Jump to content

Talk:History of early Christianity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revert by Mathglot

[edit]

User:Mathglot reverted my addition of sourced info, and my removal of unsourced info, ourdated sources and WP:OR with the following edit-summary:

Undo edits by Joshua Jonathan to last version by FyzixFighter. Massive removal of sourced content without explanation; introduction of original research. Take it to Talk. See WP: BRD.

My reasons for my edits have been explained; see the revision history. Please be so kind to explicate:

  • where there was "Massive removal of sourced content without explanation";
  • where there was "introduction of original research";
  • why sourced info was removed.

See also WP:BRD:

Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one.

Please also be so kind to explain why you consider restructuring and expanding the article not to be an improvement, and why you prefer the previous version of the article. Note that there is an abundancy of articles on the history of early Christianity; see Talk:Christianity#Too many pages on the history of Early Christianity. It's not helpfull for readers, nor is it helpfull for editors who want to improve those pages. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're a week later, and there's no response... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Massive removal of sourced content without explanation"

[edit]

Free will

[edit]

With this edit, I

  • shortened this unsourced infor from

Early Christian beliefs were based on the apostolic preaching (kerygma), considered to be preserved in tradition and in New Testament scripture, for parts of which scholars have posited dates as late as the third century, although it was then attributed to the Apostles themselves and their contemporaries, such as Mark and Luke.

to

Early Christian beliefs were proclaimed in kerygma [preaching), some of which are preserved in New Testament scripture.

Lead

[edit]

This edit moved info from the lead into the article. It also split "baptism" into two sections, namely baptism in the Apostolic Age, and infant baptism, which is about 2nd/3rd century Chrstianity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Jesus

[edit]

This edit shortened info that I'd copied from Historical Jesus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude towards woman

[edit]

This edit removed a resume of Bible texts on woman. We don't interpret primary sources, we provide an overview of reliable secondary sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbath

[edit]

This edit removed unsourced info, and quotes from primary sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread of Christianity

[edit]

This edot removed Edward Gibbon, a source from 1776–1789. Seriously outdated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit removed ubdue and unsourced info; the relevant info is that by 100 AD, tere were ca. 40 Christian communities. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content by Mathglot

[edit]

Mathglot's revert also removed a large amount (c. 20,000 byte) of sourced info, without explanation. This includes:

  • Information on the development of low and high Christology:

Two fundamentally different Christologies developed in the early Church, namely a "low" or adoptionist Christology, and a "high" or "incarnation Christology."[1] The chronology of the development of these early Christologies is a matter of debate within contemporary scholarship.[2][3][4][web 1]

References

  1. ^ Ehrman 2014, p. 125.
  2. ^ Loke 2017.
  3. ^ Ehrman 2014.
  4. ^ Talbert 2011, p. 3-6.
  • Information on the historical Jesus and the quest for the historical Jesus:

Since the 18th century, three scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during each specific phase.[1][2][3] Scholars involved in the third quest for the historical Jesus have constructed a variety of portraits and profiles for Jesus.[4][5][6] There is little scholarly agreement on the portraits, or the methods used in constructing them.[7][8][9][10] The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in the quest for the historical Jesus have often differed from each other, and from the image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[7] These portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change,[4][5] but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it.[7][8][9] There are, however, overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[4][5][11]

Contemporary scholarship, representing the "third quest," places Jesus firmly in the Jewish tradition. Jesus was a Jewish preacher who taught that he was the path to salvation, everlasting life, and the Kingdom of God.[12] A primary criterion used to discern historical details in the "third quest" is that of plausibility, relative to Jesus' Jewish context and to his influence on Christianity. Contemporary scholars of the "third quest" include E. P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Gerd Theissen, Christoph Burchard, and John Dominic Crossan. The most prominent view of Jesus is as an apocalyptic teacher[13] prophesying that the end of the world and the Day of Judgement were imminent in sayings such as, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," (Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:15)[14][15] and "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place"[16] In contrast to the Schweitzerian view, certain North American scholars, such as Burton Mack, advocate for a non-eschatological Jesus, one who is more of a Cynic sage than an apocalyptic preacher.[17]

