quenching spring. The contests, then, of those illustrious champions I shall relate for the general instruction and profit.

(Mart. Pal.(L) pr. 8; cf. Hist. Eccl. viii.13.7)

Indeed, the narrative at various points casually discloses unnamed (and unnumbered) companions of confessors and martyrs (presumably not personally known to Eusebius), for example, Mart. Pal.(L) 1.1 (companions of Procopius, sent from Scythopolis to Caesarea), Mart. Pal.(L) 3.3 (‘Agapius and his companions’), Mart. Pal.(L) 7.1 (unnamed confessors on trial, approached by Theodosia of Tyre), Mart. Pal.(L) 8.4 (unnamed Christians from Gaza and their companions, mutilated) etc. We cannot, therefore, be in any way certain that even for Palestine we have fully reliable statistics as some yardstick. (Clarke, op. cit., pp. 658–59.)

• This is the source that all martyr tabulations speak to, and which W.H.C. Frend (who MacMullen cites for his figures) calls "the only figures which can claim accuracy for the period as a whole" (op. cit., p. 536). I am dubious even on using him for an order of magnitude. The scholars conversant in the period who have wrote histories since Barnes' investigations that cover this matter (Potter, Lane Fox, Clarke in the CAH) do not attempt to even produce magnitudes, and are wary of these figures. We can forgive Treadgold for ignorance or obtuseness on this point, but he does not appear to be representative.
• So, to repeat, the "few" does represent consensus (though "few" may also be "quite substantial" in importance, if not in absolute number: it is a false dichotomy), but there is no consensus on precise figures, which are twice declared dubious (Barnes, Clarke) and twice elided (Potter, Lane Fox). Many of the things PMA has written are true, and might be usefully stated if necessary: that the aim was not to produce martyrs, but pious citizens; that execution was incidental and not intentional; that martyrdoms were few. We may say something like, "Eusebius, in a catalog of martyrs, lists ninety-one victims in Palestine over the years 303–11 during the Great Persecution (Clarke, p. 657) [yes, it's important to specify the years; there are martyrs 311–13 listed in the HE and elsewhere]. His figures are not complete (Clarke, pp. 658–59)." Doing more than that does not reflect the modern consensus.
• In response to Richard (and PMA?): There are consensus population figures available if necessary. A consensus of 6 million for 300, 10% of the total population. Potter calls this "reasonable" (p. 314). He follows and cites Hopkins' article, which itself follows Rodney Stark's Rise of Christianity; Lane Fox believes that it should be nearer to 3 millions, 5%. The summary of the Mart. Pal. info might be usefully put in a note, perhaps attached to "A small number of Christians were executed..." G.W. (Talk) 03:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am feeling whimsical. Please enjoy the following: "Between 64 and 250, there were only isolated, local persecutions; and even if the total number of victims was quite considerable (as I think it probably was), most individual outbreaks must usually have been quite brief." G.E.M. de Ste Croix, "Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?" Past & Present 26 (1963), 6–38, at 7. "No estimate of the total number of martyrs can be profitably attempted, but the considerations brought forward here reinforce the arguments of those who have maintained that in the Great persecution, at any rate, the number was not large." G.E.M. de Ste Croix, "Aspects of the "Great" Persecution" Harvard Theological Review 47:2 (1954), 75–113, at 104. Demonstration that the number of martyrs can be both "considerable" and "not large". (Admittedly, two papers seven years apart making statements on different periods, but still.) My reading of de Ste Croix also re-assures me of the fruitlessness of quantification in this matter. G.W. (Talk) 04:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What we seem to have broad agreement on:

• There is a gap in the current text - it does not speak of the violence towards some Christians who were not executed, and we need to remedy that.
• Many people today believe that there were lots of martyrs.
• As an encyclopedia, it isn't our job to specifically adress people's misconceptions, but to provide a reflection of the consensus among historians;
• The vast majority of sources don't even try to quantify the number of those executed/tortured (nor do many/most? discuss why they don't try to quantify)
• There seems to be a wide consensus among historians that the number or proportion of people executed was "not large"/few.
• This is a summary, and we should be relying heavily on daughter articles. We need to keep in mind that this article should be a summary of History of the Catholic Church, which should have a summary of the persecutions articles - this means we devote less text to the persecutions than the History article would.

