Talk:History of early Christianity/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

NPOV compliance

Wikipedia is about verifiable points of view, not truth. Much of this article is well-cited, indicating good research. In some cases however the text itself is wrtten as if there is one truth, one set of universally agreed-upon facts about early Christianity. This is not the case. There are many people, including notable historians, for example, who question whether Jesus' original followers thought he was the messiah. Maybe they did. Some people sure believe they did. My point is simple: just identify whose view is being presented. I have made some changes in this regard which I hope will be respected, i hope others will edit with this in mind. Today there is a consensus among Christians about some elements of Christian history. I have no objection at all to that view being include,d prominently, in this article - as long as it is identified as such. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for whatever I did wrong. All I am aware of doing is restoring, with a seemingly reliable source to support it, a statement that was deleted without first trying a "citation needed" tag. I am no expert on the question, but I thought that the author of the book I quoted must be. He is a lecturer in Comparative Religion at the University of Manchester and the minister of a synagogue in that city and, as well as the book quoted, he wrote two other books on Jewish history. Perhaps someone who holds the opposite view can be cited, if his view is controversial. Lima (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I put the citations in an earlier sentence. lima, I am NOT objecting to the source you are using, or to the view you are adding! I have no objection at all! I am just saying that the view has to be presnted as a view and not as a universally held fact, that is all. Among historians there is no certainty about who Jesus was or what his original followers believed. There are a range of views. You added one, and it is a notable one. My only point is that it is one among many and should be presented as such. i wasn't criticizing the view you added. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of organization/website promotion

I don't see it, all I see are good faith edits. The massive revision proposed by Kraftlos [1] seems unjustified, I'm reverting it. 75.14.219.163 (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what happened is that Kraftlos deleted an external link but did it in such a way that it removed everything that had been added in the meantime. I believe it was intended as a good faith edit, but clumsily done. He or she removed the same link from a number of other pages in the same way. --Rbreen (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there some external link that should be deleted from this article? If so, let's delete it. Without removing lots of good faith edits. 75.14.219.163 (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to remove the external link. A user has been adding links to their web sites and I was doing a quick reversal on 15 or so articles. I must have restored a much earlier version by acident. --Kraftlos (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

SR's edits

I made some changes to the article. An anonymous user made many more changes. Kraftlos reverted all changes. I restored my changes, which the anonymous user reverted. To be clear: anonymous user, your conflict is with Kraftlos, not me. Kraftlos: do not revert my edits without an explanation.

I have restored my edits without changing the rest of the text with the only exception of correcting misinformation about Jews, specifically, Christianity emerged in the context of first century Judaism but NOT the Tannaim (as was linked); also, Rabbinic Judaism did not begin to develop until the third century, after the period under discussion. Finally, Hillel and SHamai were Pharisees, not critics of the Pharisees.

One final thing: I did not remove this line but unless someone can provide a verifiable source, I will: "The revolution turned against the Jewish Christians and some were killed." This refers to Bar Kochba's revolution. What is the verifiable source for this? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You made a lot of changes to the article, so I'll make some also, with comments. 75.14.219.163 (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I deleted James the Just, it was unintentional and I am glad you restored it.

But you have made other changes which are false. There is no evidence that Masada was notable at the time. The key event was the destruction of the Temple, according to all historians. The Bar Kochba revolt was important too, and should be included, but not in the same sentence because it occured sixty years later and a lot happened in those sixty years. Finally, you keep confusing Rabbinic Judaism for first and second century Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism only begins to develop in the third century, a hundred years after this time period. What remained after the destruction of the Temple were Pharisees and Christians, not Rabbinic Jews and Christians. I do not understand your use of Hillel and Shammai, two Pharisees who lived before the destruction of the Temple. Do not misrepresent Jewish history. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

1. A lot of Zealots died at Masada, the Zealots were a "fourth sect" of late second temple Judaism that did not survive. 2. Yes, Bar Kochba is important, the fact that it occured sixty years later shows that not everything changed during the first revolt, in fact the Roman-Jewish Wars occured over a given time period, they were not a one time event. 3. OK, let's define Rabbinic Judaism as 3rd century. All historians consider the fall of the Temple as the end of Phariseeism. What do we call Judaism between Phariseeism and Rabbinicism? I propose Early Rabbinic Judaism, what term do you propose? 4. Hillel and Shammai and the debate between the two schools lasted well past the actual men and is significant in showing that certain aspects of Phariseeism were rejected even by Early Rabbinic Judaism. 75.14.219.163 (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is titled "Early Christianity", not Masada, not Zealots, not debates among the Pharasees or among Rabbinical Jews. The fall of the temple is certainly not the end of Phariseeism as that sect was not especially tied to the temple. It was the end of the Saducees. It was the "end" of the Pharisees only as much as it now assumed the leading role in the rallying of non-Christian Judaism. But that was a process that took some time so it is absolutely correct to state that Pharisees (and Christians) were the only groups left after 70 AD. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Roman-Jewish Wars were the end of Phariseeism. 75.14.219.163 (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No! Str1977 ^(talk) 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is not an article on Jews except insofar as early Christians were Jews, so the context of first and second century Judaism needs to be accurate. It is true that there is a transitional period after the fall of the Temple, Jacob Neusner among others have written extensively on this; I added a sentence to signal the transition which I hope you accpet as a compromise between myself and the anonus. As to Hillel and Shammai, I still do not understand your statement. What does it mean to say "Rabbinic Judaism" rejected elements of "Pharisaic Judaism?" This suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of Rabbinic Judaism. Whereas the Church moved over the centuries more and more in the direction of doctrinal uniformity, Rabbinic Judaism perpetuated the Pharisees' tradition of debate and dissension. Teaching of the house of Shammai were often not accepted by the sages as normative - yet these teachings are included in the Talmud. The point is that Rabbinic Judaism includes minority views and interpretations and legal rulings, it does not declare them heretical, it does not reject them. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, Slrubenstein, we need not make such distinctions. I absolutely agree with your take on Phariseeism and Rabbinical Judaism but please don't use Christianity as a contrast. In Christian tradition, various writings not entirely accepted or by writers (Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian even Augustine) later condemned (Tertullian, Origen) are included as well. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A number of Shammai's views are rejected. Not declared heretical, simply rejected as false conclusions. There is a significant difference between the Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism. Doctrines of the Pharisees resulted in the Roman-Jewish Wars. The Rabbis made debate internal and rejected the positions of the Zealots. The Rabbis survived. 75.14.219.163 (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's splitting hairs. If you declare a certain view to be wrong you are essentially calling it "material heresy". Doctrines of the Pharisees did not result in the First Jewish War. Some Pharisees (e.g. Josephus) participated but so did other groups, including Saducees (who were opposed to starting the war) and Essenes. But it was no Pharisean war. The leading Pharisee, Jochanan ben Zakai, sneaked out of Jerusalem at the time. At the end of the war, only the Pharisees (and the Christians) survived with the Zealots, Saducees and Essenes being destroyed or left without a cause or centre. Yes, Pharisees participated in the Second Jewish war and Akiba even declared Bar Kochba the Messiah and payed dearly for it but is there any basis for the claim that "Doctrines of the Pharisees" led to it and where these doctrines later reputiated? Str1977 ^(talk) 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, Proselytes) -> Roman-Jewish Wars -> Early Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. 75.14.219.163 (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What doctrines of the Pharisees resulted in the war with the Romans? The Pharisees rejected the Zealots. Some may have sympathized with Zealots but they were opposed in general to the war of 67-70. This is another confusion you introduce when you combine the 67 war with the Bar Kochba rebellion - the latter was indeed supported by key elements of the Tannaim. The former was not.

