Talk:History of early Christianity/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Intentionally offensive interpretation

Under the section on Angels and Satan, I find this sentence: Christian writers commonly saw Satan as the author of heresies, and he is indicated in John 8:44 as the father of those whom that Gospel refers to as "the Jews".[25]

First of all, it seems sort of 'tacked on' and doesn't seem to be the work of the original writer of the section. Secondly, it sounds like an exaggerated attempt to paint Christianity as being fundamentally anti-semitic.

I looked up the original passage in John, and I think it is quite clear from the context (I encourage you to look for yourself) that Jesus is only referring to the people that he is immediately addressing when he calls them sons of Satan. Moreover, he makes it clear that his reason for saying it is that they do not believe in him, not that they are of the Jewish nation.

The above sentence, on the other hand, seems to imply that Jesus' teaching was that all Jews are the sons of Satan whereas in the very passage cited he equates true Jews and sons of Abraham. Milez 05:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The page now says that it refers to the Jews who rejected Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

prayer for the dead

I deleted this sentence: "And Joseph Hilgers depicted the early church as "one grand purgatorial society. The clearest evidence for this is supplied by the prayers for the dead in the oldest liturgies and breviary prayers, and by the earliest Christian inscriptions."" Really, do we credit what this guy said 100 years ago in a reference by Catholics and for Catholics? Really? He's worth quoting verbatim? No. This is pro-RCC POV. What does Brown say about prayer for the dead in the early Christian church, or Ratzinger? Leadwind (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Revelation

Lima, thanks for catching me. I wrote that Jesus slays those who took the beast's mark, but really it's the armies of nations that he slays with the sword issuing from his mouth. It's a tricky book, Revelation. Anyway, you deleted the 1,000 year reign business, which was a big deal particularly in early Christianity (not any more), so it deserves a mention. It's sort of the capstone of Jesus' biblical divinity. I put it back in. Leadwind (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Judging the living and the dead

Early Christianity sees an expansion of Jesus' perceived divinity and role. For example, at the beginning of the early Christian period, Jesus is to judge the nations (Matthew) and his coming brings the first resurrection of believers only (Paul, Revelation). After his 1,000 year reign comes the general resurrection. By the end of early Christianity, Jesus is said to judge the living and the dead, and the idea is apparently that his second coming occurs in synch with judgment day. Anyone know where we find the first reference to Jesus judging the living and the dead? Or to the figure on the white throne being Jesus and not God the Father? Leadwind (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Would CCC 678-679 and similar commentaries on that article of the Nicene Creed be helpful? Lima (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for historical information. If those comments are about history and not faith, then sure. Leadwind (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I found an early reference to Jesus judging the living and the dead, the Old Roman Creed. Looks like it's from around 350 or so, but it's based on 2nd and 3rd century sources. Does anyone know whether the 2nd century rule of faith or the 3rd century baptismal formulas had Jesus judging the dead? My sources are thin at this point. Leadwind (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Caesar and Christ

I'm reading Will Durant's historical material on Jesus' life, the apostolic period, and early Christianity. I plan on porting in key information, either adding things that are missing or confirming material already here. When I start adding information to a Christianity page from a secular source, Lima sometimes follows my edits with various conditions, qualifications, original research, and sometimes just plain deletions. If my fellow editors could help me keep an eye on this page, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. FTR, Durant is highly sympathetic to Jesus and to early Christianity, if not to the supernatural and historical claims of Lima's church and others. Leadwind (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Brown on gnostic John

Can someone explain what this sentence means: "According to Raymond E. Brown, it was contrary to the author's intention that some elements were interpreted in more or less Gnostic ways that the Johannine epistles (1-3 John) felt it necessary to correct"? Did the epistles feel it necessary to correct something? Does this mean "The author of John didn't intend for the gospel to be interpreted in a gnostic light, and he corrected this misinterpretation in the epistles 1, 2, and 3 John"? Leadwind (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the topic is somewhat complex, perhaps too complex for wikipedia, but I'll take a shot at it. First off, it's been awhile since I've read Brown's Commentary on the Gospel of John, the current scholarly reference on the topic by the way, but my guess is that Brown doesn't necessarily conclude that the same person who wrote the Gospel also wrote the Epistles. The Gospel was the favorite of the Gnostics, in particular Valentinius. And it has long been noted that the Epistles seem to argue against Gnostic interpretation of the Gospel. I suspect that Browns' position (as a Catholic) is that Gnostic interpretation of the Gospel is against the wishes of the original author. Other authors would have different opinions, I'm guessing for example Elaine Pagels. 75.14.213.241 (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So is Brown saying, "Even though John has some gnostic elements, the author didn't intend to promote gnosticism. The epistles attributed to John represent Christians in John's tradition emphasizing the original author's intent not to promote gnosticism"? Something like that? Leadwind (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. More like, even though gnostics interpreted John to support their doctrines, the author didn't intend that. The epistles were written (whether by the author of the Gospel or someone in his circle) to argue against gnostic doctrines. Tb (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Leadwind (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

New Section: Contemporary Christian views

Roman Catholics and the Eastern Christians see the early Christian church as continuous in fundamental doctrine and apostolic authority with the present-day Church. They regard the Church Fathers not as canonical but as authoritative. Their Old Testament is the same as the Septuagint, taken as scripture by early Christians. Protestants emphasize the Bible over church tradition, granting no particular authority to early Church Fathers or bishops. Like Jews, Protestants disavow the newer books of the Septuagint. Baptists portray themselves as restoring the adult baptism of the early church. Anabaptists and Restorationists portray themselves as restoring the primitive, authentic Christianity, which had been replaced by a false religion corrupted by Rome. Some denominations eschew liturgical elements adopted from pagan practice by the early church, such as candles and vestments.

The above paragraph summarizes how EC figures into contemporary Christianity. We should have a section like this on this page. The above is off the top of my head to get the conversation going, and also to see if there really is enough information here for a paragraph. EC means different things to different Christians. The differences bear mention. Leadwind (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Lima, and everyone else, if you've got a problem with the above paragraph, please speak up. Leadwind (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am worried about this for a couple reasons. First, once we start down that road, the article quickly becomes bloated as it starts to give every individual group's understanding; it becomes an advertisement for every group's partisans to chime in with their distinctive understanding. But second, and more to the point, this page is for historically verifiable information about early Christianity. If someone has verifiable evidence that early Christians practiced exclusively adult baptism, then that would be one thing, but there isn't such--quite to the contrary--we have reports from early years of both adult and infant baptism. Any remaining dispute is about interpretation of the NT record, which doesn't belong here of course. So this article is not a compendium of every group's beliefs about early christianity, it is a NPOV treatment of what is verifiable about the topic. It is irrelevant, for example, whether some groups "eschew...candles and vestments"; this is not about what 16th century Christians, or modern Christians, do. Tb (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To take up the particular questions you identify. If you can find verifiable evidence of early Christians who did not take earlier church fathers as authoritative, that's worth mentioning here, in the section on church fathers. Contemporary attitudes are not relevant. A discussion of early (pre-Nicene) opposition to the additional books in the Septuagint would be appropriate, in the section "Defining Scripture." If there is verifiable evidence of groups doing what Anabaptists and Restorationists say was going on, then it would be appropriate to mention that, under the appropriate existing headings. Tb (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tb, "Contemporary attitudes are not relevant." Of course they are. Leadwind (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And here I wrote about 250 words and you didn't bother to address much of anything I said. Contemporary attitudes are relevant, when they are NPOV verifiable statements of the reality of early Christianity. Other contemporary attitudes are not relevant, no. This is an article about early christianity, and as such, is still held to all the normal Wikipedia standards about articles about historical subjects. Tb (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary Christian interpretations of Jesus are addressed on the Jesus page. Contemporary Christian interpretations of the early Church should be addressed on the early Church page. Could you please cite a guideline or policy that supports your assertion that this article shouldn't address how contemporary Christians view the early Church? Leadwind (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's my guideline: The perfect article "acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject." Too often, the reflex to suppress information comes from people defending a POV, so I've gotten in the habit of pushing back when someone tries to get information out of a lead or article. Tb, I assume you're editing in good faith, but I've developed a habitual aversion to excluding information. Leadwind (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you're not going to bother to read what I wrote before, so I'll try again. Contemporary Christian views are relevant when they are NPOV verifiable statements about early Christianity. Tb (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I didn't ask you to restate your position. I asked you to support it with a WP guideline or policy. If there's no guideline or policy backing up your interpretation of what's on topic, then how about we go with my guideline: explore all aspects of the topic? Leadwind (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy: WP:V. And, that whatever addition is about the topic, which here is Early Christianity, not Modern Views of Eearly Christianity whether Verifiable or Not. If we have verified evidence that, for example, early christians did not practice infant baptism, then that's good to include in the relevant paragraph. But the mere assertion "Contemporary Baptists claim, without a shred of evidence, that there was no infant baptism in AD 150" tells us a lot about contemporary baptisms, and tells us nothing about early christianity. Maybe it would help to see the particular additions you would like to see. My statement is simply that they must be verified and that they belong under the relevant headings already in the article, not as a separate "list of contemporary views" section. Tb (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, I can do WP:V. Thanks for referring to a policy. We editors can disagree, but as long as we stick to guidelines and policies, we can get along. I figured some people would object to the section because they don't like their current church practices (infant baptism, candles, etc.) to be compared to early church practices. But if the issue is WP:V, I'm confident I can follow that policy. Leadwind (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I referred to that policy from the beginning, which makes me all the more confident that you didn't read what I said, which bodes poorly. In any case, I do still object to making a "new section"; contemporary views about early christianity may be relevant, but they belong under the particular headings. This is not an article to compare the current practice of this or that group with the reconstructed practices of early Christianity. I also object to your implication that any edit is good for the article provided there is no obvious wikipedia policy objecting to it. It is essential that you engage in discussion, and if you look at the thread here, you'll see a steadfast refusal on your part to actually discuss anything that I have said. If you start making individual changes, please understand that discussion may be necessary, and "cite a policy that says I'm wrong" is not an adequate replacement for discussion. Tb (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I cited a guideline that says we should explore all aspects of a topic. "[C]ontemporary views about early christianity may be relevant, but they belong under the particular headings." They should be in their own section because they have a common theme. Leadwind (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to see. I can't imagine that, for example, current views about the church fathers belong anywhere other than in the church fathers section. Likewise for the other example you cite, baptism. If we are documenting contemporary baptismal practices, that doesn't belong here at all; if we are documenting the relation between those practices and early christian ones, then I can't imagine that it belongs anywhere other than in the section on baptism. And, keep in mind, Wikipedia doesn't much care for "documentation" along the lines of "some think that X" or "group A believes B, without any reason". Tb (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I think I have added the topics you cited as the ones you thought were missing from the article. Tb (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tb, I don't know what to make of you. Most editors I argue with just get in the way, don't contribute much, or contribute junk. But you added a ton of cogent, on-topic material. I still think that the contemporary views material should be in its own section, but if you're going to do a bunch of good work, I'm not going to sweat it. Leadwind (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks :) Tb (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sees called "patriarchal" in early Christian times?

The First Council of Nicaea decreed: "The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church's canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail. Since there prevails a custom and ancient tradition to the effect that the bishop of Aelia is to be honoured, let him be granted everything consequent upon this honour, saving the dignity proper to the metropolitan."

The word "patriarch" does not appear. Is it possible that, when speaking of the 325 situation, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, which I presume has no gift of divine inerrancy, applied a later term, in other words, an anachronism?