References

  1. ^ The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. by Ben Witherington III, InterVersity Press, 1997 (second expanded edition), ISBN 0830815449 pp. 9–13
  2. ^ The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter, Westminster John Knox Press 2002) ISBN 0664225373 pp. 1–6
  3. ^ Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell, Westminster John Knox Press 1999) ISBN 0664257038 pp. 19–23
  4. ^ a b c The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 pages 124-125
  5. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference CambHist23 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (Jul 4, 2005) ISBN 0664225284 page 8
  7. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference GerdD5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Charlesworth2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Porter74 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth by Ben Witherington (May 8, 1997) ISBN 0830815449 page 197
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference familiar20 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference TM1998 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBN 978-0195124743.
  14. ^ Matt 3:2
  15. ^ Matt 4:17; Mark 1:15
  16. ^ Matt 24:34
  17. ^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 1. The quest of the historical Jesus. pp. 1–15.
  • Information on Paul:

Paul was in contact with the early Christian community in Jerusalem, led by James the Just.[1] Yet, he may have been converted to another early strand of Christianity, with a High Christology.[2] Fragments of their beliefs in an exalted and deified Jesus, what Mack called the "Christ cult," can be found in the writings of Paul.[1][note 1]

According to Krister Stendahl, the main concern of Paul's writings on Jesus' role, and salvation by faith, is not the individual conscience of human sinners, and their doubts about being chosen by God or not, but the problem of the inclusion of gentile (Greek) Torah observers into God's convenant.[4][5][6][web 2]

References

  1. ^ a b Mack 1997.
  2. ^ Mack 1997, p. 109.
  3. ^ Mack 1988, p. 98.
  4. ^ Stendahl 1963.
  5. ^ Dunn 1982, p. n.49.
  6. ^ Finlan 2001, p. 2.
  • Information on cummunal meals, an important practice in early Christianity:

The Agape feast or Lovefeast is a communal meal shared among Christians.[1]

The Lovefeast originated in the early Church and was a time of fellowship for believers.[2][3] The Eucharist was often a part of the Lovefeast although at some point (probably between the latter part of the 1st century A.D. and 250 A.D.), the two became separate.[4][5][6] Thus, in modern times the Lovefeast refers to a Christian ritual meal distinct from the Lord's Supper.[7] The Lovefeast seeks to strengthen the bonds and the spirit of harmony, goodwill, and congeniality, as well as to forgive past disputes and instead love one another.[8]

The practice of the lovefeast is mentioned in Jude 1:12 of the Christian Bible and was a "common meal of the early church."[9] References to communal meals are discerned in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, in Saint Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Smyrnaeans, where the term "agape" is used, and in a letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan,[10] in which he reported that the Christians, after having met "on a stated day" in the early morning to "address a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity", later in the day would "reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal".[7]

References

  1. ^ Coveney, John (27 September 2006). Food, Morals and Meaning: The Pleasure and Anxiety of Eating. Routledge. p. 74. ISBN 9781134184484.
  2. ^ Coveney, John (27 September 2006). Food, Morals and Meaning: The Pleasure and Anxiety of Eating. Routledge. p. 74. ISBN 9781134184484. For the early Christians, the agape signified the importance of fellowship. It was a ritual to celebrate the joy of eating, pleasure and company.
  3. ^ Burns, Jim (10 July 2012). Uncommon Youth Parties. Gospel Light Publications. p. 37. ISBN 9780830762132. During the days of the Early Church, the believers would all gather together to share what was known as an agape feast, or "love feast." Those who could afford to bring food brought it to the feast and shared it with the other believers.
  4. ^ Walls, Jerry L.; Collins, Kenneth J. (17 October 2010). Roman but Not Catholic: What Remains at Stake 500 Years after the Reformation. Baker Academic. p. 169. ISBN 9781493411740. So strong were the overtones of the Eucharist as a meal of fellowship that in its earliest practice it often took place in concert with the Agape feast. By the latter part of the first century, however, as Andrew McGowan points out, this conjoined communal banquet was separated into "a morning sacramental ritual [and a] prosaic communal supper."
  5. ^ Davies, Horton (29 January 1999). Bread of Life and Cup of Joy: Newer Ecumenical Perspectives on the Eucharist. Wipf & Stock Publishers. p. 18. ISBN 9781579102098. Agape (love feast), which ultimately became separate from the Eucharist...
  6. ^ Daughrity, Dyron (11 August 2016). Roots: Uncovering Why We Do What We Do in Church. ACU Press. p. 77. ISBN 9780891126010. Around AD 250 the lovefeast and Eucharist seem to separate, leaving the Eucharist to develop outside the context of a shared meal.
  7. ^ a b "agape", Dictionary of the Christian Church (article), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Crowther1815 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Stutzman, Paul Fike (1 January 2011). Recovering the Love Feast: Broadening Our Eucharistic Celebrations. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 42. ISBN 9781498273176.
  10. ^ Pliny, To Trajan, vol. Book 10, Letter 97., archived from the original on 30 May 2012 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • Information on the eucharist, one of the two defining practices of early Christianity:

The Eucharist (/ˈjuːkərɪst/; also called Holy Communion or the Lord's Supper, among other names) is a Christian rite that is considered a sacrament in most churches, and as an ordinance in others. According to the New Testament, the rite was instituted by Jesus Christ during the Last Supper; giving his disciples bread and wine during the Passover meal, Jesus commanded his followers to "do this in memory of me" while referring to the bread as "my body" and the cup of wine as "the new covenant in my blood".[1][2][3] Through the Eucharistic celebration Christians remember both Christ's sacrifice of himself on the cross and his commission of the apostles at the Last Supper.[4]

The elements of the Eucharist, sacramental bread (leavened or unleavened) and sacramental wine (or by some grape juice), are consecrated on an altar (or a communion table) and consumed thereafter. Communicants, those who consume the elements, may speak of "receiving the Eucharist", as well as "celebrating the Eucharist".[5] Christians generally recognize a special presence of Christ in this rite, though they differ about exactly how, where, and when Christ is present.[5]

References

  1. ^ Luke 22:20
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference EB was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Ignazio Silone, Bread and Wine (1937).
  4. ^ A Catechism for the use of people called Methodists. Peterborough, England: Methodist Publishing House. 2000. p. 26. ISBN 978-1858521824.
  5. ^ a b "Christianity: Eucharist". BBC. 23 June 2009. Retrieved 22 May 2017.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this page

[edit]

There are several problems with this page:

  • Scope: "This article is a description of early Christianity itself." That's three centuries, in which Christianity changed dramatically, and in which several variant Christianities existed. "Christianity" is not a monlithis entity; it developed within a historical context, which is part of the story of Christianity;
  • History: to short; yet, an undue alinea on "Hellenocentrism";
  • Practices:
  • Nothing on communal meals and the eucharist;
  • Undue section on infant baptism;
  • Undue section on sabbath: most of the Early Church did not consider observation of the Sabbath to be required or of eminent importance to Christians;
  • Organization: redundant with Ecclesiology;
  • Beliefs:
  • Christology: only one sentence about adoptionism, two lines about the debate about "Early High Christology," without mentioning that phrase. Most of this section is an undue exposition from primary texts.
  • Nothing about salvation. Not about 'salvation by faith', and by the differences between early Jewish Christians, and Paul's interpretations. The socalled "New Perspective on Paul" was kind of a revolution in Biblical studies and the understanding of early first century Christianity; it is not treated in this article? Also, nothing on the ransom theory of atonement, which developed in the second century, and was the dominant view for almost a millennium. If salvation by Christ is the essence of Christianity, then why is it not even mentioned in this article?
  • Free will versus determinism: undue for this article;
  • Orthodoxy and heterodoxy: good, but short; nothing specific about those variant Christianities. There was not just 'one' Christianity in those early centuries, but a wide range of variations. Those should be mentioned.
  • Religious writing: one sentence on the New Testament writings is not much. The Gospels give variant interpretations of Jesus and his message; that should be mentioned.
  • Spread of Christianity: that's history, isn't it?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly views on the historical jesus

[edit]

There is disagreement about this section, which has been removed repeatedly:

  • Tahc removal diff, edit-summary This is also not about Early Christianity.
  • JJ reinserion diff edit-summary disagree. Christianity did not simply start with Jesus, but has a background
  • Tahc removal diff edit-summary Current scholarly views are already part of the so-called "New Testament" section.
  • JJ re-insertion diff edit-summary No. The "New Testament" section gives a view froma primary source; the "Scholarly views" sections gives a critical scholarship-view on Jesus