To say that the views of the house of SHammai were rejected means that the Rabbis rejected the views of the Pharisees, is like saying that the Rabbis rejected the views of the Rabbis. Amoraim argued and rejected the views of other Amoraim as much as they rejected the views of Tannaim. The work of the Tannaim and of the Amoraim are both considered parts of Rabbinic Judaism, and the Tannaim included Pharisees. The issue is not the chronology. The issue is that the Pharisees did not "disappear" with the destruction of the Temple any more than Early Christianity "disappeared" and was replaced by Christianity. After the destruction of the Temple, the Pharisees remained. Over the next hundred and fifty years, Pharisaic Judaism transformed into Rabbinic Judaism.

You are trying to push a particular view which is rejected by all mainstream Judaism and by all professional historians of Judaism: that there is no connection between the Pharisees and modern Judaism. All Jews today who identify with Rabbinic Judaism - that includes Orthodoxy, Conservative, and Reform Judaism - see themselves as heirs of the Pharisees. Phariseeic Judaism became Rabbinic Judaism when the destruction of the Temple put an end to the Essenes and Saducees, and when Christianity split off to become its own religion. Early Rabbinic Judaism did not develop out of "Saducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots and Proselytes," it emerged out of the Pharisees. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the Pharisees did not disappear - in contrast to all the other non-Christian groups. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, "emerged out of the Pharisees". Something historically different. That does not mean that there is no connection, it means only there has been a historical change. Wars bring historical change. The Roman-Jewish Wars were the end of Phariseeism. 75.14.219.163 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Roman-Jewish Wars were the end of Phariseeism."

Endlessly repearting it doesn't make it true! Str1977 ^(talk) 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Good, I think the article makes this clear right now. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Vassyana is being unconstructive again

Ok, what's wrong with this referenced block you deleted?:

Caesarea Maritima (which had been the Roman capital of Iudaea Province since its founding in 6 CE and later of the larger province of Syria Palaestina), became also the centre of Palestinian Christianity. The Great Sanhedrin of Judaism had earlier (before 70) been relocated from Jerusalem to Yavne.

75.15.196.164 (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference does not support the majority of claims in the paragraph. The overwhelming majority of sources only present Caesarea Maritima becoming a center of Christian study under Origen (such as this) and similarly do not say that the Sanhedrin moved before the destruction of Jerusalem, but rather note that Rabbi Yochanan established a school in Jamnia prior to the destruction and established a reconstructed Sanhedrin at his school after the destruction of Jerusalem. What was included in the article contradicts the general mainstream of scholarship, making some pretty extreme claims in context, without citing any sources to support those claims. --Vassyana (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that justifies deleting the entire paragraph. You could have simply corrected the founding of the Sanhedrin to after 70 and requested a ref for the claim of Caesarea being a centre of Palestinian Christianity. Is that too much too ask? To assume good faith and to make a contribution to wikipedia, instead of just block deleting? 75.15.196.164 (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not make any statements implying a presumption of bad faith. Removing uncited poor information from an article is as important to ensuring the quality of Wikipedia as adding well-cited information. --Vassyana (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

V is right. In the paragraph V deleted, the cited material is not relevant, and the relevant material is not cited. Leadwind (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Did Paul found any churches himself?

Seems like an interesting topic, came up in the recent editing history. Should it be addressed in this article? 75.15.205.190 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In Romans 15 Paul states that he has so far proclaimed the "Gospel" in areas where Christ was already known, and that his ambition was to go to Spain so that he could proclaim the "Gospel" to people who hadn't yet heard of Christ, rather than build on someone else's foundation:

"...from Jerusalem and as far around as Illyricum I have fully proclaimed the good news of Christ. Thus I make it my ambition to proclaim the good news, not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on someone else’s foundation... But now, with no further place for me in these regions, I desire, as I have for many years, to come to you when I go to Spain."

"someone else's foundation" = pre-Pauline Churches. For example, even in Cyprus, that church was actually founded by Barnabas. Even near and in Rome, the church existed before Paul's visit there according to Acts 28:13–15 (the Epistle to the Romans doesn't make sense without a pre-existing Roman church). 75.15.199.90 (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably correct, but without an authoritative reference, it is speculation. ClemMcGann (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this sentence currently in the article really plausible?

"Those remaining fully faithful to Halacha became purely Jews, while those adhering to the Christian faith joined with Gentile, Graeco-Roman, Pauline Christianity."

How did this happen? Was there a Grand Inquisitor who forced everyone, both in and outside the Roman Empire, to either choose to follow Jesus (Christianity) or the Torah (Judaism) but not both under penalty of death? 75.15.201.67 (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Restorationism section

Does this section belong at all? If it does, it needs to be rewritten. I wonder also if it is mis-named? It appears to be about a protestant claim, more vigorously advanced in the 19th century, but with a longer history. Making the link to early Christianity within the article might be WP:FRINGE in the absence of references/citations? . --Fremte (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See the article on Restorationism. 75.14.223.148 (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Adoptionism

Let us stop the personal attacks. Nobody is being disruptive. Please assume good faith. I for my part will take more care in making sure it is easy to verify my references. If you have a problem it is best to work it out on the talk page. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromise Reached?

According to James Edwards, there never was a Gospel of the Ebionites. It appears that he is right for there is no surviving copy, it is not mentioned in any of the early church catalogs, nor does any Church Father mention it. Am I missing anything? - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

At least one Church Father does mention and quote from a Gospel of the Ebionites, I don't recall who that is. For that reason there is a collection of gospel fragments from an alleged gospel by that name. See also Jewish-Christian Gospels and Catholic Encyclopedia: Ebionites. 75.15.203.11 (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: there are three Jewish-Christian Gospels, these are the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Gospel of the Hebrews. Fragments exist from all of these gospels, but not originals. These may or may not be actually the same gospel, some have postulated that these are all derived from an Aramaic Gospel of Matthew or source M in the Four Document Hypothesis. 75.15.203.11 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You said, "At least one Church Father does mention and quote from a Gospel of the Ebionites, I don't recall who that is." I am not poking fun at you, for that was my reaction. As an old guy, I was sure the [Gospel of the Ebionites] existed and was circulated in the Early Church. Yet when I was verifying the truth of what Edwards said, I could not find the mention of such a gospel from the time of Christ to Jerome. Indeed I found the opposite. Please prove Edwards wrong so I can take his book to the dump! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

From the previously cited Catholic Encyclopedia article:

Amongst the writings of the Ebionites must be mentioned: Their Gospel. St. Irenæus only states that they used the Gospel of St. Matthew. Eusebius modifies this statement by speaking of the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was known to Hegesippus (Eusebius, Church History IV.22.8), Origen (Jerome, Illustrious Men 2), and Clem. Alex. (Stromata II.9.45). This, probably, was the slightly modified Aramaic original of St. Matthew, written in Hebrew characters. But St. Epiphanius attributes this to the Nazarenes, while the Ebionites proper only possessed an incomplete, falsified, and truncated copy thereof (Adv. Haer., xxix, 9). It is possibly identical with the Gospel of the Twelve.

75.15.203.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC).