Note also the words "and the other provinces". It appears that at the time of the First Council of Nicaea nobody thought of dividing Christendom up into just four (or five) "patriarchates". Lima (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the ODCC is perfect, but it's pretty good. Please suggest an alternative. Leadwind (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To judge by past experience, what Leadwind means by "an alternative" is some book published within at most the last fifty years. Any reference book as old as a century he tends to call outdated. To avoid a quarrel with him, I prefer not to alter in any way the new text he has put in the article. So I leave it to others to answer the question I raise here, whether what Leadwind has added is compatible with the decree of the First Council of Nicaea, the Council that marks the close of the Early Christian period. Can we not suppose that the Council knew what it was talking about? It called no see "patriarchal". It treated Antioch, in spite of the importance of that city, as in principle only on the level of the chief sees of other provinces. According to the Council, the bishop of Jerusalem, though given honour, was not even the metropolitan of that province. Is it perhaps an anachronism to speak of any Early Christian bishops as "patriarchs"? Lima (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The decree of the First Council of Nicaea does not say that the bishop of Antioch had authority over other metropolitans. Perhaps instead the Council has each province under its own metropolitan, except for the provinces mentioned by name as all under the authority of the bishop of Alexandria, and the undefined provinces over which the bishop of Rome held authority, with the Roman situation cited as justifying the approval given for the (traditional but perhaps unusual?) extra-provincial authority held by the bishop of Alexandria. Antioch had jurisdiction later over other metropolitans, but did it have this authority during the Early Christian period? Even if some modern work says that this situation predated 325, and even if it does use the word "metropolitans", is it reliable enough for its opinion to be presented as a fact? Lima (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Oxford definitely meets wikipedia's requirement for a reliable source. Therefore, your personal interpretation of a primary source does not trump Oxford, and the idea of trying to prove Oxford wrong through selective interpretation of primary sources runs afoul with "no original research". (That's a bit blunt, so I apologize if it sounds harsh). I'll have to agree with Leadwind's call for a conflicting reliable source. But perhaps since this topic is at least controversial here, we could preface the controversial content gathered from the Oxford source with some sort of attribution clause like "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states..." Therefore we wouldn't simply be presenting one view as a written in stone fact. If we do come up with another source, then we'd definitely need to present both POVs and not take sides.-23:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew c (talk • contribs)

Thanks. I agree fully. Lima (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There should be sources. In case it's not obvious, the terms Patriarch (Greek for father) and Pope (Latin for father) are both loaded. Patriarch assumes the position of the Orthodox Church, Pope assumes the position of the Catholic Church. Protestants have historically tried to play these two churches against each other. 75.14.213.241 (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Lima, if you agree fully with Andrew, it's OK with me, too.

"Patriarch" doesn't assume the position of the Orthodox. The Pope was known as a Patriarch until recently. And the patriarch of Alexandria was the first to name himself Pope. Leadwind (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is especially good to know that Leadwind now approves the idea that the controversial content gathered from the Oxford source should perhaps be prefaced with some sort of attribution clause like "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states ..."

Editor 75.14.213.241 was right in saying that projecting back to before 325 either the Eastern Orthodox view of patriarchates or the Roman Catholic view of the papacy assumes one or other of these two positions. He was not talking about other less specific uses of the words "patriarch" and "pope".

Just by the way, the Bishop of Rome is still known as a patriarch by Eastern Orthodox; and see the communiqué on the dropping of the title from the Annuario Pontificio - English translation at, for instance, ZENIT. Lima (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Lima, it doesn't make much sense to say "according to X, Y is true," unless we can also say, "On the other hand, according to P, Q is true." If the ODCC's use of the term "patriarchal" is controversial, please state what the other side says. In my experience with you, you have been more eager to reduce the information in a lead or on a page than to provide information yourself. What's the other viewpoint? "According to the RCC, the bishop of Rome has held exclusive and pre-eminent authority since the time of Saint Peter, and has never been a patriarch equivalent to Eastern patriarchs"? Leadwind (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Schaff's Seven Ecumenical Councils: First Nice: Canon VI: "Many, probably most, commentators have considered this the most important and most interesting of all the Nicene canons, and a whole library of works has been written upon it, some of the works asserting and some denying what are commonly called the Papal claims. If any one wishes to see a list of the most famous of these works he will find it in Phillips’s Kirchenrecht (Bd. ii. S. 35)." -Schaff "Nobody can maintain that the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria were called patriarchs then, or that the jurisdiction they had then was co-extensive with what they had afterward, when they were so called" -Ffoulkes Dict. Christ. Antiq. voce Council of Nicæa 68.126.20.120 (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Baptism

It should not be hard to be NPOV here, if people put down their axes and stop grinding. The following seems clear:

• The New Testament material is controversial;
• In the second century, Irenaeus made some comments which
  • might have had nothing to do with baptism at all;
  • or might have been saying that infants could/should be baptized;
  • or might have been saying the opposite
• By the third century, infant baptism was common, and was remarked on as traditional.

Some seem to be editing on the theory that anything they can find a secondary source is fair game. This is incorrect. Verifiability and NPOV are both independently expected. Merely providing a source is not grounds for failing NPOV. Tb (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions about a recent edit:

• I said that "Irenaeus may have spoken of it approvingly, but some interpret him as arguing against the practice"; the editor changed this to "Irenaeus may have referred to it," with the comment, "the irenaeus reference is disputed." Well, yes, that's exactly what I wrote. Why is it better to say "Irenaeus may have referred to it" and not actually say something about the dispute?
• We should say something here about more recent interpretations of early Christianity; the same editor has said, "this is primarily about the early Church, not later interpretations of it". Actually, everything in the article is a "later interpretation" of the early church. The reference to the Great Apostasy, deleted, is not POV, given that the groups in question do use that term, and I used it only as part of the description of their views. If this is POV, please say more than just a one-line edit summary. Tb (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You said, 'extremely'. I thought that was a bit strong. There are way bigger controversies, as far as I am aware.

Your phrasing was ambiguous - it could be understood as implying that Irenaeus definitely said something, and the doubt was over whether he said something positive or negative; whereas (as the cited source says) there is dispute about whether he was referring to baptism or not. The source does not discuss whether he was saying something positive or negative, as far as I know that's not an issue.

The POV concern is not the reference to the Great Apostasy but the phrasing 'some sort of' which sounds dismissive. The article is predominantly about what happened, not (predominantly) about why some people think what happened is important.

--Rbreen (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I agree about dropping "extremely". Now I see that my phrasing was ambiguous. How about this: "One remark by Irenaeus is sometimes thought to refer to baptism; among those who think it does, it is disputed whether Irenaeus is speaking approvingly or disapprovingly of infant baptism." The reason I think this is important is that it's a (rare) second century source, and it is good to say something about the second century here. Tb (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This wikilink is POV???

Aelia Capitolina??? POV??? Care to explain? 68.126.21.95 (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As the footnote explains, it is not uncontroversial to identify the Aelia of the Nicene canon with the city of Aelia Capitolina built on the site of Jerusalem. Some think that the "Aelia" referred to may be Antioch, or some other city. I think it was Jerusalem (Aelia Capitolina); but the point is controversial, and the point of that particular footnote is especially to highlight the controversy. Tb (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It's the Metropolis that is controversial. There is no particular historical controversy about the term Aelia. 68.126.21.95 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, you're clearly right. Thanks for the correction. Tb (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What the article should be

This article should be about facts as best as can be presented. This is an aritcle that I would assume is displaying facts about who the early Christians were and what they believed. As such, I do not see how it is point of view at all to state these facts. This is not supposed to be an aritcle about what we moderns want the early Christians to be or what we want them to have believed. It should simply state what they really did believe back in history and who they actually were. Nothing more and nothing less. Yes, random "no longer Christian" protestant group number 5876 may want to say that the early Christians believed this or that but if they are wrong then they are just wrong and the fact are all that should be here.

Just a side note, there is some evidence that I have seen that supports the idea that several of the first Bishops of Rome spoke and performed the liturgies in Aramaic and not Greek. I know of some priest who believe that Aramaic was the common language of the liturgy in Rome before Latin and that Greek was only an auxillary. Now, the evidence for this weak at best but is better supported them some of the protestant things presented here. Please think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.27.244.245 (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone here disagrees with you. Is there something specific you have in mind? Tb (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Length of article

The article is probably a little long as is. It might do with a split, if it could be agreed what 2 articles to split it into. Fremte (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The best way to do a split is to split off a long, well-referenced section. My off-the-cuff suggestion would be to first improve the referencing and information in Early Christianity#Beliefs, and then split it off to Early Christian beliefs. Vassyana (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been wanting to do an Early Christian beliefs page for a good long time. Leadwind (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"This page is 115 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles." It really is way to long, much to unwieldy for the casual reader. Can we have suggestions for how to split it up? Early Christian beliefs sounds like an excellent beginning. Any other suggestions? --Rbreen (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I started the "cities and places section," which has turned out pretty good, but it's long. That could spin off to "Early Christian geography" or something, and then we'd only need a summary here. I'd be happy to cut this article way down, compose it of top-level summaries, and then spin of pages. My only concern is that once a topic gets its own page, fewer people monitor it, and then weird edits build up while no one's looking. But if this page had less information (more summary), it would be easier for the reader to get a good overview of EC. Leadwind (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Durant on why Christianity prevailed

While I'm suspicious of claims that the Church makes of itself, Durant's a historian, and he makes a good case that early Christianity prevailed because it offered an attractive belief system, a moderate, reasonable set of expectations on Christians, and an effective church administration. Perhaps he's too generous, but if this isn't why orthodoxy succeeded, I don't know why it did. If there's an alternate explanation in an RS, I'm eager to compare notes.

But really the topic deserves more than a sentence. I put that sentence in the lead sort of as a placeholder. The body could use a paragraph like this one:

Prominent historian Will Durant wrote that the orthodox early Church prevailed over paganism and over competing beliefs because its doctrine was more attractive and its leaders accommodated human needs better. Pagan religion had lost its vitality, and skepticism about the gods and the afterlife were common. The Christian message led to renewed spiritual enthusiasm. Church leaders, furthermore, avoided the extreme virtue expected of more rigorous religious movements. The Montanists and Manicheans demanded asceticism. Schism broke out over whether those who had violated their faith under persecution could be readmitted, with the orthodox Church practicing leniency. The Church also offered the certainty of sacred scripture and apostolic succession.

Now maybe Durant is full of it, but I can go back into the text and get more examples and details if you like. Leadwind (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Durant reference is interesting, but it's a complex topic and really needs a more thorough treatment (and ideally more recent - Durant's book is over 30 years old); more importantly, it lends itself to highly speculative approaches - there's little direct evidence to work with, as far as I am aware. However, one writer, more recent than Durant, who has attempted to take a systematic sociological approach is Rodney Stark; his book The Rise of Christianity is a substantial contribution to the subject. Here's a review:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_23/ai_55208060

There seems to be a degree of overlap, but Stark's view of the importance of women, for instance, is well worth considering. --Rbreen (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Stark's work looks like it's worth adding. I believe that Durant mentioned the plague angle, too. The pro-woman angle figures in pretty well with other stuff I've heard about the early church. Leadwind (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

request for footnotes

A bunch of sections have footnotes tags, but they contain basic information that isn't controversial. Do we really have to hunt down citations for all this stuff? Leadwind (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

messing with cited information

Someone inserted the term "(Trinitarian)" into a cited sentence about tripartite baptismal formulas. The source does not use the term Trinitarian. One might say it intentionally avoids the term. This change gave readers the idea that the source affirmed that these formulas were Trinitarian. Please do not alter cited information. It's tantamount to lying. Leadwind (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete Restorationism section

This has nothing to do with early Christianity. It is about an idea that some recent religious groups resemble the early church. It is off-topic for this article and should be deleted. Fremte (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be appropriate to have a short section on Restorationism in this article. The Restorationist sects make very prominent claims about being a restoration of early Christian faith and structure. It's a topic and claim very widely written about, so I do not see the harm in including a paragraph or two about the matter. I would recommend that it focus on what high quality sources have to say about the matter and stay relatively brief. Vassyana (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Restorationism (and other movements with similar claims) is a particular POV about the early church. It makes claims substantially different from those in the body of the article, and which are not well-supported by the historical record. But they are views about the early church, and it would be remiss to omit them from the article. (And, of course, it would be equally wrong to give them too much prominence, since they are "fringe theories" in Wikipedia-speak.) Tb (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The section should, I think, perhaps be moved to Apostolic Age. Restorationists claim that their ideas fit that period only, not the whole of early Christianity as understood in this article. Lima (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section does not belong in this article. All the facts are about events that did not take place in the time period that the article is about. The section is also poorly cited. --Carlaude (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. Restorationists make claims about early christianity. To ignore those claims would be to express a POV. If anything, we should document the claims they make, but I think it's sufficient to say "there are some claims made which do not have good historical evidence; this is why people make those claims." Tb (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Restorationists most often place their beliefs in what is termed the Apostolic Age as mentioned above, but they aslo point to Early Christianity as an example of the/an apostasy. I also agree that a brief description is all that is necessary.