Given the large amount of sources listed above, I honestly don't see the problem with saying "relatively few" were executed. That is what the sources say, and the sources don't usually give the number of the Christian population for comparison (or any other numerical context, for that matter). In attempting to give a more detailed analysis, we're going beyond the bulk of the sources. Why? Karanacs (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I see now that this has been continued in a section below, so feel free to totally ignore me. Karanacs (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that by creating that section Richard is bringing up a different topic: not martyr-number and persecution but martyr-culture. To the extent that we're still talking about martyr-number and persecution it should be here. G.W. (Talk) 16:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Question for Karanacs: Who is MacCulloch's point on martyr-number cited to? (Just to check if we've covered the more recent literature.) G.W. (Talk) 16:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• "The vast majority of sources don't even try to quantify the number of those executed/tortured (nor do many/most? discuss why they don't try to quantify)". I am still uneasy here. What is the point that we are trying to convey in this sentence?
• I look again to the literature. For MacMullen, the point of martyr-number quantification is to minimize the importance of the martyrs to the mission and expansion of Christianity. For Treadgold, the point of martyr-number quantification is similar: Christianity expands in spite of the persecution. The passage in MacCulloch is not large enough for me to see the point he is trying to convey, and I don't have his book (I'm waiting for the paperback). Are these the points we are trying to convey? What would we lose in meaning if we even lost the "relatively few" or "not many"?
• "There seems to be a wide consensus among historians that the number or proportion of people executed was "not large"/few". I am sure Barnes bridles at the notion of assigning a total number or referring to it as "small"; as Xandar quotes above, he is content to assign a figure of 660 to Alexandria alone, and no doubt believes the number of martyrs larger than "not large". Barnes and Clarke voice a strong argument against the best prior means of quantification (which includes Gibbon, Frend, and de Ste Croix; the source of Treadgold's estimate is unclear), and I have not seen an argument in the literature to address the point (or to raise controversy/cast aspersion). The honest, patient labors of my more recent histories, not afflicted by resentment, produce not even a coloring of size. MacCulloch is an exception, and most recent; I should like to see more of him, as our guide.
• "In attempting to give a more detailed analysis, we're going beyond the bulk of the sources. Why?" I believe it is to address the instinctive questions of our readers, who like to have numbers on hand and distrust "weasel words" like "relatively few" (like Richard and Xandar here). I think we could satisfy all by giving the tally of our only broad data source, Eusebius, as I've given above, in a cnote attached to "relatively few": "Eusebius, in a catalog of martyrs, lists ninety-one victims in Palestine over the years 303–11 during the Great Persecution (Clarke, p. 657) [yes, it's important to specify the years; there are martyrs 311–13 listed in the HE and elsewhere]. His figures are not complete (Clarke, pp. 658–59), but have been used to estimate the total number of martyrs across the empire (Clarke, pp. 657–58, e.g. W.H.C. Frend, Martrdom and Persecution (Basil Blackwell, 1965; rept. Baker House, 1981), p. 536)." I believe/hope that text can find consensus across the literature and across the users here! G.W. (Talk) 16:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• The difficulty of estimating numbers has been well demonstrated here. Though from the Palestinian and Egyptian numbers alone, we are clearly dealing with thousands of executions and a larger number of tortures, mutilations and imprisonings. Saying "relatively few" were executed is better than saying a "small number" or a "low number", but we still don't have a solid and agreed attribution for even this declaration. I think therefore that we should express the lack of figures through more cautious language such as "It is likely that a relatively small proportion of the Christian population were executed, however many more were imprisoned or tortured." We could add that a proportion of Christians apostasized and offered sacrifice and that many fled. Xandar 23:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this collective self-pity part of Catholic culture, or part of the human condition? When Barrie, in The Little Minister, had his hero as a small boy stone an outlander "because they killed the holy Martyrs", he wasn't writing about Roman Catholicism.