Basically, historians assume the Ebionites used a gospel, and that gospel is refered to as the Gospel of the Ebionites. It is no longer extant, but at least one Church Father quoted from the gospel used by the Ebionites, hence the existance of "gospel fragments". These are recorded in W. Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha (which is the standard library reference text). 75.15.203.11 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Overkill, but here's the entry from Schneemelcher:

Gospel of the Ebionites Fragments:

1. In the Gospel that is in general use amongst them, which is called according to Matthew, which however is not whole (and) complete but forged and mutilated - they call it the Hebrew Gospel - it is reported: There appeared a certain man named Jesus of about thirty years of age, (1) who chose us. (2) And when he came to Capernaum, (3) he entered into the house of Simon (4) whose surname was Peter, (5) and opened his mouth and said: As I passed along the Lake of Tiberias, (6) I chose John and James the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Thaddaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the Isca- riot, (7) and thee, Matthew, I called as thou didst sit at the receipt of custom, and thou didst follow me. (8) You therefore I will to be twelve apostles for a testimony unto Israel. (9) (Epiphanius, Haer. 30.13,2f.) ==1. Lk3:23. 2. Lk6:13. 3. Mk1:21;Lk4:31. 4. Mk1:29;Lk4:38. 5. Mt4:18. 6. Mk1: ==16;Mt4:18. 7. Mt10:2-4 ||. 8. Mt9:9. 9. Mt10:2,6;Mk3:14;Lk6:13;Barnabas8:3.

2. And: It came to pass that John was baptizing (1); and there went out to him Pharisees and were baptized, (2) and all Jerusalem. (3) And John had a garment of camel's hair and a leathern girdle about his loins, and his food, as it saith, was wild honey, (4) the taste of which was like that of manna, as a cake dipped in oil. (5) Thus they were resolved to pervert the word of truth into a lie and to put a cake in the place of locusts. (ibid. 30.13,4f)

3. And the beginning of their Gospel runs: It came to pass in the days of Herod the king of Judaea, (6) <when Caiaphas was high priest, (7)> that there came <one>, John <by name,> and baptized with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan. (8) It was said of him that he was of the lineage of Aaron the priest, a son of Zacharias & Elisabeth; (9) & all went out to him. (10) (,6)

4. And after much has been recorded it proceeds: When the people were baptized (11) Jesus also came and was baptized by John. (12) And as he came up from the water, the heavens were opened and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove that descended (13) and entered into him. And a voice (sounded) from heaven that said: Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased. (14) And again: I have this day begotten thee. (15) And immediately a great light shone round about the place. (16) When John saw this, it saith, he saith unto him: Who art thou, Lord? And again a voice from heaven (rang out) to him: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. (17) And then, it saith, John fell down before him and said: I beseech thee, Lord, baptize thou me. But he prevented him and said: Suffer it; for this it is fitting

75.15.203.11 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Schneemelcher is not An Early Church Father. Are you starting to see the Problem? Cheers! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm starting to see the problem. I wish you would pay more attention. Obviously, that Early Church Father is Epiphanius. Schneemelcher is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 75.15.203.11 (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In summary, Schneemelcher records fragments of the Gospel of the Ebionites and your book by Edwards claims it doesn't exist or is just some other gospel or whatever it claims. This does not make the Gospel of the Ebionites an urban myth. Schneemelcher at least is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 75.15.203.11 (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Another way to summarize it would be to say that Epiphanius claimed that the Ebionites used a gospel that was different from the gospels that he knew. Scholars refer to this gospel as the "Gospel of the Ebionites" and speculate about what it may have been as it is no longer extant. It may have been a corruption of the gospels Epiphanius knew, or it may have been a unique gospel, or it may have been a version of a Hebrew Gospel, or it may have been the M source in the Four Document Hypothesis, or something else. 75.14.217.42 (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said below, you guys are forcing an old man to spend his Friday at the Seminary library. That is not a bad thing. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have carefully read your comments and they seem to support Edwards position that the term Gospel of the Ebionites is a "scholarly neologism" and that the term "Gospel of the Ebionites" was not used in the Early Church.

Since Eusebius, in Ecclesiastical History 3:27 states that the Ebionites use only Gospel of the Hebrews and since Epiphanius (See Panarion 30:3) himself writes that the Ebionites "accept Matthew's Gospel, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone in the New Testament expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script." For the purposes of our article we too should refer to it as the Gospel of the Hebrews. The issue for me is focus. Let us stay on topic. In a few hours I will have another go at Adoptionism. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV solution is to mention that modern scholars use the term Gospel of the Ebionites for the gospel that the Ebionites used. There are many scholarly arguments about what the "Gospel of the Ebionites" might have actually been. Gospel of the Hebrews is just one of them, and also a circular argument as the "Gospel of the Hebrews" also does not exist and scholars argue about what it might have actually been. The general topic should be discussed at Jewish-Christian Gospels. 75.15.201.61 (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this for a compromise 1)A footnote 2)When citing Epiphanius use his terminology. And when quoting Schneemelcher we use the ""scholarly neologism"? Thanks for taking the time to explain your concerns. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Something like that is probably reasonable. Just as long as we don't jump to the conclusion that the gospel that the Ebionites used is the "Gospel of the Hebrews". That's only one of several possibilities, not the only possibility. Remember, wikipedia is not a forum for original research or POV pushing. 75.15.201.61 (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A very related issue is presented at Jewish-Christian Gospels in the introduction, which mentions that some scholars claim there is only one gospel, while other scholars claim there are multiple gospels. You appear to be in the camp of "only one Jewish-Christian gospel", I'm in the camp of "let all scholarly views be represented". 75.15.201.61 (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with Esoglou's compromise. I hope you can live with it too. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture

Why was this citation deleted? - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am going to restore this source in a few hours. The reason for this is that he goes into the pre New Testament roots of this heresy.

Revisions by Ret.Prof

The spelling "Adoptionism" is today more common than "Adoptianism" (the spelling of the latter echoes that of "Arianism", "Monarchianism", and more modern heresies), but that doesn't mean that the Spanish heresy wasn't adoptionist. The ODCC (which, indeed, explicitly states that both spellings are used) is a reliable source, and may not be excised simply because an editor doesn't like what it says. I have added two other reliable sources that say the same thing and use the spelling "adoptionism".

Epiphanius quoted from the Gospel that the Ebionites used. According to some, but not all, their Gospel was the same as the Gospel known as the "Gospel of the Hebrews". It makes no difference what you call that Gospel: it is still the Gospel that the Ebionites used, their Gospel, and it is precisely because it is their Gospel that the quotation "This day have I begotten you" in it is used to argue that those early Christians were adoptionists. The article is concerned with early Christianity, not with whether adoptionism is true or false. For this reason, statements such as "Important to Adoptionism is ..." have no place in the article. Esoglou (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Some good points. You are forcing me to spend my Friday at the seminary library. That is not a bad thing. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Especially as both spellings are used, per ODCC, can we drop any of disscussion of one spelling vs. the other from the article and citations there-of (in the article itself). I also would like to drop anything that we can drop about the 8th century, since that is not part of Early Christianity. Feel free to include this all on Adoptionism, Gospel of the Ebionites, etc.