Curious, that one would call the Restorationists a POV; aren't all groups concerned offering a POV. The topic is one of faith, which is inherently POV. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Geez, I just read the section; who wrote that crap? Can anyone say POV? When discussing topics of faith, is there anyone that can point unequivically to "truth"; that is not our objective. Our objective is to report facts as stated by experts. We don't write religious tracts or write from a strictly pigheaded position (get that I am a little ticked). Almost each of you have have written here are editors which I highly respect. You each know when something stinks and is POV; this reeks. I will edit it and then search for the requested references. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The rules for dealing with a fringe opinion are pretty well-understood. Don't give it too much space, describe the existence of the fringe opinion, if necessary give it its own article (which is the case here). We aren't talking about "matters of faith", we are talking about what is historically determinable about the first centuries of the Christian movement. If an opinion is the mainstream historical opinion, it gets top billing; if it is a fringe opinion, it gets way down below the fold--just as the current section. I'm sure it could well be improved; feel free; I'm just objecting to deleting it outright. Tb (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

For some of the largest churches in the US, it is not appropriate or acceptable to describe Restorationism as "fringe"; that is your POV. I suggest if you can't back it up with a reputable reference you drop it from your proposition.

You seem to think that spiritual history, read orthodox history, is fully supported by history. That is what is called belief, not historical fact. The moment you introduce dogma or doctrine, history flies out the window and beliefs walk in. If your objective is to make this article strictly a historical approach to religion, I can support that, but then we are talking about another article because this one is rife with beliefs. I don't' care; you pick, but then you will live by the standard you set up.

My deletions were only for opinions; Wikipedia never states an opinion, but rather repeat the opinion of reputable experts. Please do so or your edits then delete them. You may need to review what NPOV is; I am seeing consist position that takes your edits outside of neutrality and puts them squarely in personal opinion. That is easy to do particularly on topics of faith. We all do it at some time. I am not seeking to offend, but read the article and I suspect you will gain a better understanding of what I am saying. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Most Americans, according to some surveys, think some form of creationism is more likely that evolution. Yet, creationism is a fringe theory, and evolution is not, and Wikipedia treats them accordingly. This article is not about "orthodox history" or "spiritual history"--which it would not be appropriate for Wikipedia to simply present as fact. This article documents what modern historians think Christians believed at various times, but does not assert that those beliefs were correct. That said, I don't object to your changes to the section--they are in the right direction, it seems to me. Oh, and BTW, it's insulting to say, "read the article" as if I hadn't. If there is a particular point, make it, but don't insult me by implying that I haven't read it at all. Tb (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That comment was not this article, but the NPOV article. I have edited for a little while and concluded that because Wikipedia is so easy to use, many edit without a familiarization of polices and guidelines. I read your page and saw that you have stated you have a doctorate; you are the type of editor that is appreciated and valued on Wikipedia. However, you have to be careful that you do not write from a position of "knowing". As editors we write from a position of reporting. Wikipedia "knows" nothing; we only report what reputable sources claim are facts about the topic. In this instance, we can't say that creationism is a fringe theory, but we can say that Dr. Soandso has stated or make the statement and insert the citation. I hope that we are on the same page on this. If I offended you in any manner, I apologize. As I stated above, my objective is to improve the article and this section in particular. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep the section. While the Restorationists might be wrong about the early Church (and I might be and you might be), their view is relevant to the article. The article is "Early Christianity," not "what happened between AD 30 and AD 325." If you want to know everything there is to know about early Christianity, you need to know how it's seen by contemporary people. Leadwind (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Who founded church for Restorationists

Fremte, I may have misunderstood your point. I think you were alluding to the dispute over who founded the Christian church, Jesus or this apostles. That dispute is not found in US Restorationism; there is only the church founded by Christ in their perspective. Is this the confusion you were alluding to or are you proposing there is a dispute among Restorationists about who founded the original Church? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Shameful-use a little judgement people!

Removed at least eleven stale and from what I can see, unnecessary {{Citations}} tags spanning July and August 2007 (leaving a bunch more that are nearly as questionable in place).

Please exercise restraint in applying such hateful IN YOUR FACE tags in any article. They just make all of us look like clowns.

In particular, the

{{fact|Your specific gripe or concern you want a cite backing up goes here!!!|{{subst:DATE}}|A side comment here, "etc."}}
kind of tag is a much superior tool for improving cites in a document and curing any specific beefs.

Otherwise, no one knows what the shotgun tagging means, or when they should be lifted. That just wastes lots of people's time. Do try to think about what the next 200 hundred editors are supposed to be thinking. Sheesh. // FrankB 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

overuse of old source

A 100-year old source gets quoted in blockquotes repeatedly. Who thinks that this one source deserves such preferential treatment? Leadwind (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the Catholic Encyclopedia, you have a point. It's a handy online source, and can provide some useful background information especially on Catholic viewpoints, but it's very dated, from a period long before the Catholic Church accepted modern historical methods (pre-Vatican II). There are plenty of modern, scholarly sources which provide much better information, if people can be bothered to look them up. --Rbreen (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment of Catholic Encyclopedia. Would the editor who made so much use of this material please speak up and give your thinking? If you're still watching this page, that is. Leadwind (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

cut material

Someone went to a lot of work wikifying this block quote from CE, so I'm preserving it here in case someone wants to find a good page for it. But Caesarea doesn't rank with Antioch, etc. so I took this out of the major-cities section. Leadwind (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

===Caesarea=== {{seealso|Caesarea Maritima#Christian hub}} Caesarea, at first ''Caesarea Maritima'', then after 133 ''Caesarea Palaestina'', was founded by [[Herod the Great]] and was the capital of [[Iudaea province]] and later ''Palaestina Prima''. According to the ''Catholic Encyclopedia''<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03134b.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Caesarea Palaestinae]</ref>: {{cquote|St. Peter established the church there when he baptized the centurion Cornelius (Acts 10:11); St. Paul often sojourned there (ix, 30, xviii, 22, xxi, 8), and was imprisoned there for two years before being taken to Rome (xxiii, 23, xxv, 1-13). However, there is no record of any [[Bishop of Caesarea|bishops of Caesarea]] until the second century. At the end of this century a council was held there to [[Easter controversy|regulate the celebration of Easter]]. In the third century Origen took refuge at Caesarea, and wrote there many of his exegetic and theological works, among others the famous "[[Hexapla]]", the manuscript of which was for a long time preserved in the episcopal library of that city. Through Origen and the scholarly priest, [[Pamphilus of Caesarea|St. Pamphilus]], the theological school of Caesarea won a universal reputation. [[St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker]], [[St. Basil the Great]], and others came from afar to study there. its ecclesiastical library passed for the richest in antiquity; it was there that [[St. Jerome]] performed much of his Scriptural labours. The library was probably destroyed either in 614 by the Persians, or about 637 by the Saracens.}}

I'll concur with the judgement that it is not a "major city", assuming the "major cities" of Early Christianity are the Pentarchy (sidenote: that's a bit of a judgement call, the Pentarchy are the major cities of Christianity that were later recognized as such, the winners if you will). But it is certainly a significant other city, as the CE article quoted explains. If someone wants to judge the CE as dated, that's fine, as long as another supposedly more modern source is added. I see no reason to just delete a CE cite on the basis of age without adding any replacement. Also, the CE comes from a time when scholarship was more detailed and exact, replacing it with a dumbed down modern account is probably a loss for wikipedia. 68.123.65.242 (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the view of this very active anonymous editor that CE is a significant source on matters such as those discussed in this article. The last hundred years have not inserted a "not" into every statement previously made by scholars! I agree with Leadwind that it would be more impressive to quote 21st-century sources. But neither he nor I seem capable of producing equally detailed modern sources for most of the matters discussed.

A West-centred world view appears in the excision of all reference to Assyria, Iran and India. It is simply false to assert that this was not a significant place in early Christianity. Only after the period that this article is about did the Sassanid Empire try to remove Christianity from its territory, fearing that Christians would support the Roman Empire, where their religion was favoured. But what was later called the "Nestorian" Church succeeded in maintaining an active presence in India (where it persists) and even in China (where it did not last). The removal of even a minimal reference to the Eastern Christians (for whom even the "Eastern Orthodox Church" is part of the "Western Church") suggests that the article should be moved to "Early Christianity within the Roman Empire" to fit the change made by that excision. Lima (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The section is about important places, not about every last place. What church father came from India? What Doctor came from Iran? Not the ones who made church history. Plus, half that stuff had been tagged as unsourced for a year (!). Christianity wasn't even a majority anywhere outside Anatolia. Was there an important Christian community in these farflung places? Are we to believe every Christian community that claims to date back to the early Christian period? Or is this a case where someone wants to demonstrate how widespread Christianity was as a way of making it look good? If you want to make Christianity look good, put in a sentence such as "Christian communities reached from the British Isles to India and China," or some such. And source it. In fact, I really would like to know what historians say about the geographical limits of the Christian community in 325. Could you find out? Leadwind (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-western Christianity has traditionally been ignored by the west, so you won't find many western sources on the topic. Speaking of 325, that's the year Ethiopia adopted Christianity as its state religion, the second nation in the world to do that, after Armenia. 64.149.82.6 (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Then let's find some good, verifiable sources that tell us the exciting story about early Christianity outside the Roman Empire. Leadwind (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Irony, of course! But someone familiar (sort of) only with the writers given most publicity by the form of Christianity that at a later stage needed to give little or no attention to the areas where Sassanid and later rulers reversed the growth of Christianity is really myopic when all he sees of early Christianity and its leaders and writers is limited to the Roman Empire. Lima (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not irony. There have got to be some verifiable sources out there. We could do a whole section on Early Christian communities outside the Roman Empire. Leadwind (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this may come as a shock, but there are large patches of the globe that do not publish in English. 64.149.82.159 (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Encylopedia Iranica: Christianity 75.0.11.67 (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's great to see all this good, referenced material on Christianity outside the Roman Empire. There was a section on Georgia that referenced a nonscholarly web site, so I replaced it with corresponding information from Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Leadwind (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Leadwind you want a source...here is one: "At the beginning of the fourteenth century, besides his own patriarchal metropolis, the following 27 archdioceses, with each metropolitan see subdivided into six to twelve dioceses, stood under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. These were, in hierarchical order: Gondesphapur (Iran), 2; Nisibis (south-eastern Turkey), 3; Prat de Maishan (near Basra), 4;Mosul, 5; Arbela, 6; Kirkus in Bet Garmai (all Iraq), 7; Halwan (including Hamadan, Iran), 8; Jerusalem, 9; Edessa (today's Urfa in southern Turkey), 10; Rew Aedashir in Fars (Iran), 11; Merv in Khorassan (Turkmenistan), 12; Herat (Afghanistan), 13; Qatar, 14; China (present Xian in central China [?]), 15; India, 16, Barda (in Armenia), 17; Damascus, 18; Ray (near Tehran), 19; Tabaristan (northern Iran), 20; Dailam (on the Caspian Sea). 21 Samarqand, 22; Turkistan (nomadic Turkds of Transoxania), 23; Halih (on the Caspian Sea, or Turko-Mongol decendants of the White Huns of Transoxania), 24; Sigistan (Seistan in south-western Afghanistan), 25; Khan Baliq and Alfaliq (today's Beijing and Almalik in norther-western Xinjiang, China), 26; Tangut (the provinces of Gansu and Ningxia and the Ordos region in China), 27; Kahgar and Nawakat (in western Xinjiang and in Kyrgystan). There were additionally the long-estalished metropolis of Artopantene (Iranian Azerbaijan) and possibly, towards the end of the eighth century, a metropolitan see of Tibet" ... "Even if these metropolitan sees were not always occupied, the list dempnstrates the immense geographical expanse of the Church of the East, which greatly exceeded that of the Catholic Church. The 27 metropolitan sees oversaw some 200 dioceses, which contained approximately seven to eight million fatihful. Thus around the tenth to fourteenth centuries between 12 per cent of 16 per cent of the estimated fifty to sixty million Christians were Nestorians. Until the start of the fourteenth century, the Church of the East was the most successful missionary Church in the world, and it began to be surpassed only in the sixteenth century through the conversions, often forced, brought about by the Catholic colonial powers.

from: "The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity" by Christoph Baumer. I.B Tauris & Co Ltd, Copyright Christoph Baumer/Verlag Urachhaus, 2006. pp. 3-7.