On such a matter, we not only need sources, we need consensus of the sources; I will be interested to see a case for consensus, but I am highly doubtful one exists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am curious as to what PMA believes he is responding to. He has already declared that he will do his best to avoid speaking to Xandar. Is he speaking to me? (Am I a part of "this collective self-pity"?) Is he referring in an oblique way to Xandar's text, and if he is, what point on it? G.W. (Talk) 22:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I thought of a happy analogy to address PMA's earlier "all any such calculation can do is establish an order of magnitude - and for that [Eusebius] is reliable." Is a student's list of Facebook friends a useful guide to the number of students enrolled at their University? Should we expect a student enrolled at the State University of New York to have ten times as many friends as one at the University of Central Florida? Or, if we should treat this (as you do), as a matter of complete fiction: Are the characters in a novel set in St. Petersburg a useful guide to the population of St. Petersburg? Should we expect a novel set in St. Petersburg to have a set of characters several orders of magnitudes larger than a novel set in the back of beyond? G.W. (Talk) 22:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A weak analogy; a student in Florida will have Facebook friends from many places; not only his home-town, but fellow followers of Facebook interest group or games; we have no reason to suppose Eusebius included anybody who wasn't Christian.

Nor do I treat this as fiction: What I said was that Eusebius may understand those numbers as poorly as his calculation that the Nativity

• took place under Herod
• in 3 BC.

He asserts both and they are incompatible...

But if it were fiction: One of the points of Crime and Punishment is the populousness of Saint Petersburg; many Russian novels, on the other hand, make a point of the restricted social circle of a country village. If we had no other evidence, we could guess at the size of Saint Petersburg and the sixe of an average village (and especially the nobles in a village{ and not be faacros of hundreds and thousands off. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That is the point exactly: Eusebius includes martyrs from "many places; not only his home-town", including Egypt and Gaza, while excluding those from his points under interest (e.g., Palestine) that do not travel in his circles or come under his observation. That Eusebius includes no non-Christians is hardly material. A note: Facebook users do not make a habit of friending those in Facebook interest groups or games; it is generally limited to personal or professional contacts.

I am not qualified to address or speak on Eusebius' work in chronology. But to write that "Eusebius may understand those numbers...poorly" is a very queer thing to say; as far as I am aware, Eusebius made no tally himself, nor did he put any point on it; it is moderns from Gibbon who took the martyrdoms and put them to calculation.

I expect that, against your confident assertion here, if you actually did run the calculation you describe for Crime and Punishment you would very easily be factors of hundreds or thousands off. G.W. (Talk) 23:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

But, to return to the point at hand, I am still uncertain as to what you are speaking of when you write: "On such a matter, we not only need sources, we need consensus of the sources; I will be interested to see a case for consensus, but I am highly doubtful one exists." G.W. (Talk) 23:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see: Saint Petersburg had a police force employing specialist detectives (to say nothing of all the small scenes of passing crowds); that makes a minimum of 50,000 (and probably much more); on the other hand, the infrastructure which supports New York does not exist, so less than 4 millions. That's about one order of magnitude either way from the true figure, for which see the graph at right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You are performing a more sophisticated estimate than we have allowed for the source matter at hand here. I was not asking not for a calculation which depends on familiarity with what size of city has a police force employing specialist detectives or that has knowledge of infrastructure ratios to population. (And we do not read crowds in Eusebius with the same expectation of precision either.) Moreover, in martyrdoms, we are operating in a field in which we do not have the true figure to read, so we cannot be so confident of choosing a certain set of useful rules ("specialist police forces", "infrastructure which supports New York") against which to gauge ourselves. What the formulation I gave was asking for was whether a raw tabulation of dramatis personae across works of fiction is useful guide to calculating true population figures, which has not been demonstrated, and which I still maintain should be answered "no". G.W. (Talk) 23:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, I'm not. If I were as sophisticated as Gibbon, I would have at least browsed through Crime and Punishment, and quoted those crowd scenes. Again, what you are arguing is that Eusebius would have written what he did if there where 1 martyr in Palestine and he had invented the rest, or that he would have listed what he did (and extended his list to Egypt; what's odd about Gaza?) if there were 10,000. Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing the former case (it is a supposition I created to satisfy those who maintained that we were speaking), but I am arguing the latter: it does not matter if there were 5,000, or 10,000, or 50,000 or 100,000; we have no means of determining this from the text we have at hand. If there were secondary means of checking this, we could exclude possibilities and work to the true number, but Eusebius' Martyrs alone cannot help us to do this. On this, our more recent sources can agree. You can believe as you wish, PMA, but it does not change the problems of the issue at hand. G.W. (Talk) 00:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case, while we are in the habit of quoting a century-old tradition against the moderns, here's a bit of Philip Schaff, who makes the same point as our more modern authors, and gives a more antique version of my Facebook analogy:

The number of martyrs cannot be estimated with any degree of certainty. The seven episcopal and the ninety-two Palestinian martyrs of Eusebius are only a select list bearing a similar relation to the whole number of victims as the military lists its of distinguished fallen officers to the large mass of common soldiers, and form therefore no fair basis for the calculation of Gibbon, who would reduce the whole number to less than two thousand. During the eight years of this persecution the number of victims, without including the many confessors who were barbarously mutilated and condemned to a lingering death in the prisons and mines, must have been much larger.

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity A.D. 100-325 sec. 24, online at CCEL.

This is not to suggest some reliability for Schaff, which I am sure PMA will mark as absent, only that there is age to the argument against as well as in favor. Those who pay attention to what the text states outright rather than their own needs for quantization will recognize this (which is perhaps why the argument is rediscovered by those who are apparently ignorant of its antecedents, to address those who are ignorant of its existence). G.W. (Talk) 02:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I plan to disengage here. The article text on this point is satisfactory. Thank you for providing for me, talk page users! I have much less interest or literature on other parts of this topic, so I have nothing much more to contribute. Sorry that I couldn't convince you otherwise on the matter of martyr estimates—but since the text makes no martyr estimates, there is nothing to object to here. Thank you again for your time; you have all been gracious and considerate hosts. G.W. (Talk) 15:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

G.W., thank you for your contributions. Please look at Christian martyrs which was in horrid shape before I started working on it last week and is still in quite a sorry condition. Your assistance there would be much appreciated. --Richard S (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard. I will see what I can do. G.W. (Talk) 03:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now looked at Barnes' Constantine and Eusebius.

I don't see any new approach there; he says rather little on the Persecution. Nobody I know of has ever claimed to be able to put an exact number on the executions in the Empire, or in Palestine; what they can say is that if Eusebius counted 90-some, and there were actually ten thousand deaths in Palestine, Eusebius did not know about thousands of them, and is therefore remiss as bishop of the provincial capital; or knew about them, missed the opportunity to say "and there were thousands more", and is incompetent as a rhetorician; or both.

There is no evidence of the former; there is considerable evidence against the latter. Indeed, Eusebius did say "and there were thousands more"; but he said it about Upper Egypt, not about Palestine - about rumor, not observation. This is poor rhetoric when better is available.

And Barnes published almost thirty years ago; Roger Rees' Diocletian and the Tetrarchy (2009) still says "few"; where's the revolution? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I am glad that I brought you to read Barnes' book. I am not sure what there remains to discuss here, as I wrote above, but I am still happy to engage. Barnes writes on the persecution to 305 at pp. 18–26 (I include the preliminaries from 299), where it is part of the political narrative of the period; his chapter on "Persecution" at pp. 148–63 treats of Eusebius' writings from this period, including the later books of the Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine.