If you would rather focus on getting it right, I don't mind summarizing for you. I am not trying to sound threating-- I just know I can help more there than I can in the issue of if or how the "Gospel of the Ebionites" exsited or not. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 03:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Carlaude, I totally agree. This article is too long. We must try to regain our focus. The ODCC is not about adoptionism in the Early Church. It is too broad for our purposes. The Spanish heresy was adoptionist but from a much later time. Adolf Harnack at the end of the 19th century. I believe we must focus on Adoptionism from Jewish Christianity to the Nic.Creed. I will have another go at this in a few hours. Feel free to modify or revert. I won't take offense. A bit of back and forth is a good thing and we will eventually get a version that we can all agree upon. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must disagree with the remark about the ODCC article, which is about all the meanings of adoptionism/adoptianism. The only part that concerns us here is what it says about the early Church: "Through the influence of A. Harnack's Dogmengeschichte the term (usually spelt 'Adoptionism') has also been frequently applied to the heretical stream in early Greek theology which regarded Christ as a man gifted with Divine powers. This view, first represented by the Ebionites, was later developed by the Monarchians, e.g. Theodotus and Paul of Samosata. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, and the Antiochene School in general also tend to what may be called, in a rather loose sense, an Adoptionist Christianity." I have shown that I fully agree that in this article we should only report on the views held by groups in early Christianity, without arguing for or against the correctness of their views. Esoglou (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Brit, ODCC, Catholic Encyclopedia, etc are not wrong, it is that they are not right for this article because the are too broad in scope. This is not an article about Adoptionism, but about Adoptionism in the Early Church and why the Church came to formally reject it at by the First Council of Nicaea (325) - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Among the many topics addressed by the ODCC and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, with information worth noting because of the prestige of these sources, is early-Christian adoptionism, what this section of the article is about. I hope nobody thought I propose excluding other sources: I merely hold that these important summaries of the subject should not be ignored as if non-existent. Esoglou (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to add ODCC & Brit. back to the article in regards to the Early Church. However please note that the Catholic encyclopedia is no longer an acceptable Wiki-Ref. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If I remember right, the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't speak at all of early-Christian adoptionism, a notion introduced by Harnack only shortly before. While the Catholic Encyclopedia is surely acceptable with regard to the only pre-Harnack meaning of the term "adoptionism", I omitted all mention of it when speaking above of the early-Christian variety. I wonder why there should be any "adding back" of the authoritative sources that speak of that variety.

I see now that you have already altered the article. I must study what you have written, but I am immediately struck by your reversion to "Important to Adoptionism is ...", about which I wrote above. Do you mean "Important to belief in Adoptionism" (i.e. to present-day belief in the Adoptionism)? Or perhaps "Important to present-day understanding of early-Christian Adoptionism"? The second meaning doesn't really fit your words, and the first seems to me to be taking sides. Esoglou (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Point. I will rework the wording - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Great job Esoglou. I am happy with your wording. That is all for now. Thanks for both the good work and good attitude. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes by Carlaude/Esoglou

Just a word to explain my alterations of Carlaude's changes:

Thanks for your help. All my work was reverted before I completed. This is what I was trying to do. Ret.Prof (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't think we can say that the Adoptionists held that Jesus became God the Son, a Trinitarian concept. RetProf's "divine" was better, but required disambiguation by reference to divinity, a concept that, according to the article on it, is also applied (even if loosely or indeed wrongly) to human beings. Ans: Keep 'divinity' and 'Son of God' per Ed Hindson & Ergun Caner - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Nor do I think it appropriate to say that the Gospel used by the Ebionites is "of uncertain identification", since its use by the Ebionites is itself an identification. Ans: Agreed, Some scholars refer to this work as the 'Gospel of the Ebionites', but this is a "scholarly neologism" and should be avoided as it is confusing to lay people. See the Jewish-Christian Gospels for a full discussion of this problem.- Ret.Prof (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
3. I don't understand "From Epiphanius' of this gospel's account of the baptism of Jesus, it said the voice from heaven declared ..." I have therefore altered it. Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Nor do I understand "and some see this phrase as the gospel supporting the Adoptionist doctrine", since I think a gospel/Gospel would be more than a phrase. Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Nor again do I understand how the phrase "this day have I begotten you" as used in the Letter to the Hebrews can be said to be one that "presents Jesus as the [[God the Son|Son]] through whom the universe was made": it seems to me that it is not that phrase, but the Letter to the Hebrews itself, in another part, that does the presenting. I have therefore changed that back, restoring also the statement that the Letter to the Hebrews is another early Christian text, so as to avoid the impression that it is brought in merely as an anti-adoptionist argument. I thought it best also to exclude the unnecessary and perhaps misleading wikilink to the Trinitarian concept of "God the Son". Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
6. As an aside, I use "Gospel" to refer to a book, "gospel" to a teaching, good news. I have noticed that this seems to be the usage also of at least two of the recently published books to which links are given in the Adoptionism section of the article, but perhaps other books follow Carlaude's usage. I will not try to impose my usage on Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I thought "God the Son" was, or could be, a Trinitarian and a nonTrinitarian concept, depending on what you thought it meant. But that's fine. Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2. I thought this was the whole point of you or he calling it only "the used gospel/Gospel by the Ebionites" and not the Gospel of the Ebionites. Ans: Disagree Some scholars refer to this work as the 'Gospel of the Ebionites', but this is a "scholarly neologism" and should be avoided as it is confusing to lay people. See the Jewish-Christian Gospels for a full discussion of this problem.
3. This seems to repeat the quote-- "Today I have begotten you"-- more than needed.::#. It should have said "From Epiphanius' quotations of this gospel's account of the baptism of Jesus"-- left out a word. Ans: Epiphanius is quoting from the 'Gospel of the Hebrews" which is the only gospel that the Ebionites use. The term 'Gospel of the Ebionites', is a "scholarly neologism" and should be avoided as it is confusing to lay people. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
4. The Gospel of Joe would be a document, but a "Gospel" (that is capitalized and yet is not a part of a proper name) is a thelogy or a message-- as Paul uses it in 2 Corinthians 11:4. A "gospel" (not capitalized) could be a document (or maybe a thelogy). Context would need to indicate which. (I think some faithful may use "Gospel" to mean a canonical Gospel as in "after the Gospel reading today..." but IMHO this is a Christian thing and not a normal rule of English-- like the capitaliztion of pronouns that refer to God.) Hence "gospel's account of the baptism of Jesus" means a quote of a doument-- a phrase. Does that make my text more clear to you? Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
5. The phrase used in the Letter to the Hebrews is not said by anyone (I know of) to "presents Jesus as the God the Son" The phrase is used in the Letter to the Hebrews and Letter to the Hebrews also presents Jesus as the God the Son-- hence the one part cites Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 and the other cites Hebrews 1:2. The comment is an example of how the phrase can be used and yet not have Adoptionism in mind. Ans: Agreed, but really, really confusing! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding about my difficulty regarding the link to the God the Son article, which does seem to take a Trinitarian view. It was RetProf who had difficulty in accepting that what he was then calling the Gospel of the Hebrews (in reality the one quoted by Epiphanius) could also be called the Gospel of the Ebionites. I knew that there was some explanation of the unintelligibility of the phrase with the missing word, but I failed to think of what word to put where. I have indicated that I am not insisting on any particular norm about Gospel/gospel. The text that I had to revise did say that the phrases presents ...: as we both agree, it is not the phrase but Heb 1:2 that presents Jesus as ... Esoglou (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ans: Disagree. It was not Ret.Prof but Epiphanius who refers to the 'Gospel of the Hebrews'. The 'Gospel of the Ebionites', is a "scholarly neologism" and should be avoided as it is confusing to lay people.- Ret.Prof (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)'