I advize u to read the book, it'll open ur eyes at the true Eastern Chirstianity ... not what the West has told you about it (which is next to nothing) Malik Danno (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Leadwind could just talk to the Chaldean also. He could also contact the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and to some degree the Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church

LoveMonkey (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Origin as distinct religion, split from Judaism

This section was a mess. I gave it some structure and a bunch of citations. Leadwind (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Jersualem (old)

Here's the old text from the Jerusalem section, in case anyone wants to salvage it. Leadwind (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“ Under the administration of Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ was arrested and put to death. The Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Divine Saviour have rendered Jerusalem -- which was already glorious -- the most celebrated city in all the world. The enthusiasm with which, after the Day of Pentecost, thousands of Jews declared themselves disciples of Jesus Christ provoked a violent persecution of Christians, in which the deacon Stephen was the first martyr (Acts 6:8-15). ”

According to Galatians 2:9, the "Pillars of the Church": Peter, James the Just and John the Apostle resided there.

The first church historian, Eusebius recorded a list of Bishops of Jerusalem from James the Just to Judas in 135, at the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt, all of them Jewish or literally "of the circumcision". After the revolt, the Romans excluded Jews from Jerusalem, except for the Ninth of Ab.

Jerusalem received special recognition in Canon VII of Nicaea, without yet becoming a metropolitan see:

“ Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Aelia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour. ”

“ It is very hard to determine just what was the “precedence” granted to the Bishop of Aelia, nor is it clear which is the metropolis referred to in the last clause. Most writers, including Hefele, Balsamon, Aristenus and Beveridge consider it to be Cæsarea; while Zonaras thinks Jerusalem to be intended, a view recently adopted and defended by Fuchs; others again suppose it is Antioch that is referred to. ”

Aelia refers to Aelia Capitolina, the name of the Roman colony the emperor Hadrian built on top of the ruins of Jerusalem after the Bar Kokhba revolt.}}

The Gospels

This section needs to include more than just Jesus Seminar accusations that the gospels are anti-semetic in nature. Definitely needs to include an actual history of the writing of the gospels and their significance to the early church, and then maybe some later accusations against them. The disciples were more than just "obtuse" figures, eventually coming to a full revelation of Christ and becoming full-fledged leaders in the early Christian church. It is true that the gospels speak against the Pharisees and Scribes, but this was because of their hypocrisy in keeping outward rules while having evil hearts, not simply because they were Jewish. Jesus himself was a Jew, remember, who came "not to abolish the law but to fulfill it." Kristamaranatha (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please find relevant, reputable sources that relate specifically to the Gospel of Matthew and include them, cited properly. Leadwind (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

K, the section you're referring to is about the gospels as part of the split between Christianity and Judaism. That's why it's all about negative portrayals of the Jews. There's another, much larger section on religious writing, and the gospels (and the rest of the NT) are discussed there. Leadwind (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you clarify the evidence given by the source? I have been unable to fine anything but conjecture from the linked reference. If the cited source honestly believes the Gospels are innately anti-Jewish, they must believe Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (and Jesus, whom they quote), were all suffering from some form of internalized self-Judaic-phobia! I have this terrible habit of rambling in my writings … so, I will begin with my requests (in the next paragraph). I will then go into my long-winded reasoning (you can skip all of that if you understand the reasons for my requests).

I do not know all the rules about wiki-citations, but we are to cite sources as scholarly, I believe we need to verify that such sources are basing their data on facts, not opinion. As such, the paragraph should be changed to indicate that conjecture, not fact, is the basis underlying the cited source (one of the authors of the "Jesus Seminar" papers). In addition, it may be accurate for the paragraph to indicate that first-century followers of other Jewish religions may have INTERPRETED the Gospels as anti-Jewish. It does NOT seem accurate to imply that it is some kind of scholarly fact that the Gospels are innately anti-Jewish in nature or intent. I respectfully request that the paragraph be changed accordingly.

The following is my rambling explanations regarding such viewpoint. I went to the source your reference, which appears to be the self-named "Jesus Seminar" (a controversial group within the scholarly community). Regardless, I checked the source to determine how they arrived at their conclusion that the Gospels are works that portrays Judaism in a negative light. I did not find any historical references cited by the "Jesus Seminar" (the cited link) that justifies such determination. Their conclusions seem to be framed only in conjecture. Therefore, it seems the source itself is based on subjective POV. As such, I am concerned that the paragraph, although using a citation, still falls under a certain point-of-view.

That is why I am asking that the author of the wiki-page consider clarifying the paragraph to indicate the conclusions of the cited source (the evidence that supports the paragraph as contextual fact instead of merely subjective opinion by the source? Otherwise, the Gospels are no more anti-Semitic than the collective works of Mark Twain are anti-American. Just as the story of Huck Finn is full of good and bad characters, so too are the Gospels. The Gospels were written by first-century Jews, in a first-century Semitic culture, filled with good, bad, beautiful, and ugly characters. The cited source goes so far as to paint the figures as one-dimensional (i.e., turning the characters into caricatures). No source claiming to be scholarly should produce a critique that is beneath the work it is claiming to research. When a source cited as "scholarly" claims that the Gospels portray the disciples as "obtuse" and the Jews as negative – such source MUST be substantiated by more than POV conclusions. This is all the more true when the claims result in an accusation that whole races of people and centuries of diverse cultures can trace their divisions to the written Gospels!

Granted, the Gospels are full of stories about the Jews, as well as the neighboring districts, and even the occupying Romans. I call into question a source that concludes that the Gospels reflect "obtuse" disciples. To justify such a blanket statment, a scholarly source must give factual reasons as to why it ignores or devalues the positive examples. In addition to their frailty as "students", the Gospels show the disciples as brave, willing to leave family and friends "to follow Him", and even go on a paired "field trip" to heal and perform miracles in Jesus' name. Bias is demonstrated when a source ignores that Peter walked on the water. Likewise, it is bias when one forgets the fact that he started to sink as he neard the boat. Real scholarship considers both.

The cited source seems to react towards the Gospels as though it were reading an "ink-blot test" (revealing bias) instead of a work deserving equal objectivity as other ancient works. For example, the Torah and the writings of the Prophets are full of stories about good and bad Jews. The "Jesus Seminar" does jump to an unsupported conclusion by calling such works anti-Jewish and claims that that is reason for the division of Judah and Israel. Likewise, the Koran [Qu’ran] has stories about good and bad Moslems. The "Jesus Seminar" does not put forth a groundless opinion that calls the work anti-Islam and claims that that is the reason for disagreement between Shiah and Sunni. Yet, the cited source feels justified in its POV claim that the Gospels are anti-Semitic and that that is the reason for division between the Judaic Christians and the followers of other Judaic religions. It seems the cited source approaches the Gospels as one would an "ink blot test" (i.e., bias is revealed by what one perceives). Bias has no place in scholarship.

I agree that serious divisions took place between the Jewish Christians and the other Jewish religions. I believe you explained this well in the other sections; indicating that it had to do with interpretation, religious differences, and of course politics. This increased as the decades progressed, as the number of Western Gentiles increased, bringing racial and cultural misunderstandings. In addition, In addition, I appreciate that you included the divisions among the various early sects that embraced the Gospels – and that these too were based on interpretative differences.

I do not even discount that some of the First Century Jews may have keyed in on the negative stories more than the positive ones. They were affectected by cultural threats and terrible persecution during the pagan occupation and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. We have seen through the ages how many books, even good ones, can be misused as propaganda and defensiveness. We see it everyday on TV -- how each news channel reports the 2008 election according to their bias, personal agenda, and viewership beliefs and fears. Since oral communication played a somewhat important role in the First Century, a highl level of propagandizing and misinterpreting of the Gospels was quite feasible. It is still being done so today -- hence, our misunderstanding of different denominations. We all have our baggage.

In this case, I believe the cited source (the "Jesus Seminar") read the Gospels with their own set of biased eyeglasses. As such, that does NOT make the Gospels inherent portrayal of the disciples and Jewish community negative. So, I am finally full circle (even a few times around). If you can reference where the source is accurate, please indicate such. That would be super. Otherwise, I respectfully request that the paragraph be updated to indicate that the cited source appears based on POV conjecture, not factual data (i.e., their claim that the Gospels are anti-Jewish in their general tenor and innate structure). In addition, I will appreciate it if you consider including the following equally valid (and possibly more likely) conjecture. Yes, there were actual historical actions and disagreements between the Gentile and Jewish communities, and even the Jewish Christans and other Jewish religions. As such, the role the Gospels may in distancing Christianity from the other Jewish religions was likely due to interpretation and propagandizing. Nevertheless, I have seen no evidence from the cited source that there was any actual innate anti-Jewish authorship.

Tesseract501 12:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict with the use of a invented term by a refuted author's conspiracy theory

The term Proto-orthodox Christianity is not the accepted term for Pre Nicene christianity or any specific group as such. This OR. It also is historically incorrect. As for Bart D. Ehrman he is refuted by evidence. So why are his theories treated with precedence over other historical scholars? [1] Why is this modern term (reflective of a flawed and refuted theory) being used as if it is the speech, established term and rhetoric as the accepted term by the academic community? Why is this being used? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello LoveMonkey, I think your actions are outside of policy. The fact is that it does not fall under original research because at least Ehrman has used it and it is published. I get over 450 hits on Google so obviously more than Ehrman are using this new term to describe a period in history. The relevance of the term is that there was not an "orthodox" position at the time. It was a period of flux where different doctrines were taught with no recognized body identifying for all which one is the correct one. That is one reason the great Councils were so important for orthodoxy because the correct doctrinal positions were identified.

There is a difference between orthodox teachings existed and that those same teachings were acknowledged as "orthodox". What historians are saying is that there was no orthodox position at the time. Are you disputing this history or are you saying something else? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Really so what about other Protestant scholars? Like say Dan Wallace [2] why do there opinions not matter? Can you show me were the term is widely accepted in the academic community and not pop culture? What other scholars use the term? Are they widely accepted or are they refute like Ehrman. I mean did Ehrman's teacher Bruce Metzger use the term? If it is not OR at least it is pure POV. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
There I added POV too. Tell me why only one "scholar" uses it and that scholar is not even accepted outside a small circle in the USA. He most definitely is not accepted at say the University of Rome or the University of Athens Greece. Also there were several councils before Nicene do they not count? Why is this one authors conspiracy theory allowed to permeate an article about the history of such a large thing as Christianity?
LoveMonkey (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not defending Ehrman nor am I advocating using only one reference. I think you will find a wide variety of scholars. What is fact is that there are different scholarly positions available for us to quote. Wallace is a good one, L. Michael White is another. There are secular and religious historians to use and the best of them should be used for this article.