• "I have now looked at Barnes' Constantine and Eusebius. I don't see any new approach there; he says rather little on the Persecution." I don't recall stating that there was much revolutionary there, only that on the particular point elaborated above – estimates of martyr number from Gibbon through de Ste Croix and Frend – Barnes gives address at pp. 154–55. This has been quoted above. That the cited passage addresses those estimates in particular is established by the supplementary note, p. 357 n. 55: "As by E. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire chap. XVI (ed. J. B. Bury [London, 1896], 2.137 f.). The argument is reiterated by G. E. M. de Ste Croix, who argues that the Martyrs "Gives a complete list of all the Palestinian martyrdoms of the Great persecution" (HTR 47 [1954], 100 ff.)." Barnes has published extensively on the topics in question – on the history of the persecutions (his 1968 article in the Journal of Roman Studies on "Legislation Against the Christians" covers the persecutions to Decius; his 1967? 68? paper in the Journal of Theological Studies addresses the hagiographic sources for the persecutions of the period, the "Pre-Decian Acta"), on the work of Eusebius, and on the Diocletianic and Constantinian era, including his pair of studies on the period (the other, the New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, covers the prosopographic, administrative, and technical points underlying the continuous narrative in Constantine and Eusebius); he is spoken of as an authority in the relevant chapters of the Cambridge Ancient History: Alan Bowman's "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy", cites, at p. 68 n. 2: "For many events I have been forced to make a choice, which cannot be justified in the space available, between competing chronologies. Nevertheless, it is hoped that this is less arbitrary than it may seem since significant advances have been made in the last two decades in synthesizing and absorbing the evidence of the documentary sources. Particularly valuable are the various works of Barnes, e.g. CE, NE, and 'Emperors'. Other fundamental discussions are in Kolb, Diocletian and Corcoran, ET". The next chapter, Averil Cameron on "The Reign of Constantine", cites, at p. 90 n. 1: "The most detailed modern treatment of Constantine is Barnes, CE, to be used with Barnes, NE." Clarke's chapter, the most relevant for the present discussion, cites, at p. 650 n. 144: "There are standard accounts of the Great Persecution, the classic analysis being by de Ste Croix (1954), as well as the rich commentary of Moreau (1954) on Lact. DMP. For the political and religious context, consult Barnes, CE chs. 2 and 9." I believe this should speak to his knowledge of the material, on which he is perhaps challenged by de Ste Croix, perhaps by Kolb. On this, a technical point, the mere occlusion of the relevant argument by incautious tertiary sources (Rees' Diocletian is a work for students, including summary and documents in translation, not a monograph in its own right; Rees is expert on the Panegyrici Latini and the rhetorical tradition reaching back to the poets of the Golden Age, as his monograph Layers of Loyalty in Latin Panegyric, 289–307 speaks to; Barnes, however, is expert on patristics and the prosopography of the fourth century) should not undermine the particular arguments in a particular historiography. (viz., because we should not expect, in an equivalent case, to weigh the statement of a textbook above that of a monograph, we should not do so here.)
• "Nobody I know of has ever claimed to be able to put an exact number on the executions in the Empire, or in Palestine". As the statement cited by Barnes above should demonstrate, de Ste Croix did believe himself to have found "a complete list of all the Palestinian martyrdoms of the Great persecution"; Gibbon was "assured, by [Euebius'] particular enumeration of the martyrs of Palestine, that no more than ninety-two Christians were entitled to that honourable appellation" (Womersley ed., 1.578). Their figures for the number of executions in the Empire are therefore estimates, but they believe that Eusebius has given them definite totals.
• I am inexpert on the methods and means of rhetoric, so I cannot make much comment on the substance of your post. I apologize, but I might be missing something here: Is literature being referenced, or are we having a personal conversation on Eusebius' rhetorical options? If the latter, I should structure my argument differently. But since the underlying principle of article talk pages is that conversation should lead to textual change, since article text must follow WP:NOR, and since we are speaking at Talk:Catholic Church, I do not believe that we should speak independently of the literature. I am curious, then, as to why we are speaking of what the literature "can" say rather than what the literature "does" say.
• I do not have Roger Rees' Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, and cannot check the body of your citation. Google Books is being unfriendly to me: it provides eight instances where "few" and "persecution" are on the same page, but none seem to be the text you're working from (though I am excluded from some pages, so it might still be among them). Could you reproduce the text you quote in full? G.W. (Talk) 04:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)