Changes by RetProf/Carlaude

• Please avoid adding or re-adding spaces before reference notes in the text. Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Adoptionism was an issue for the Early Church, but we cannot say it was an "important issue" unless a book today says so and we cite it. I think it had a number of larger issues in this time-- that is before 325 AD. Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Saying both that he was born a human and saying he was born of Mary and Joseph is not needed. Adoptionism was about Jesus being born human. To the degree this also implies be was born of Mary and Joseph is the same degree it does not need to be said because it is already implied. Ans: Disagree Clarity is needed. The Adoptionism heresy rejects that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. They believe that Jesus was born of the sexual union of Joseph and Mary. Nasty but true. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think it is really questionable that their is any sort of divinity to Jesus that would be "in line with... radical monotheism of Judaism." Please cite or leave this out. Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• The text says at the momment "a phrase echoing Psalm 2:7.. an echo of Psalm 2:7" Not needed! Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• We also do not need to repeat the "Today I have begotten you" quote over and over-- at least not unless we are quoting a different version of it. Ans: Agreed "Today I have begotten you" need be only said once. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• This is all unneeded: "Jesus came up from the water, Heaven was opened, and He saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and enter into Him. And a voice from Heaven said, 'You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.'... Immediately a great light shone around the place"Ans: Agreed "Today I have begotten you" need be only said once. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have explained all my changes (I think) please tell me if you disagree before just reverting them all. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Because-- in addition to the above isses-- even all the "%22" and "%22" were restored-- so I am just going to revert it all to my version and ask you please work with me from there. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Ans: Disagree, If you had let me finish my editing you would have seen most of what you had written would have been included. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Carlaude's version:

“ An early form of Adoptionism, the doctrine that Jesus became the divine by adoption, held that Jesus was born human only and became divine, by adoption at his baptism, being chosen because of his sinless devotion to the will of God. The first representatives of this view were the Ebionites. They understood Jesus as Messiah and Son of God in terms of the anointing at his baptism.

Some scholars view the non-canonical Gospel of the Ebionites, now lost, but quoted by Epiphanius of Salamis' document the Panarion as the first to be written, and believe Adoptionist theology may predate the New Testament. Others, on the contrary, consider that "it clearly presupposes the canonical Gospels". The Ebionites' gospel document was attributed by them to Matthew, and was also called Hebrew, but Epiphanius saw it as a corrupt and mutilated version of the Gospel of Matthew. Some also suppose it to be the Gospel of the Hebrews, a work also lost and of uncertain identification. From Epiphanius' quotes of this gospel's account of the baptism of Jesus, the voice from heaven declared: "This day have I begotten you", a phrase echoing Psalm 2:7, which some see as the gospel document supporting the Adoptionist doctrine. The phrase is also used twice in the canonical Epistle to the Hebrews, but the author of Hebrews instead presents Jesus as the Son through whom the universe was made.

The Adoptionist view was later developed by adherents of the form of Monarchianism that is represented by Theodotus of Byzantium and Paul of Samosata.

Adoptionism clearly conflicted with the claim, as in the Gospel of John, that Jesus is the eternal Logos, and it was declared a heresy at the end of the second century. It was formally rejected by the First Council of Nicaea (325), which wrote the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and identified Jesus as eternally begotten.

”

Notes

• "now lost, but quoted by Epiphanius" could seem self-contradictory, unless it is made clear that Epiphanius does not quote the document, but only parts of it, which of course are therefore not lost.
• "Others, on the contrary, consider that it ..." With the insertion of the phrase about Adoptionist theology, "it" now refers to that theology, not to the Gospel that Epiphanius quoted.
• "and was also called Hebrew" - have you not noticed that I provided the requested clarification?
• "a phrase ... which some see as the gospel document supporting the Adoptionist doctrine" - I hope you do not consider it a mere quibble if I say that a phrase is not a document; more important is the fact that this phrase is not the only part of Epiphanius's excerpts from the Ebionites' Gospel on which is based the idea that they had Adoptionist ideas: at least one other consideration given in RetProf's ill-presented first attempt was excised by you and I have preferred not to revive it while the discussion continues in this disorganized state.
• "From Epiphanius' quotes of this gospel's account of the baptism of Jesus, the voice from heaven declares ..." Surely an unclear expression: "the voice from heaven from Epiphanius's quotes"? What was wrong with my copyedit, which you have rejected: "This gospel's account of the baptism of Jesus, as quoted by Epiphanius, says that the voice from heaven declared"?
• Would it not be useful to give the reader some indication of the grounds on which the phrase "This day have I begotten you" (which, as I have said, is not a "gospel document") is interpreted as "supporting the Adoptionist doctrine"? Esoglou (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Being Polite is Important

I read your concerns and was addressing them one at a time. I was making sure everything had a proper Ref, NPOV & focus . . . when everything disappeared. Please restore it, let me finish, read my work carefully and then feel to revert what you do not like. A bit of back and forth is OK, but let us be respectful to one another. Happy Editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me know when you are ready then, and please also address my comments. I was not seeking to remove refs, NPOV, or politeness. Maybe your process would have been clear if you had posted on talk first and then posted the changes you saw as needed on the article page.

Note, that I made more chages per Esoglou above.^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I must disavow responsibiliy for Carlaude's changes. Carlaude has actually rejected a large part of my suggestions (see above). RetProf, I think Carlaude's suggestion with regard to the procedure for you to follow is a good one . Today you radically changed the text, casting aside much (most, even?) of what yesterday you accepted as good work, saying you were happy with it. What we need, I think, is an agreed base on which to build, proposing amendments to it, deletions or additions, before actually putting changes into the article text. As I see it, there are three candidates for that base:

1. Carlaude's text, which is at present in the article;
2. The text that you approved yesterday, which can be found here;
3. My revision of today, which can be found here.

Surely, at least two out of the three of us can agree on which of these texts to use as the base to work on. I certainly will accept anything, even outside these three candidates, that you two agree on. I hope that each of you, RetProf and Carlaude, will also accept as a base text whatever the other two agree on for that purpose. What do you both think? Esoglou (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it Esoglou. I like #3 - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Final Cut

Sometimes editors of good faith find themselves in gridlock. I propose to give you "final cut" as a way out. What I mean by this is:

1. I will finish the editing I started earlier. ( once I get over my snit )
2. I will promise to make no more edits for a period of two weeks.
3. You revise what I have written in good faith explaining in detail why you felt the changes were needed.

Most of your above comments I agreed with. I hope you will keep the section readable for newcomers and focus on "early" Christianity. Does this sound like a reasonable compromise? - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't do so until you have given consideration to my suggestion immediately above. Esoglou (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ret.Prof-- Esoglou's suggestion immediately above sounds good to me. That said-- unless you two agree on one first-- I plan to look at your (Prof's) version and Esoglou's version and then agree to begin with whichever of the two looks like a better staring point. I will agree to wait, however, for Prof to present a complete-to-him version to look at. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 16:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If Esoglou would rather just agree to begin with mine before Prof's version is ready (which I don't really expect), I will still look at Prof's version during his two weeks off. Cheers. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 16:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it Esoglou - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse my obtuseness. I don't understand what I should go for. Nor do I understand the reference to RetProf's "two weeks off". Perhaps something that came up in the discussion between you two. Now that I am sure that my suggestion has been noticed, I have thought I could await reactions from both. Carlaude has reacted, proposing his own version as the base text. I don't know RetProf's view on it. He may well wish to at least post his own new version first. I would certainly not object to him doing so. But, to judge by what I saw of his provisional changes, I do not think it would win the support of either Carlaude or me for the choice of the base text. So I await RetProf's comment, before or after his posting of his own preferred version. But if he wants to post it first, I think we should immediately afterwards make our choice of the base text, Esoglou (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, at last, I have seen the reference to two weeks. If we agree to a base text, I don't think we should hold RetProf to his offer to make no edits for two weeks. I would indeed be very happy if the discussion were limited to judt Carlaude and me, but would it be fair? I don't mind much which text is chosen for base text: any one would be helpful.