The only reason I think it is not original research is that a Wikipedia editor did not create it. Rather, the editor quotes a valid, reputable source. As an aside, refuted? If by that you mean that others disagree with Ehrman, yes. If you are saying that he is completely discounted by fellow scholars, then an emphatic no! When we use apologists to answer from a religious context we have moved from the scholarly to the religious and when we do that we end conversation for Wikipedia. Does that make sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What makes sense is that the term is part of a conspiracy theory concocted by Ehrman. I have found no scholars that use the term. The term and his theory are not only not widely used and accepted. Ehrman is now refuted.[3] The term is not widely accepted and therefore should not be in the article. For the sake of scholarly discourse and No POV I request that the term be replaced. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am game; what would you suggest we use? Also, are you recommending having a diverse presentation or should we just focus on the mainstream position? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked your reference for Ehrman being refuted; the article never mentioned his name. I am not sure how it refutes Ehrman. If you want to explain I would be interested in hearing, but I am not sure it applies to this article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Do a Google Books search on "proto-orthodox": there are lots of hits, plenty of use by other serious scholars. It is a widely used term. --Rbreen (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok if it is so easy why are you having me prove your point? Again post on this talk page famous scholars that use the term. Lots of hits is not an answer. Name scholars. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tags for article vs. tags for section

LoveMonkey, you tagged the entire article for both OR and POV, but the only thing you have cited is the use of the term proto-Orthodox in the section entitled "Heretical rejection of Judaism". Do you really think the entire article is POV and OR or just the section? If that is the case, please move the tags to the section in question. If not, please give us more to work with so that we can improve the article together. Thanks. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The term is in three different sections of the article. Heretical rejection of Judaism and Gnosticism and Anatolia. That is enough to warranty the tag at the top of the page rather then clutter the article. With section references. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You may want to consider the inline tag, if your concern is not about the neutrality of the whole article, but instead the use of a specific term used 3 times. Try Template:POV-assertion for isntance.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about both. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What concerns do you have regarding the POV of the whole article? It seems like your comments here are just regarding the use of the term "proto-orthodox". If we change that to Ante-Nicene or Post-Apostolic, what remaining POV concerns do you have? This will help us to improve the article (and is required of tagging the article in the first place). Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the lead and the first section. I'm impressed by the neutrality, accuracy, readability and even its successful raising of interest in what is indeed a fascinating subject.

I understand LoveMonkey's concerns, and I'm trying to address them by sourcing some text that might satisfy all editors. But I also feel the tags do not seem to reflect the impression I get from the excellent first two sections and the work that must lie behind them.

At this stage, I won't attempt to interfere further in this disagreement between two editors, both of whom have given abudant evidence in the past to prompt my respect. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Editors pushing POV conspiracy theory rather then biblical scholarship

It seems that wikipedia article are riddled with false and or unscholarly references. From what I understand the proper term for pre Nicene christianity is Anti-Nicene Era . Why are people debating this. Why is a conspiracy theory and not widely accepted (and to the Greek Orthodox down offensive) term being used instead? Is wikipedia about scholarship or is it about fringe? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
1. Why are editors arguing for policy and then not providing sources.
2. Why is the proper term for at least a period in prechristianity that is scholarly not at all in this article?
3. Why are editors of this article not steeped in the very basic and common terms and common understanding of the subject?
4. Why is Proto-orthodox Christianity being used instead? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be much more helpful if you address your tone, and approach the issue in a more productive, less accusatory manner. All you needed to say was I believe the term used by Ehrman, "Proto-orthodox Christianity", is not the most notable, proper term. I propose instead we change those instances of that term to "Anti-Nicene Era". This isn't some big conspiracy, and it isn't helpful to address your fellow editors as such. That said, from a brief google test, the terms "Anti-Nicene Era" "Anti-Nicene Age" and "Anti-Nicene Christianity" all get significantly lower google hits than "Proto-orthodox Christianity". "Post-Apostolic Christianity"/"Post-Apostolic Church" seems to be the most common term (outside of "Early Christianity", which by far is the most common phrase), and if we are to change the instances in this article, I would propose using some form of "Post-Apostolic". Anti-Nicene more specifically refers to the writings of the Church Fathers in that same time period. I agree that the term "proto-orthodox" is more of a neologism, and not the most common term for the period (though I disagree that it is fringe, nor only used exclusively by Ehrman). Are we forgetting any terms? Is there another option for us to use?-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The most common terms for the period in question are "post-Apostolic" and "ante-Nicene". However, it is commonly accepted that the Christianity of the period was amazingly diverse and difficult to map into clear "family trees". Even the "proto-orthodox" was not a single unified movement, but rather is generally considered to have been a loose-knit collection of various trends that generally agreed on the key points that would come to define 4th and 5th century orthodoxy (Nicene Christianity). Just some thoughts. Vassyana (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you both mean 'Ante-Nicene' instead of 'Anti-Nicene'. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You sir are a goodman. Thank you for caughting that! There is hope after all.

LoveMonkey (talk)
And you as a biased administrator only need make the changes to the article as per requested. As the two editors only need provide sources for the validity of the use of the term. Its not hard. As you Andrew c I have accused and will continue to accuse of being biased toward insisting on using fringe sources as if they are and were as valid as scholarly sources for Christian history. I apologize if I seem abit frustrated but it seems that wikipedia and its policies are being misused. This one sided anti-christian persespective is acceptable to add in the article as long as the other side is added you have consistently be only one sided. Just because you are an administrator does not make it so you are above criticism. You are biased and you undermine the intergrity and scholarly validity of articles on wikipedia that you edited. You misuse policy as I have shown in past. The fact that you are the administrator to respond shows just how incompetent this article is. If people are sandbagging that is frustrating and in bad faith. Thank you for addressing me and my tone and not addressing the sandbagging. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Please reconsider your approach and tone. Editors are expected to be respectful and avoid flinging accusations at other editors. That said, Andrew is one of the most even-handed people I've encountered and I doubt he's advocating any extremist position. Please assume editors in good standing are working towards positive goals. You will certainly receive much better responses if you cease making unfounded accusations and instead raise your concerns in a rational & polite fashion. Vassyana (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Again more hypocracy and nonsense. I point out an instance of something wrong and have to argue to even get it addressed and here are people being pedantic and snipping at my "tone". Wikipedia is broken when this is what transpires when an editor tries to point out a fallacy and then gets ignored. I have not engaged in an edit war now have I? And I have shown where your opinion of Andrew c is wrong. And you are assuming. He and I have a history. As does his attempt to misrepresent what biblical Scholar Charles Hill stated. All your words will not change that for him, you or wikipedia. The intergrity of the articles and content are more important then community cohesion. If wikipedia has no valdity it will be because genuine people got ran off due to pedantic interpretation of policy. By people who held fringe and cult opinion that are largerly refuted. That is bigger then you and me.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, I asked you above what do you propose as language and you have offered none. However, you are getting just a tad bit sanctimonious. I have said once and I will say again, I am not defending Ehrman or his position. You have asked for other historians who use the term, consider some of the following:

Gerd Theissen’s A Theory of Primitive Christian Religion

Raymond E. Brown’s The Churches The Apostles Left Behind

Gerd Ludemann’s[4] Primitive Christianity: A Survey of Recent Studies and Some New Proposals

I will also remind that I already provided another reference above; please do no recreate history and say no one is answering your questions. If you would like more they can be supplied, but I think it unnecessary. Do you have any sources that state that proto-Christianity is not an acceptable term? Do you have any references for stating that there are better terms that should be used as recognized by scholars? Do you have any references for anything you are saying? I have worked with you in the past and I have never seen this type of belligerence and desire to argue. NO ONE is arguing but you. Just give us something to work with instead of whining and making allegations of some ridiculous conspiracy. The objective is to write a neutral article about this important subject. No one has reverted your edits; you haven't even proposed any. Being a rebel without a cause is not productive here. Further. I will warn you that saying that scholars who conflict with your POV are not scholarly is not helpful. Everyone used is a scholar and respected in their field. Having a preacher defend the faith is not a refutation, it is an apology for the faith. Do not confuse the two. All of us, I think, editing here are Christians and are seeking the right tone. I have done little, if any editing, on this article in the past. I actually don't recall a specific edit, but I know that I have been watching it for some time. Get off the high horse and let's work together. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did you provide the proper term? No- where what proposel have you made for the time period in question being called as it is called in the acdemic world? No where. Using a conspiracy theory and it term is reinventing history. Arguing with me now that it is exposed to be invaldi and now providing me with two sources it beyond late. Again I apologize if my tone expresses my frustration, but your conduct did nothing to fix but instead was santimous in justifing the term and situation. I am doing this rather then play the edit war game which this unimformed group on this article is used to playing. YOU ARE WRONG. The article is wrong please stop making excuses and justify unethical behaviour and fix it. Please pretty please with money on top. Instead of sandbagging and frustrating and lots of pomp and excuses. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I knew it was a little early in the morning. Anti vs. Ante. Forgive my earlier post. Appears "Ante-Nicene Christianity" is quite common, and I would not oppose the use of that term in lieu of "Proto-Orthodox" ("Post-Apostolic" would work for me as well). Is anyone arguing that proto-orthodox is a superior term? We shouldn't go on and on defending the term if no one wants to use it in the first place (and if we all recognize that it isn't the most common term, and if we all want to work to compromise in order to address LM's conerns). -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly argue for the retention of the term "proto-orthodox". These terms are not interchangeable - "proto-orthodox" specifically draws attention to the idea that what was to become the orthodox, mainstream Christian belief was one of several competing strains in early Christianity; since history tends to be written by the winners, there has traditionally been an assumption that the orthodox view was always the majority view and others have naturally tended to be sidelined. There is certainly a trend in modern scholarship which argues that this was not necessarily the case, or is at least an oversimplification - hence the use of the term. I believe this is still a matter of some controversy, and have no objection to other views being shown and other terms being included; but simply to remove a valid expression because one editor objects to it would seriously undermine the quality of the article.--Rbreen (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Love Monkey, I wonder why you feel the term is offensive to Greek Orthodox - it is not intended to be; the expression "proto-orthodox" refers to what was to become orthodox Christian belief in the period well before the Roman and Greek churches split - "orthodox" here is used in a different sense than "Orthodox" in the Greek or Russian Orthodox sense. --Rbreen (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your points are misinformed to say the least. I kindly refer to you to Alastair Haines comments. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Love Monkey asked if I could help out here. Rather nicely he asked me what he was doing wrong.

Actually, you have all pretty much told him already, but because he doesn't see you hearing him, and he's right, he doesn't hear you.

What others are pointing out to you Love Monkey is that you specifically accused Andrew of being biased. I recommend you strikeout those words because: 1. I don't think you really mean them, and 2. if you do mean them, they are very serious and should be dealt with appropriately.

The reality is we are all ignorant of so many things. Why are we not steeped in the usual academic terminology? Because most of us are not professional accademics.

But I'll tell you one thing I love about Wikipedia, it is full of amateur academics. And that is the most wonderfully beautiful thing! Amo amas amat, ti amo, amateur is your name Love Monkey. Editors that last at Wiki are people who love academic work. They research information from books and share it with other people for free.

And, this is the big thing, we don't even get credit for what we do!

I know you well enough to know that you are a gentleman as well as a scholar. The two things go together. Gentlemen do not call one another biased unless there is serious evidence that this is true, and that people are being deliberately misled.

Remember, we are all ignorant and sadly mislead people because we only write up the part of the picture we understand ourselves. It takes all of us together sharing what we read to build up the whole picture. It's the parable of the blind men and an elephant.