Yes, this section is relevant; we cannot only give the New Testament vision(s) on Jesus; we also give a critical historical vision. And no, this info is not contained in the previous section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called New Testament section is already a mix of the New Testament view and the current scholarly views on the historical Jesus. That is fine, so long as you don't imply that it is all from the New Testament.
The so-called "Scholarly views on the historical Jesus" section is not about the Jesus part of Early Christianity or any "critical historical vision" on Jesus. It is about the modern conferences and discussions from the 18th to 21st century. These discussions are events of the the 18th to 21st century. I don't mind including current conscious views on Jesus himself, but these views-- if you more of them-- can continue to be integrated into main section on Jesus' ministry.
Some Wikipedia articles (such as Moses) have a one section on the "Biblical narrative" and afterward a contrasting section "Historicity". To do that here you would separate out all the current scholarly views form the "Biblical narrative" section. Since so much else as to be part of this articles, and even Ministry of Jesus does not handle it this way, I do not think splitting it up here is called for. tahc chat 20:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Integrating it may be a good idea. But maybe first let Beland finish his job. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The merge is complete, and after that was done I rearranged Christianity in the 1st century#Life and ministry of Jesus. I moved some details about 18th-21st century quests and religious portraits of Jesus to other articles, and left the summary of secular scholarship in the "Historical person" section. Hopefully that makes sense to everyone? If not, it might be best to start a thread on Talk:Christianity in the 1st century since this article will probably be merged away. -- Beland (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great Church v. splitter groups

[edit]

Saying "in contrast to smaller, splitter groups" (vs. "so called by Christian historians because it would later split into smaller churches with different beliefs") is better in many ways. Your test says many thing without citation (and these claims are also not cited in the lead of the Great Church article.) 1. "So called" smacks of bias for no good reason. 2. "later" proposes this term was not used yet. 3. "later" proposes there were not other groups already. 4. "with different beliefs" makes it sound like they each had very different beliefs. A few did, but some had (by modern standards) only very slight beliefs differences. Sometimes splits were about who was the leader.

I think "smaller, splitter groups" is highly grammatical, and the best way to say it-- but if you would rather say "in contrast to smaller groups", I can live with that. tahc chat 16:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was this addressed to me? I don't think "splitter" is even an adjective in English, or a noun that can act as an adjective with the right meaning. Did you mean splinter groups? I was trying to avoid "the so-called Great Church" which implies the name is incorrect in some way, but I guess even this use of "so called" in a more literal sense still has the same connotation. I changed that to "so termed" but then kept reading... The previous sentence is trying to make clear that this was one, dominant strain among others. I was trying to be careful not to imply "Great Church" was the only one or that "Great" means "excellent". From the text in the body of Great Church, it sounds like actually my hastily thrown together explanation is incorrect—it was referred to as the Great Church at the time (starting around 180) as distinguished from the local church, and as a network of churches spread across parts of Eurasia and Africa, with an emerging structure of bishops and a set of somewhat coherent beliefs. It's not because it split later on. I rewrote the text yet again, but I think it probably needs more straightening out. I think the intro here will eventually be merged back up to History of Christianity#Early Christianity, which has lot more breathing room. But I have more research to do on what factions existed so I can refine the explanations about that. -- Beland (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Early Christianity

[edit]
I propose we move this to discussion from Talk:History of early Christianity#Merger with Early Christianity to here.
Rather than deleting Early Christianity completely, maybe we can leave (only) a list of links to the sub-articles. tahc chat 17:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early Christianity in the History of Christianity may be divided into two distinct phases: the apostolic period (1st century), when the first apostles were alive and led the Church, and the Ante-Nicene Period, (c.100–325) when an early episcopal structure developed.
  • Christianity in the 1st century

@Beland, Joshua Jonathan, and Johnbod: What do others think? tahc chat 18:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we direct readers to a list of links when there's a section that gives a prose overview and also includes all the same links? Just landing on a list implies there's no overview available, and you have to pick and choose which subtopic you want to read about. -- Beland (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Beland. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We would not direct people to this, per se. It would have the purpose of a disambiguation page, and it would be a place for all the current links to go to, when they have not yet been updated/modified to a more sensible page for that context.
In contrast, History of Christianity#Early Christianity has only one sentence of summary (which we could include, like a normal disambiguation page)-- and then finding these links in the many parts that follow there would cumbersome at best. tahc chat 23:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Links to disambiguation-pages are to be avoided. History of Christianity#Early Christianity (c. 31/33–324) has several sub-sections, not just an introductory line. Idon't see your problem here. And "Christianity in late Antiquity" is not part of "Early Christianity." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the merge of the body to the two subarticles is complete, so I merged the intro to History of Christianity#Early Christianity and redirected there. If there's any further discussion, it should probably be on that article's talk page. -- Beland (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=web> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=web}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_early_Christianity&oldid=1194573382"