RetProf's offer was, as I interpret it, conditional on acceptance of his text as what I later called a base text. Would it be fair to make him hold off for two weeks even in those circumstances? He would have to repeat his offer in calmer mood before I would really take it seriously. Esoglou (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I like your base text #3 above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason for Prof to wait two weeks. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreement Reached?

We use Esoglou's base and make small carefully explained changes. Ret.Prof (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

1. "Jesus was fully human, born of a sexual union between Joseph and Mary" Shows why this heresy was so offensive to Catholics. It says the Blessed Virgin wasn't! Therefore it is important to a full understanding. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of historians don't think Joseph was the genetic father of the historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar's "Acts of Jesus" puts it this way: "His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph." See also Jane Schaberg's "The Illegitimacy of Jesus ".

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/illegit.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2132639/ 75.15.204.73 (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not wrong. You are simply not right. Your statement "Actually, a lot of historians don't think Joseph was the genetic father of the historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar's Acts of Jesus puts it this way: His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph."... May very well be correct but the Christians of the Early Church knew little of genetics. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

born of... Joseph and Mary?

• As I said above, (or rather ment to say) saying that he was born of Mary and Joseph is not needed. Adoptionism was about Jesus being born human. To the degree this also implies be was born of Mary and Joseph is the same degree it does not need to be said because it is already implied. And you said

• Disagree... They believe that Jesus was born of the sexual union of Joseph and Mary.

Actually it was Bart D. Ehrman who said that Adoptionists believe Jesus was born of the sexual union of Joseph and Mary. As much as I respect your POV and can see how term "Sexual Union" is upsetting, you need Wikipedia:Reliable sources to support your POV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• While I am sure they did believe that Jesus was born of the sexual union of Joseph and Mary, as it could hardly be otherwise (not withstanding Mr. 75.15.204.73) there are many other things they beileve that we also do not mention.
• For example-- I find even in much longer articles than this section on Adoptionism no mention of this point on Mary and Joseph . See the New World Encyclopedia article on Adoptionism and the CE link below.

<<<<<New World Encyclopedia is a good source for Good Will edits>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ret.Prof (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Second, It is not really obvious than the 2nd century church was as concerned with the Virgin Mary as the RCC is today-- in fact I suspect the opposite. But even if I did beileve that the 2nd century church was more or as much concerned with the Virgin Mary-- it would be WP:OR to say so, or to say that that is why the church found Adoptionism so objectionable. Now by the 8th century-- that is a different matter and it may all be the case by then-- but that would not apply here-- and even the long Catholic Encyclopedia article on Adoptionism does not say a word about Mary or Joseph-- and that article even begins with the 8th century Adoptionism.
• If you find a WP:RS that tells the "being born of Mary and Joseph" was the part that the proto-orthodox church saw as so offensive-- even back in the 2nd century-- then I will agree that we have reason to include it. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)"

I agree with Carlaude on this point. "Born of a sexual union between Joseph and Mary" is, in the first place, phrased much too strongly: it would be sufficient to say "born of Joseph and Mary". Carlaude is quite right in calling for a reliable source that says what is here attributed to the early Adoptionists, and it would have to be a source that makes the statement in the same unnecessarily strong form. Is it necessary to say anything even about "born of Joseph and Mary"? That would be peripheral regarding Adoptionism. Theoretically God the Son could have become incarnate in a human being conceived in the normal way. Or, to put the opposite case, someone conceived virginally could have been a mere human being and would have been "adopted" only later. So the manner of the conception of Jesus is only peripheral with regard to Adoptionism.

I have another serious objection to RetProf's proposal, against his proposed change to "Jesus was fully human". That statement is perfectly "orthodox": the "orthodox" call Jesus true God and true man; fully human and fully divine. In no way does that statement distinguish Adoptionists. What distinguishes them is the idea that Jesus was born merely human, not also divine.

(Unfortunately, I will be away from home for most of today, and again tomorrow, and may be unable to respond as soon as I would wish to observations made here.) Esoglou (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Prof-- you are not making "small carefully explained changes." You are reverting when consenous is against you-- and without explaining. Your citations do not belay my objections since I already conceeded the fact that they did believe that Jesus was born of the sexual union of Joseph and Mary. I can go into more detail when I get a chance later, but I hope you will go ahead and self-revert now-- since you (rightly) emphasize WP:AGF, etc. but are not IMHO acting as polite as you could. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, RetProf. You only need one other editor's support to have a majority (out of the three actively engaged) for making a change; but you have not won anyone's support. The article is not the property of any single one of us to change at will. The proper course would be to try to win someone's support on the Talk page before altering the article. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Guys. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I have been watching the battle of Greed vs Compassion in the USA. Being Canadian, it is hard to understand how people could support denying sick people health care??

Points of view

Anyway I have carefully read your comments. My views are as follows:

• Consensus based on POV is not binding.
• Bart D. Ehrman is a reliable source. (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Therefore "sexual union" should not have been deleted. Simply saying you don't like it or it is not necessary, is not an acceptable reason to delete sourced material.
• Your comment about being "fully human" is very good and I will have think that through!
• Hey Guys, telling another editor he can't edit without your OK is out of line. I will continue to make small improvements and you can continue to delete them until you think I get something right.
• Finally, I think what this article needs most is Good Will. WE can disagree without being disagreeable.

Now back to the Cable News. The Yanks make good TV viewing. Cheers. Ret.Prof (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

RetProf, we need your good will. Please don't try to force your view on the article. Present your case here, before changing the text. Unilateral change based on one person's POV is not binding. You have not answered the objection that birth of Jesus from Joseph is irrelevant to Adoptionism, as not being what Adoptionism is about, since an Adoptionist could hold that, even if virginally conceived, Jesus would have been merely human and have been "adopted" by God later. You have not answered the serious objection that Adoptionists could have accepted that the father could have been a man other than Joseph. Ehrman's view is not unquestioned: so why have you not thought of proposing "Ehrman says that ..." instead of presenting it as the accepted view among experts? Why do you refuse to make your proposals here on the Talk page? Why did you treat Carlaude's questioning of points in the base text as a mere "addition" to your own remarks? More important, why have you then ignored his points and failed to respond to them? Please cooperate. I must restore Carlaude's remarks to below yours, since they were made after yours and deserve attention as much as yours. Esoglou (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that Carlaude had made his proposals, such as that certain parts of the base text be deleted, on the Talk page here, and has had the courtesy to wait for reaction by others - he is still awaiting yours - before making any changes in the text of the article. That is a good example to follow. Esoglou (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Prof, (althought if really you think this is a principle of Wikipedia, you should cite it rather than state it as your view)-- let's just say for argument's sake that we agree on this "Consensus based on POV is not binding.", we would still need to a process or the like for determining what is POV, or based on based on POV, and that process would still need to involve consensus and other Wikipedia principles.
• On your 2nd point...