But my final comment is to side with you absolutely, Love Monkey. "Proto-orthodox Christianity" is an interesting term, it betrays two significant POVs: 1. a theory of evolution of Christian doctrine and 2. a theory of orthodoxy dependent on political processes. It's a term that sounds suitably neutral and academic, but it is contrary to Christianity itself.

There is no time for me to address this in detail here, but you are profoundly correct Love Monkey. There are many academics who specifically reject Christianity and cast their historical analysis in particular ways to "deconstruct" it. Now, the point is that it's absolutely fine for them to do that, and it's mandatory that Wiki articulate such detailed and responsible criticism. What's not OK is to present it as a neutral or objective POV. It is not.

Wiki is duty bound to the neutral POV, which means including all notable POV. The good news for you Love Monkey is that the Christian POV regarding Christianity is obviously always notable and so cannot be censored. But the responsibility falls on Christians to provide reliable Christian sources.

Regarding the specific question at hand, it is one of terminology. Ante-Nicene is a simple, neutral, established period—before the council. Proto-orthodox is a neologism, subtly associated with complex social, political and literary theories. It multiplies complexity and uncertainty. The main reason to adopt AN rather than PO is for ease of reader understanding, but also historical consistency and neutrality.

Alledging bias and conspiracy is not the way to motivate people to think kindly about a reasonable suggestion.

Hope I've helped. Sorry if I haven't. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Alastair as you are now a victim of the corruption of wiki policies let me state you are not alone. Thank you for your help. I really wish I could be nice and people would not argue and would listen and inform themselves and not go into policy arbitration/sandbagging and the lot, but would collaborate instead. I mean I pointed out that in the academic world the term is synomious with a conspiracy theory and the whole point is ignored and the fallacy is defended. Good luck on your struggle with the 3rr nonsense and thanks again. God Bless LoveMonkey (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, I hope you stay around to assist with the article. I am not going to play the game that there is a sinister plot about in the world as reported ad nauseum by LoveMonkey. I am willing to cooperatively assist in improving the article.

LoveMonkey, do you have any edits to propose for the article? If you do, please let's see them so that we can move on. If not, I don't see any reason to continue this thread. I have provided multiple references to support the use of the term disputed by multiple scholars. I am more than happy to add additional terms so that we have an NPOV article. I am not willing to delete functional terms simply because you do not like them or you disagree with them. It may even be worth having a section exploring the terms used and the hidden agendas behind the terms. I think you will find that all historians have their own POV and none are "neutral". --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WOW Alastair states the term's wrong and you just say thanks and that you are going to keep it anyway. Again I suggest the correct term for the time period in Christian history as it is used in the acedemic world Ante-Nicene. I can only suggest, as I have all along. And to suggest that NPOV is a no no because two wrongs make a right goes to show just how impossible wikipedia has become. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is like pulling teeth, but now that you opened the door, let's discuss the article from broader level. One section title is Heretical Christians; heretical to who? The Bishop of Rome, who is said to have excommunicated Marcion does not represent "all of Christianity". Should we be using terms at this point such as "heretic" or "heretical". Doing so assumes the orthodox position wholesale and as if it was fact. If we use the terms, then let's be clear who is calling whom a heretic rather than just flatly putting Wikipedia in the position of taking the orthodox position as "the" position. Does this make sense? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Misinformed bias anyone? Nonsense. That is not the general consensus and for you to post such an opinion shows your bias. The church did not invent heretics any more then your oversimplication of history reflects it correctly (which it does not). By your logic the Pope invented heretics. Of course there are minuth. The words do not mean what you want them to mean. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation Storm, I think I will stay around. The topic interests me, there's more to learn here than a life-time of study could satisfy.

Love Monkey, brother, I didn't say the term was wrong, just that personally I'm on the same side as you as recognising it as kind-of non-Christian terminology.

I defend the value of the term "proto-orthodox" because it does address interesting and important questions from a genuine, responsible point of view. I love people, even when they're wrong, because that's me most of the time! I defend the value of ante-Nicene because it's simple, well suited to simple minded readers like myself. But I'm also willing to admit I have a Christian perspective, mainly because it helps people know I might be able to find Christian sources, not because I'm "declaring a bias". As you say, Storm, it's human to have opinions. The suspicion comes in when people insist that they don't, and claim superior authority because of it. No such luck. Bias is not in holding opinions, it lies in favouring opinions. It is particularly nasty when hiding such favouritism.

Anyway, I haven't checked the page for any conspirators. I'll assume we're all normal people here, most with more curiosity than knowledge. Also, I've got to say, if there's one group of people I might possibly like even more than fellow Christians, it is non-Christians with a genuine interest in Christianity. Bring 'em on! I have learned a lot when I've not been able to answer questions people ask me about my own tradition and faith. Serious non-Christian scholars do often provide excellent, reliable material that benefits everyone, including Christians too.

I have to go to bed now, but my project for tomorrow is to research this terminology question and draft a short section regarding it. I'll also try to draft a proposal for the regular editors here. Perhaps some questions, perhaps a suggestion. Let's see if that helps break a deadlock and takes some pressure off damaged relationships.

I just realised how many people I like are already working on this page. Please don't hurt one another while I'm sleeping here in Australia. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "Ante-Nicene" is that it generally includes those deemed heretics at Nicaea. A term is needed to describe the pre-Nicene Christians who were in compliance with Nicene doctrine. Nicene doctrine is the basis of Orthodoxy (which includes Roman Catholicism, not just the Orthodox Church). "Proto-Orthodoxy" would seem to be the natural description, what term would you propose instead for the Ante-Nicene Christians who were in compliance with later Nicene (Orthodox) doctrine? 75.14.214.145 (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Logical fallacy. Stick to the article which is pre-Nicene. Your question distracts from the subject of this article which is pre-nicene christianity by its own introduction. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already changed the term, but we can change it again when a consensus is reached. I came into this cold because I saw LoveMonkey raise the issue. It is of interest to me and I responded. I am not aware of having an agenda, but I know that I have a POV. My change to ante-Nicene is only to demonstrate that it is not a significant issue to me, though I prefer proto-Orthodox Christianity. I was completely unaware that some Christian groups have determined that this useage signifies some dark cabal out to destroy Christianity; as I Christian this is alarming. To me proto-othodoxydescribes the time period prior to the formulation of the Nicene Creed and a period where there is an acknowledged orthodoxy. It reflects a period where there were different, competing forms of Christianity in which what became known as orthdooxy strove for dominance. If we want this to devolve into name calling and displaying how stupid the other is, I will bow out now and wait for a better quality of interaction. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaced terms

I have replaced the terms proto-orthodox Christians with ante-Nicene Christianity. I personally don't have a significant problem with either term; they both have short-comings. However, LoveMonkey feels this is better wording and rather than belabor the point further by gaining a demonstrated, referenced reason for the change, I moved forward and changed it. Thoughts anyone? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your aggressive edit. Consensus should be reached first, before unilaterally editing. 75.14.214.145 (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Consensus can not be used to justify POV. Your the one moving unilaterally against policy. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please respect the consensus process. For example, Origen is generally considered an "Ante-Nicene Christian", even an "Ante-Nicene Father", yet some of his views were specifically declared heretical by Justinian and one of the ecumenical councils (which one I don't recall at the moment). 75.14.214.145 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not justify POV anymore then it justifies unsourced data. As for your example. Pre nicene council. Why are you bringing in more data about events after the Nicene council? Which happened in the period after this article is written for? Origen was not the subject of this council.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Because, if you would care to listen, it is directly relevant to the issue you are raising. The issue is what to call the pre-Nicene Christians who were in compliance with Orthodoxy (as defined later). Prime example is Origen, widely considered an "Ante-Nicene Father", yet some of his views were specifically later declared heretical by Orthodoxy. 75.14.214.145 (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Another example is Polycrates of Ephesus. Quartodecimanism was declared heretical at Nicaea. 75.14.214.145 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, we already have Heretical Christians, those deemed to be heretical by later Orthodoxy. What term do we use for non-heretical Christians? Proto-Orthodox would seem to be the natural term, what other terms are suggested? "Ante-Nicene" is too broad, it generally includes the heretics. 75.14.214.145 (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Anonymous (or Miss/Ms/Mrs), please consider registering (or logging in), you obviously have knowledge to contribute, appreciation of the issues and understanding of Wiki processes. The problem I have with your nice idea is that it suggests orthodoxy is defined in terms of Nicaea. I'm not sure that's even what Nicaea would say. Nicaea attempted to establish orthodoxy on the basis of the New Testament, not on its own authority.

It's fine to object that this is only one reading of Nicaea, fits with some Christian views more than others, and might be shared by some but not all non-Christian analysis of that council; but the point is, a simple, natural and widely held view is that even during the time of the composition of the New Testament, Peter and Paul disagreed over orthopraxis, and "sound doctrine" was often the issue in letters to churches. Orthodoxy and heresy, whatever we call them were regular issues right from the word go. Isn't that the case with all movements? Is John McCain an orthodox republican or a maverick?

Perhaps proto-orthodoxy is nice and vague, Nicaea doesn't need to be the defining point, but vagueness has drawbacks too.

Finally, since this article limits the historical period very nicely, we only really need simple generic terms for heretics and non-heretics (perhaps further nuanced if the views of contemporaries differ with modern views of what is orthodox).

I'm not sure this debate about terminology is really that big a deal, Mr Anonymous rightly notes that the two terms are not synonymous. Ante-Nicene is more inclusive than proto-orthodox.

Perhaps Storm was too quick to remove the references, but I admire him doing so. Mr Anonymous does seem to have been quick to replace the references. Thankfully, it doesn't matter much, we're talking and Storm's work can be returned if we can all agree. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Proto-orthodox

A very quick search confirms the Wiki page on Proto-orthodox Christianity, that this is originally Bart Ehrman's term.

• "And these adjustments were made not by those who were to be labelled as heretics, but by the 'proto-orthodox', to use Ehrman's term." — J. K. Elliott, "Review of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman", Novum Testamentum 36 (1994): 405–406.
• 'Despite his concern to be even-handed, it becomes clear that Ehrman has no great sympathy for the "proto-orthodox" party' — John P. Meier, "Review of The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart D. Ehrman", Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997): 738–740.

I blush to admit I did not read Ehrman during my undergraduate study. So I've been in the dark. He wasn't quoted at all at my college (that I recall) for reasons I completely understand.

It is evident that several people have picked up his term, but it is definitely not generic. It specifically describes a hypothetical group according to a theory that the earliest Christian communities had doctrinally divergent sub-groups, which a 21st century scholar could not objectively classify according to theological purity.

As we noted above, it presumes orthodoxy is retrospectively determined and, knowing a little of Bart, deliberately avoids engaging with the New Testament as an objective measure of orthodoxy, although this is (imo) clearly evident in the writing of early Fathers—they quote what is now scripture as scripture on apostolic rather than canonical authority.

I've expressed my own ignorant reservations first; but to give due credit to Bart, he is proposing a plausible reconstruction of early Christian history, where the documentary evidence for its details has, as the theory goes, largely been destroyed by the proto-orthodox group in their rise to dominance and their selective preservation of both apostolic writings and commentaries on them.

This theory is great! It belongs to Ehrman, it appears to have been published in 1993. I don't believe much of it, but it's almost impossible to prove it false, a handy thing in a theory. We should write this theory clearly into the text of this article, as persuasively as Ehrman himself would make it. We should also source a reliable critic. Books by those citing Ehrman and those criticising him should be added to a Bibliography.

I find it really hard to see how Wiki could refer to non-heretics prior to councils as proto-orthodox without it appearing that Wikipedia is presenting Ehrman's view uncritically, in other words, departing from our NPOV policy.

I thank Love Monkey for alerting us to this. He was right. But brother, please try to be more gentle when you're right. ;) Most of us were simply ignorant, including me! There was no conspiracy here, just like (I believe) there was no conspiracy regarding the New Testament. Despite all my study, you were three steps ahead of me, Love Monkey. I've only studied the New Testament that we have, not the one that we don't.

