Talk:De doctrina Christiana

Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance).

undated comment

This page needs to be revised: citations need to be added (claims about "plagiarism" need to be substantiated or removed), some terms need to be clarified (e.g., use of 'scholasticism' in this article is idiosyncratic) and grammar could be improved.

Bold move

I am boldly moving this page to De doctrina christiana in accordance with other Latin titles of this type. (See De rerum natura and De re publica). CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 05:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctrine vs. Teaching

Although this text is still often known as On Christian Doctrine, the most recently quality translation (R.P.H. Green, from Oxford University Press) uses the translation On Christian Teaching, which now seems to be commonly accepted as a more accurate rendering. Because the previous translation is often still known, however, I have added the new translation without removing the old. Neocampbellite (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and Schaeffer

I don't have time to look over the entire section on the debate, but here are two immediate problems with it. First, it gives the impression that this debate is a lot more contentious than it is. Augustine's role in the formation of medieval Christian rhetoric is relatively well established. The debate is a matter of scholars such as Fish arguing against the accepted view, as opposed to the up-for-discussion issue that this article makes it sound like. Second, the summary of Schaeffer's argument is entirely incomplete. Consider this quotation: "Yet Fish, Sutherland, and Sloane assume that Augustine's methods are directed toward written composition in a culture in which writing has long been interiorized." I just pulled this from my notes; it would be better to use a quotation dealing more directly with the lack of interiorized literacy in Augustine's time. Nevertheless, my point, and Schaeffer's point which I am explicating, is that in Augustine's time literacy was not nearly as internalized as it was today and thus the Christian literary tradition and the classical rhetorical tradition lay much closer on the plain of intellect than methods of speaking and methods of writing do in today's society. The article currently does this point, which is one of Schaeffer's most central points and essential to a basic understanding of his paper, lip service at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.173.111 (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]