1 If your justification is just to take "saying you don't like it or it is not necessary, is not an acceptable reason to delete sourced material" as a trueism or principle of Wikipedia, then you should cite that also. If not then it is just your POV.

2 I/we do not simply say we don't like it or it is not necessary. The phase creates an unbalanced view of Adoptionism, since it is not a trait they considered as fundamental to their theleogy and it had no enormouse effect on their history (at least in the 2nd - 4th century that is.) This was my point in citing the articles in encyclopedias. The authors hired to write these articles gave no mention at all of this, dispite being longer than this little section on Adoptionism. Non-encyclopedias are books with various other purposes that may lead the authors to say anything they know.

Likewise since this article is already too long-- we have all the more reason to remove it, even if we did find an otherwise plausible reason to keep it. This is also the more so since there is already a Adoptionism article to put such infomation, if need be.

• I agree with Esoglou here.
• See below, and
• If I come across as dissagreeable, please know that is not my intention. I too often come across that way but do not mean ill of it. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

...other points (on Esoglou's base)

• Esoglou's base text (our starting point)
• Carlaude's base text
• Ret.Prof's base text

A: monotheism

• A Prof (if I recall) & I both saw "which was more in line with the radical monotheism of Judaism" as needing to go. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No objection on my part. If RetProf thinks this phrase is important enough to keep, would he please indicate his reasons here. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from the "Changes by Carlaude/Esoglou" section above...

• I think it is really questionable that their is any sort of divinity to Jesus that would be "in line with... radical monotheism of Judaism." Please cite or leave this out. Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So we can remove this. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see that there is something we all agree on! Esoglou (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

B: Hebrew

• B "and also called "Hebrew" is still unclear to me-- even with the note. Do mean people called it the Gospel to the Hebrews or than Epiphanius claimed it was written in the language of Hebrew? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Epiphanius quite clearly was not himself making any claim about the language of the Gospel in question: he was clearing indicating a to his mind ridiculous view of the Ebionites. I presume that what he meant is that the Ebionites called it "the Hebrew Gospel", and that this is the very reason that some identify the Ebionites' Gospel with the "Gospel of the Hebrews" mentioned in other sources. Would it be Original Research to put this interpretation in the article? If we cannot put this interpretation in, what other interpretation dan we put in? Perhaps then the only thing to do is to quote the exact words of Epiphanius as in the English translation I have given a link to, without providing any interpretation. Unfortunately, I have no access to what Epiphanius actually wrote, in Greek, which, just possibly, might help to clarify the meaning. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Due to the outside-Wikipedia issues I am choosing not to follow this issue carefuly, but...

Anything that can be said can be said clearly. Until you two agree to somthing better, please either drop this entirely, or say somthing about the Gospel to the Hebrews. If you two can not agree on one of those two choices then we need to at least comment it out, so someone can go back to it later if need be. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we wait for RP to get over his – to use his own term rather than another – "time out"? Would it be too much to wait till the end of this month? I thought that would be a good idea, but his latest intervention, which might seem to indicate a fixed intention to ignore all proposals by anyone else, have made me doubt whether it would be of any use. I still think we should wait at least a day or two more.

For my part, I see little advantage in including this part. But since RP seemed to want to insist so much on the identification of the Ebionites' book with the Gospel of the Hebrews, I thought he might like to keep this reference, which perhaps is the only basis for supposing their Gospel to be the Gospel of the Hebrews, which is mentioned in other sources. Esoglou (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Did he say he was taking a time out? or just stop editing/talking? What was the "latest intervention"?

I don't really want to wait a week on this. Let's just comment it out <!-- like this --> and make note here that anyone can raise it again when they choose. I can live with waiting at least a day or two. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood RP's "I often turn the other cheek and take a time out" (emphasis mine). By "latest intervention" (his latest edit), I meant "Hey Dudes, no need to talk like that. You are getting your way. Now have fun." I may have misinterpreted this too. If I were the only editor involved with him, I'd give him even more than a week to recover his good humour. But in the present case, let's just give him one more day, until tomorrow Friday. If he still puts forward no considerations on the question, we can perhaps, after further reflection by ourselves, then remove the reference, not just comment it out. Esoglou (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

C: thee

• C What is the need to translate the gospel's account quote of the voice as "This day have I begotten thee"? None of the ancient writers used English, and using "thee" for "you" in English today not is normal practice, even for references to God. Neither Greek nor Hebrew nor Aramaic has a different form of the second-person personal pronoun used to indicate the Divine-- as "thee" once was in English-- so there seems to be no point, and may even be missleading. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you don't mean that we should report this phrase in the original Greek (to which I have no access). The words given are those of the translation of the Panarion to which a link is given in the article. Surely that is the proper translation to give in the article. That translation did use "thee". In fact it took the whole phrase, "thee" and inversion of the verb included, from the KJV. There is no ground for thinking that "thou/thee/thine" indicates divinity of the addressee. This was/is just the way to address a single person, while "you/your" referred to several people together. The idea that "thou/thee/thy" indicates divinity is only a recent mistaken notion, which arose because of its continued archaic use in some prayers addressed to God. You will find that notion supported in no reputable work of reference. Or look up any Bible that uses that form for addressing God, and you find that in that Bible the same form is used when a single human being (just one) is addressed. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC).

For the purposes of this quote, I don't really care what it thee used to mean, only that it is archaic English.

Why would "thee" surely be is "the proper translation to give in the article"? Has there been no translations of it made since the 18th century? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know of any other English translation of the Panarion? Unless there is another, we should stick to what we do have, a translation made in the late twentieth century, not in the eighteenth century. I still think that "the proper translation to give in the article" is the one to which the article gives a link. Not because of its use of "thee" in this quotation, but, if you wish, in spite of its use of "thee". Anyway, I see no fault in its choice of the "thee" form in a Biblical or quasi-Biblical context. Esoglou (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

D: Psalm 2:7

• D The text still reads "phrase echoing Psalm 2:7... phrase (an echo of Psalm 2:7)" ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is useful to keep this phrase. The words of the Psalm are clearly the source of the phrase that the New Testament uses in a way that to may mind shows that the earliest Christians habitually applied it to Jesus. The use of the phrase in Acts 13:33 (which expressly quotes the Psalm) has been used to argue that the moment when God "adopted" Jesus (and made him the Messiah) was at his resurrection, which would contradict RetProf's view that the Adoptionists held that the adoption was at his baptism. I am not in favour of introducing this complication of the question. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

We can leave this detail to the Adoptionism article.

Quoting from the "Changes by RetProf/Carlaude" section above...