If no one else is willing to do it, I will research Ehrman's view further, and try to write it up so you'll all believe it! Bart's smarter and knows more than me and I'll learn a lot. But for my next trick, I'll then try to write up a critic who'll make everyone change their minds! Don't tell anyone the same editor wrote these sections. I suspect Mr Anonymous could probably do a better job than me, and would prefer he did it.

Are there any questions, objections, suggestions, volunteers? Alastair Haines (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Alistair, I definitely think you should read more Ehrman - not only because he is a good and thorough scholar but because he obviously reflects a point of view you appear to have been protected from. :)

It's true that Ehrman seems to have introduced the term, but it is now quite widely used; there are over 100 citations on Google Book Search, including prominent scholars such as Larry Hurtado, Richard Burridge and James Dunn. It seems generally to be used without any suggestion that it is particularly controversial.

The value of the term is that it allows a different perspective on events. The traditional history of the Christian church has been written with the unspoken assumption that its doctrines were absolutely clear from the start. A few weirdos came along - Arians, Ebionites, Gnostics, etc - heretics all - and dreamed up their own bizarre variations, and had to be thrown out while the church reiterated its doctrines at Nicea and Chalcedon.

From the strictly historical point of view, that is not a neutral stance, since it reflects a historicist assumption that what happened was inevitable, a judgemental view (characterised by the loaded term 'heretic') that the correct belief prevailed, and a simplistic description of the evolution of spiritual ideas. What Ehrman and others are pointing out is that early Christianity included a highly diverse set of beliefs, most of which are no longer with us, but which vied for power within the early Christian world in an intellectual struggle in which absolutely nobody - including those who won the argument - seems to have been above fiddling with the various texts to fit their position. I don't think he is arguing that any other group could just as likely have prevailed. (I may be wrong about this, I have not checked)

The other point is that, yes, orthodoxy is retrospectively defined - in so far as that, until the great councils of the third and fourth century, there was no precisely defined orthodoxy to differ from. That was the whole point of having councils - to define a hymn sheet in order to get everyone to sing from it. That's not to say that the concepts pinned down at Nicea and Chalcedon did not reflect the common majority assumptions, but until they were articulated technically and formally agreed, this was only a majority position, not an orthodox one.

Is the New Testament really an 'objective measure of orthodoxy'? In that case, why was there any need for a dispute? Many of these debates took place before the canon was established, and everyone argued from their own preferred texts, so that wasn't much help. Even where they shared the same texts, they differed in their intepretations of them. If, say, the doctrine of the Trinity was clear, why were Nicea and Chalcedon necessary? Even if it's a concept that is incipient in the NT, it still needed to be articulated and expressed - and discussed, even down to the last iota.

This is hardly a revolutionary concept in modern NT studies, and the phrase "proto-orthodox" is perfectly valid beyond Ehrman's specific use of it; it's not just his private phrase; aside from his usage it is entirely neutral, certainly more so than the preconceptions packed into the phrase "Ante-Nicene". With all due respect Alistair, if this is unfamiliar to you, perhaps you need to read more widely in the sort of books your college kept you from. Time to ask for the key to the Locked Cabinet, I think. ;)

I appreciate what you're saying, however I can assure you that more time is spent at seminaries studying "heretics" than studying "pure" authors. There are many reasons for that. Part of the reason Ehrman was not on the menu is because there are far more substantial challenges to Christian interpretation of the New Testament and of historical evidence. James Dunn and others are considered to be much more likely to pose challenges that may, in fact, prove to be improved readings of the Bible. The main business of seminaries is accurate understanding of existing documents, not hypotheses explaining the non-existance of others. But I'll leave the arguments against Ehrman to reliable sources, and start by reading Ehrman and summarising his strongest case.

PS The cabinet is not locked, even to you! :) (I got 24 hits on Ehrman, Bart as author.)Alastair Haines (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Alastair is trying to express the conservative Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. If you assume "sola scriptura", then the New Testament as we have it today must define all necessary Christian doctrine and therefore one could classify early Christians as to whether or not they were compliant with the modern New Testament or with modern conservative Protestant doctrine. I suppose you would call this class the "Proto-Protestants" or "Proto-sola-scriptura". In any case, Alastair's view (referenced of course) certainly should be included in this article, but it shouldn't exclude other views (namely the Catholic and Orthodox views which reject "sola scriptura"; and historical views). Proto-orthodox Christianity is a well referenced term, to exclude it is censorship. But somehow a referenced "sola scriptura" argument should be included also. Some of this, or perhaps all, is addressed, or could be addressed in the section on Restorationism or Christian Reconstructionism, i.e. the notion that the New Testament as we have it today represents the pure form of Christianity.75.0.9.217 (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See also Restorationism#Restorationist dates for the Great Apostasy: "Justin Martyr in about 160 AD had specifically defended the first day assembly, and so is considered an apostate to Sabbatarians." I know wikipedia articles are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources but this gives you an idea of what I am talking about.75.0.9.217 (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Sola scriptura assumes we have access to a reliable copy of scripture. In practice what we have is 30,000 copies in various languages from various time periods. For more than two hundred years these copies have been compared with one another, and modern copies of the Greek New Testament provide very extensive notes regarding the differences at each point in the text. These differences are actually quite minor (in most people's opinion), but have only been available in the Greek texts.

The good news is that all will soon be exposed and the cabinet unlocked! A new translation of the New Testament, including a textual apparatus translated into English is on its way, and should be published before the end of the year. </advertisment>

Anyway, I look forward to serving the community here by providing both the best summary I can of Ehrman's argument, and the best criticisms I can find. If there's any gaps in the criticism, I promise I won't try to publish that original research here, I'll publish it for real. Then you can quote me, OK. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, there is a translation of the Greek NT, called The Unvarnished New Testament by Andy Gaus that claims to be "as though 2,000 years of Christian history had not occured." There is also the Jesus Seminar's Complete Gospels.75.15.195.168 (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, details of this issue should go in the Proto-orthodox Christianity article with just a summary in this article. 75.15.195.168 (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

D Wallace

Dan Wallace called Ehrmans postion a conspiracy.

[Wallace] said that such rhetoric comes dangerously close to saying that New

Testament copying was like the telephone game. He then proceeded to show six ways in which the telephone game is not at all like New Testament copying practices. I think it’s fair to say that this evidence alone should have retired Ehrman’s non-nuanced quip, but Ehrman continued saying it for the duration of the conference! http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2008/04/apologists-mind-komoszewskis-report.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.109.147 (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the most provocative part of Wallace’s lecture was his comparison of

what Ehrman claimed was true about New Testament transmission with the transmission of sacred texts in another religion: Islam. Wallace gave three basic points that showed that what Ehrman wanted to see in New Testament manuscripts simply wasn’t there—specifically, an early, controlled text in which the earlier manuscripts were destroyed. Wallace noted that, “You can’t have wild copying by untrained scribes and a proto-orthodox conspiracy simultaneously producing the same variants. Conspiracy implies control and wild copying is anything but controlled.” As far as I was concerned, this was the silver bullet that ripped a hole through Ehrman’s entire thesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.109.147 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Something is not correct here and I see a mis-characterization of Ehrman. I am not a professional, but I have read several of Ehrman's books. All Ehrman has proved is that the text we know today as the Bible did not arrive directly from God's mouth. It is not inerrant in the sense that it is a product where several acknowledged schools translated the text among many individuals who were copying in the earliest days. As someone has mentioned earlier we have thousands of pieces of manuscripts (from very small pieces to full texts of individual books); some of the earliest demonstrate that the copyist/translator was not learned. What we know as the Bible today is the product of men and, some would say, insignificant parts of the text are the result not of the original, but interjections, additions, deletions, made by scribes.

I do not recall reading the Ehrman postulates that current biblical texts were destroyed. He has said that the orthodoxy of today and the lack of information is the result of stamping out heretics and their writings. This is not novel, but fact.

The bottom line is that Ehrman is a textual critic that lost his faith. This loss of faith and the early history of the Christianity focus of his studies is threatening to the tidy picture of orthodoxy we all know. His work is not threatening, but is one that should be read. It is not the gospel and should not be read as such. He is a scholarly man with a POV; nothing more and nothing less. Further, there is not "silver bullet" that destroys his work; there is apologetics that may strive to dress up up history to sound non-threatening, but that is not history...it is religion.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

An internet blog is not a Wikipedia:Reliable source. 75.15.195.168 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Physicists agree that gravity waves have not been proven. They should exist if Einstein's theories are correct. It is not deemed "proven" until these are actually detected.

Science progresses by hypotheses. History and literary criticism often approximate this process very closely. Ehrman has provided a hypothesis, he has not proven it. Wallace has provided a counter-argument, he has not refuted (proved false) Ehrman's thesis.

What is on blogs is in the literature. We should be sourcing both views from reliable sources, not trying to insist or suppress either. Wiki is totally fair. It actually allows us all to disagree with one another and yet provide a reader with an excellent resource for choosing her own side.

Friends, keep going into bat for either side and sourcing those views, but can we let one another both adduce our champions? Wiki editing is not about getting votes from a random group of passers by. It is about interested people offering the countours of published debate for a reader's inspection. All hail the reader! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

ante-Nicene Christians

Would the anonymous editor from 68.191.109.147 please explain what he means by "ante-Nicene". To me the prefix "ante", as in "antediluvian", means "before". So "ante-Nicene" would mean "before the (First) Council of Nicaea", and so "earlier than 325". In that case, "Other early Christians, who have been labeled as heretics by ante-Nicene Christians" means that the people who called them heretics included themselves! That, at least, is how I understand "ante-Nicene". Lima (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revert it, obviously the issue of whether Proto-orthodox Christianity should be censored from this article is still under discussion. Perhaps we should vote on it? Seems to me some people have stirred up a notion on internet blogs that Bart D. Ehrman is some sort of Antichrist and therefore the pious should go out and attempt to erase anything to do with Ehrman that they can find. 75.15.195.168 (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Should the term Proto-orthodox Christianity be censored from this article?

no. 75.15.195.168 (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, definitely not.

Should it be adopted as the NPOV terminology for early Christians (other than those known as heretics)? Also no.

What is this article addressing? Christianity before Nicaea.

What does ante-Nicene imply? Before Nicaea, self-professed Christian.

Are these inclusive of "heretics"? Yes, hence NPOV. Wiki cannot presume to determine what is or is not orthodox or heretical.

Does ante-Nicene suit the article? Looks perfect to me, and it's the best known, longest standing, neutral term.

Is Ehrman's theory of a hypothetical "proto-orthodox" community relevant to the article? Of course.

I'll do my best to write something up on this ASAP, but I do have other priorities.

To allay any suspicion from the pro-Ehrman camp here. While I'm not uncritical, I think a lot of what Ehrman appears to be suggesting is almost saying the same thing others have said but in different words, with a different "spin" if you like. It is absolutely uncontroversial, for example, that Gnostic books were deemed heretical and destroyed. Enough of Gnosticism has survived regardless, that we can reconstuct some forms of it, and its divergence from the books we know as the New Testament is clear.

Ehrman's great value is that he appears to be willing to admit Gnostic texts as part of a wider corpus of early Jesus traditions. Who's to say which of these are superior to others? Well, those we know as Christians, early and 21st century have a clear opinion; but Ehrman explores the possibility that the basis of selecting the "authentic" Jesus tradition was more or less forcefully imposed over a period in early times, obscuring the evidence for later analysts. Most modern historians of Christianity, Christian or otherwise, hence fall for an assumption that all the evidence we have is all the evidence there was, and inadvertantly "fall in line" behind the "proto-orthodox" definition of the boundaries of scripture and orthodoxy.

Ehrman seeks to do the hard work of using what little traces remain of the supressed (in his view) forms of Christianity in order to recover a broader and more accurate picture of those early times. His theory hasn't "swept the suburbs", but it has found significant scholastic support.

What we have is two differing interpretations of evidence (and of absent evidence). Both are possible. Which is more probable? Let the reader decide.

Most of the information re Ehrman probably needs to be at his article and at book reviews of his work. It absolutely needs reporting at Wiki, and some coverage here. Until, however, it becomes the "dominant" paradigm of early Christian studies in all traditions, it cannot be assumed as an uncontroversial consensus, which adoption of Ehrman's term "proto-orthodox" would suggest.

Tell me where I'm wrong. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say you are "wrong", however there are some fine details, for example the term "proto-orthodox" has been adopted by scholars as simply a term for the pre-Nicenes who were in compliance with later Orthodoxy. The use of the term does not assume the additional claims being made by Ehrman. Also, for those pursuing the "sola scriptura" angle, the gospels themselves did not preclude the heretics: "So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew’s Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book." —Irenaeus "Against Heresies" 3.11.7 Irenaeus claims that the heretics can be refuted by the Gospels, but a claim or an argument does not equal proof, especially when one examines in detail the sort of arguments being made. Elsewhere Ireneaus claims that all heresy was derived from Simon Magus, a claim that seems doubtful to the modern historian. 68.123.64.223 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Good comments and great quote. The distinction between scripture and other writing is not simply about excluding "heretics", it permits "orthodox" Christians to disagree with one another. The same concept goes for history generally and even at Wiki. Modern historians can disagree with one another, a historical source says what it says though (de dicto), irrespective of how it is interpreted (de re). Many things are uncontroversial, some will always be controversial. American civil war documents would be a simple example: some things are clear, others aren't. At Wiki, editors can interpret sources differently, but the sources are the objective reality. Wiki, historians and orthodox Christians have constraints on their intepretations, the reality is that not all sources are equal, people will disagree somewhat about the relative merits of various sources.

I agree with you that Ehrman's thesis regarding proto-orthodoxy is not fatal for Christianity even were it true, and that in many respects it is totally consistent with established views re Gnostics and so on, supported by the most orthodox of orthodox scholars. Our issue is more that many people could associate the term with Ehrman's views, obviously Love Monkey did. Had no one ever used the term, I'd not feel concerned about Wiki adopting it. Especially if people wrongly thought ante-Nicene to be a term loaded towards orthodoxy. We could compromise with them and invent our own neutral word. That's precisely what happens in scholarship normally, isn't it? :) But in this case, people are opposing two terms that are indeed in the literature, and one is more recent and so more strongly associated with a particular stream of thought in the literature.

Perhaps we can dodge "trigger words" in various places. We can define both the published technical names, that's important. However, if people want to censor ante-Nicene, why not let them (other than a brief mention of it still being the dominant scholastic term). We can use more user-friendly English, "early Christians/believers", "young/nascent church". Can we dodge the conflict, without censoring and taking sides?

Although I'm open to something like this, I'd be interested to hear from people who want to say ante-Nicene is necessary for whatever general or compelling reasons. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Stating that one term is the dominant scholastic term is acceptable if it is accompanied by a reference stating so. If not, I see no reason to provide a concise statement about terms and their usage. It may be helpful to provide a reputable reference as to why some terms have loaded meanings to some people. As I have said, I think the most neutral term is proto-orthodox, but ante-Nicene is very acceptable to me. This seems to have been similar to the proverbial making a mountain out of a mole hill. However, if it actually caused some to read the works of other historians then it would not have been a waste.

As an aside, when discussing things like this it is inappropriate to assume that individual editors are "pro-Ehrman" and the opposite. I would not consider myself as such, but my participation in the conversation puts me in the place of having to defend him. My main issue is being neutral and being historically accurate. Painting in broad brush strokes...some feel the Catholic Church came fully formed from Peter down to the present day. Granted it is not a learned position, but rather one that is easily derived from teaching of the orthodox message. Conversely, Ehrman and other historians draw a focus on the diversity of Christianity during the first 300 years; that orthodoxy was something that grew into itself and was not formed from the first century forward. Thus, "proto" in the sense that what came to be known as orthodox was only identified after some 300 years. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Google scholar gives 308 hits for proto-orthodox and 3,670 for ante-Nicene. That's a lot less than I would have thought for ante-Nicene, but still more than ten to one. We do have a source that states proto-orthodox was coined by Ehrman, I think in 1993.

I don't think there's any need to make an issue of this. We don't have to tell readers which is dominant, we just need to avoid using words that might carry more connotations than we'd like. Consider the following comment.

The terms 'orthodox' and 'proto-orthodox' are placed in inverted commas to acknowledge that in the first half of the second century they are anachronistic and are an artificial attempt to portray the theological positions of later Nicene and Chalcedonian formulations of Christianity as ancient truths from which schismatics and heretics deviated. [Paul Foster, "The epistles of Ignatius and the writings that later formed the New Testament", in Andrew F. Gregory, Christopher Mark Tuckett (eds), The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, (OUP, 2005), p. 159 n4.]

Alastair Haines (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you are comparing apples to oranges. "Ante-Nicene" refers to anything and anybody before the First Council of Nicaea. "Proto-orthodox" refers to those Ante-Nicene Christians who were later judged to be "orthodox" by the standards of Nicea and to a lesser extent by the standards of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils. The First Seven Councils are the benchmark of orthodoxy for Orthodox Christians, and also for Roman Catholicism though to a lesser extent given the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (see also Filioque). Most Protestant Denominations agree with the Nicene creed but the predominant benchmark is Sola scriptura.

From the online compact OED: http://www.askoxford.com/dictionaries/compact_oed/?view=uk

proto-: 1 original; primitive: prototype. 2 first; relating to a precursor: protozoon.

orthodox: 1 conforming with traditional or generally accepted beliefs. 2 conventional; normal. 3 (Orthodox) relating to Orthodox Judaism or the Orthodox Church.

64.149.82.34 (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No drama, just three sentences

It sounds to me like several people are happy to consider alternatives, and we're only talking about three sentences. Let's not vote, that means annoying the losers and encouraging politics rather than team-work. Let's see if we can all agree to accurate text reflecting sources that doesn't offend anyone's sensitivities. Everyone has the right of veto, so we have to listen to one another and win one another to a final choice. If we can't do that, we all lose. Make sense?

Here's what we have, links are to contexts of sentences.

• S1: "Heretical Christians went farther than Proto-orthodox Christianity in distancing themselves from Judaism."
• S2: "While according to some scholars, there are elements appearing to be Gnostic that can be found in early Christian writing, proto-orthodox Christianity labeled Gnosticism a heresy and rejected its dualistic cosmology and its vilification of the material world and the creator of the material."
• S3: "In the 2nd century, Anatolia was home to Quartodecimanism and Montanism, both later declared heretical by Proto-orthodox Christianity."

Here's some suggested alternatives (added during Andrew's post below, which see for better alternatives;).

• A1: Early Christians gradually distanced themselves from Judaism, with some groups making a particular point of doing so.
• A2: Scholars note elements of uncriticised Gnosticism in several early Christian authors, though rejection of its cosmology and theology came to be condemned. The duality of spirit (good) and flesh (evil), led to a tarnished view of spiritual agents responsible for creating the material world, sometimes even the Creator himself.
• A3: In the 2nd century, Anatolia was home to Quartodecimanism and Montanism, both later declared heretical.

Does anyone have other suggestions for how these might be re-written to express the facts, without buying into the issues that have slowed us down? Alastair Haines (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is an idea for sentence one. We loose a little bit of information, but not that much. Why not just get rid of the dichotomy? Something like "Some early Christian groups went further in distancing themselves from Judaism." And then we can go on to describe Marcion and so on. Then for the second sentence, why not instead of describing some monolithic thing which we can't really agree on a term for, instead be more specific and say "some Church Fathers labeled Gnosticism a heresy" or we could go even further to name Irenaeus and others. As for the last sentence, we could similarly be more specific and say who declared those movements heretical. The idea behind these changes is to skirt the issue completely of identifying the monolithic group, but instead more specifically focus on who we have on record doing the criticizing. Just a thought. What do others think?-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'm with you Andrew. Others? Alastair Haines (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I like the idea of actually naming, rather than "some Church Fathers" or in some cases perhaps the actual fathers could be listed in a footnote. 68.123.73.77 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've made the following three changes

1. C1:Some early Christian groups went further than others in distancing themselves from Judaism. [Andrew's version, italics is Alastair's addition.]
2. C2:While there appear to be Gnostic elements in early Christian writing, Irenaeus and others condemned Gnosticism, rejecting its dualistic cosmology and vilification of the material world and the creator of that world.
3. C3:In the 2nd century, Anatolia was home to Quartodecimanism and Montanism, both later declared heretical.

I've also removed the tags at the top of the page, since I believe they were added by Love Monkey due to his concerns about use of P-O in these three sentences.

The last sentence is "hanging" slightly. I've added an inline cite request.

Finally, I downgraded one tag from "re-write" to "clean-up", or upgraded the assessment of the article really. There's too much good in the article to seriously need re-writing from scratch. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

List of New Testament Church Fathers

For a cheap and nasty overview of some of the sources, some of the friends here may want to spend 30 seconds looking at a brief outline of sources I just started at List of New Testament Church Fathers. Cheers friends. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is also List of early Christian writers and List of early Christian texts of disputed authorship which Vassyana spun out of this article. 68.123.73.77 (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Another article that might be of interest: Paleo-orthodoxy. 68.123.73.77 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. There are excellent sources on Christian texts, there are tens of thousands of them documented in resources I have in my own home. The issues are neither new, nor particularly controversial. Some of the books I have are updated editions of books written more than a century ago. We don't keep finding ancient documents sufficiently regularly to need constant alteration. And, of course, the text of ancient manuscripts doesn't change! ;)

But even reconstruction of history surrounding all this is not that controversial. Or, rather, these things have been controversial for so long, that there are few new positions left to take on the issues.

If it's a matter of recording which NT books have ever had disputed authorship, that's an easy list, every one of them! Almost any modern commentary covers the history of that kind of thing in the introduction. I'm not aware of any recent discovery that "proves" Paul wrote any of his letters, but nor am I aware of any "proof" that he didn't. So I can't see an system to Vassyana's good faith list. It neither lists all the NT books that have been challenged (which is all of them), nor does it list the ones accepted by consensus to have misattributed authorship. The Epistle of Hebrews may fit into that class, since for long periods probably a majority thought it from Paul. But that is a different matter indeed to thinking letters with Pauline superscriptions aren't Pauline.

If you took a vote on these questions from contemporary scholars, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox scholars are going to outnumber everyone else very heavily. Christian denominations provide money and fee-paying students to Christian run seminaries and universities to compile, study and teach all these things. Non-Christian governments and private endowments pay for some non-Christian scholarship, but a "head count" of scholars working on Christianity will, unsurprisingly, always be vastly biased in favour of Christianity.

In my experience of it, Christian scholarship itself is not biased, because it is published beyond its own circles and responds to critical comment. Sometimes this is very slow, to be sure. But then, the issues it's dealing with are not ones that actually change themselves.

It is more suspicious when Christian views do change, than when they don't. Historical disciplines are intrinsically more "conservative" than economics, sociology or government, for example.

LoL, the paleo-orthodox sound like a nice bunch, and not so different to other modern Christians really, partly because Ehrman is right about orthodoxy dominating almost from the beginning, as far as we can tell.

But, they don't sound like the bunch for me, I don't want anyone telling me how to read the Bible, I can jolly well do it for myself. Churches answer to me for whether they are in line with what I read in the Bible, not I to them for how I read it. I'll tolerate no "cabinet locking", nor "mind locking" neither!

But that's the point of the whole heresy/orthodoxy thing. What's the final authority? In the end they knocked it down to 27 books. Wow! Exciting times working that out, when books were so expensive, education so rare, and the Roman Empire sometimes went crazy and decided the lions were getting hungry. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)