• The text says at the momment "a phrase echoing Psalm 2:7.. an echo of Psalm 2:7" Not needed! Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

How about a change to this: ^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

“ This gospel's account of the baptism of Jesus, as quoted by Epiphanius, says that the voice from heaven declared: "This day have I begotten you", a phrase echoing Psalm 2:7, and some see this phrase as supporting the doctrine that it was at his baptism ("this day") that Jesus became God's (adopted) son. These words from Psalm 2 are also used twice in the canonical Epistle to the Hebrews, which on the contrary presents Jesus as the Son "through whom (God) made the universe." ”

This seems excellent to me, and in view of the remark by RP that you quote I think you may change the base text accordingly without objection by him. Esoglou (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

E: Logos

• E I don't understan the purpose of puting the word Logos in double quotes. If it is for being a foreign word then it should be in a itlics, and as such, put in pairs of single quotes. If it is because you are quoting someone's use of it, then it should read so as to indicate who. As of now, the text implys a number of people have used the word. Even if you were quoting John, they seems unneeded for a just a single word; it is (or would be) clear without any quotes. On top of that, when we "quote" an ancient author we translate it into English first-- and while some may claim that Logos is now also an English word, I am sure that few if any English translations of John use Logos to translate Logos. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the quotes around "Logos". Does RP think it important to keep them? I have no objection to either keeping the word "Logos" with its wikilink, or to changing to "the Word" with a reference to John 1:1. I suspect that the reason RP inserted "Logos" and will want to keep it is because the article thus linked to speaks of the use of the term "Logos" by Heraclitus and others, as well as by John. How about [[Logos|Word]], with or without the reference to John 1:1, as a compromise? Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad you agree on quote marks.

The [[Logos|Word]] sounds fine to me, although it is a separate issue.

By the way, I think "the Word" would be better than "Logos" (on the first issue) since "the Word" is (barely) a phrase, but since I still think they are not needed, just a plain old the Word would be better still. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope RP has no objection. If he has, it would be common courtesy to say so now, rather than try to change things later without discussion by brute force.

(I will be away again tomorrow for most of the day. After that, I must examine the text and see if I myself have any proposals for change to put before you and, hopefully, RP.) Esoglou (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Confusion?

My understanding was that we agreed to use Esoglou's base and make small carefully explained edits conforming to Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

1. My first edit was "Jesus was fully human, born of a sexual union between Joseph and Mary" from Bart D. Ehrman a reliable source. When challenged I backed it up with a second source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
2. My second edit is material from John Ross Carter, "Of human bondage and divine grace: a global testimony", Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 257
3. Material from New World Encyclopedia per Esoglou Carlaude.

Where are we going wrong? Let us relax and enjoy our editing. All the best - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Allowing yourself to make what changes you yourself (alone) think justified is doubtless very relaxing and enjoyable for you. It is not so for others. Please show good will and consideration for others Your opinion of what constitutes a small and carefully explained change is not necessarily a generally accepted opinion. Why don't you do as Carlaude has done and put forward your proposals for discussion here? And why haven't you discussed the proposals that Carlaude has put forward? They have as much right to be given consideration as your proposals have. Do you think that ignoring his proposals shows politeness on your part? Please be more cooperative. Esoglou (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I understanding you correctly!? You think our agreement was that we use your base and I am no longer allowed to edit. You don't have to follow Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You guys get first and last cut, but I am allowed to make suggestions, and if I am real real nice you, may one day use one of them? Hey, as a Christian I often turn the other cheek and take a time out. I will assume good faith and see what you guys do with my efforts. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be understanding incorrectly. Edits of the base text that you yourself chose were to be done by you in exactly the same way as by the other editors. You were to have no less power of editing than Carlaude or Esoglou were to have, and no greater. Why haven't you presented proposals, as Carlaude did? Surely, you don't think that only the other two editors involved were to barred from editing the base text directly, while you alone were to have a free hand? Why do you still refuse to give the slightest consideration to Carlaude's proposals. We await an indication from you as to whether you accept any of them, reject any of them (and why), or would like some of them to be modified (and in what way)? Please be so good as to do Carlaude the minimum courtesy of reading his proposals, and you will see that your views have been expressly invited on those proposals. Please do let us know what you think of them. And please present your own proposals in the same way as he has done, so that they too may be discussed by others and if necessary modified and perhaps improved before insertion into the article. In that way Carlaude will have no greater privileges than you, and you will enjoy no greater privileges than Carlaude. That surely seems fair. Please cooperate, . Esoglou (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes; everything Esoglou says.

Also-- while I point out that not eveything that can be reliably sourced ought to, or even can, be put in an article, and that you may also start (in addtion to commenting on my points) by commenting on what you do think your sources say-- I am more bothered by your seeming unwillingness to be agreeable in working togther, as we expected you would, dispite your frequent requests to us to "disagree without acting disagreeable." Cheers. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 21:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dudes, no need to talk like that. You are getting your way. Now have fun. Good Luck - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposals by RetProf (by proxy)

Although RP has freely chosen to be inactive, I make bold to put forward at least one of his ideas. It would be much better if he did so himself, explaining the reasons why he thinks they should be included. But unless support appeears for them from RP or someone else, I cannot insist on arguing for their inclusion.

Proposal 1: Insert at the end of the first paragraph:

“ While the canonical books of the New Testament present Jesus as fully human, Adoptionists went further and excluded any miraculous origin for him, seeing him as simply the child of Joseph and Mary, born of them in the normal way. ”

:While the canonical books of the New Testament present Jesus as fully human,<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=vbLK6kn5T-EC&pg=PA18&dq="nothing+if+not+human+here"&cd=1#v=onepage&q="nothing+if+not+human+here"&f=false Bart D. Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code, p. 18]</ref> Adoptionists went further and excluded any [[virgin birth of Jesus|miraculous origin]] for him, seeing him as simply the child of Joseph and Mary, born of them in the normal way.<ref>"These people maintained that Jesus was human in every way – he was born of the sexual union of Joseph and Mary, born the way everyone else is born" (Ehrman, p. 19)</ref>

Esoglou (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have said many times before this article too long. It is much better and easier to limit its growth as we go than to cut out large pieces wholesale, later. Scalpel, rather than axe. (I also wish, BTW, we could somehow agree to cut this whole Adoptionism section to about half the size, or even more, but I only can spend so much time here on such matters.)

I would also change this new part proposed "by RetProf" a bit, before adding it to Adoptionism. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 18:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am leaving it to RP (or anyone else interested) to speak for this proposal or an amendment of it. Esoglou (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds Good! - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I accept Proposal 1: Insert at the end of the first paragraph:

“ While the canonical books of the New Testament present Jesus as fully human, Adoptionists went further and excluded any miraculous origin for him, seeing him as simply the child of Joseph and Mary, born of them in the normal way. ”

Ret.Prof (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we wait a little for further observations by Carlaude and perhaps others before inserting this in the article. Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is User:Carlaude using Too long as an excuse to stop all changes to the article?

[2]

[3]

75.0.11.35 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:SIZE, or even my comments in the above section. Thanks. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 18:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You're just Wikilawyering. First, you added a bunch of general fluff that might be relevant to a preschool article on general Christianity but is largely irrelevant to the topic of Early Christianity and covered in other articles already. Then you added Template:Very long when actually most of the "article size" is taken up in templates and images. Now you use this as an excuse to stop any progress on the article. 75.14.209.9 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So citing an entire Wikipedia policy page is Wikilawyering? Was that out of context or somthing? I think you are being a little silly.

Also, templates and images don't take any space; or rather they only take the space equal to number of charaters in the link to that template or image. Thus adding "{{Christianity}}" is just 15 bytes. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 03:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Carlaude has been causing problems. He seems to use any excuse excuse to stop progress on the article. He has reverted all my edits. Now I know that an old guy like me, does not always get it right but it seemed that he was trying to start an edit war. That is why I have stopped editing this article for the time being. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

where did the lede go?

A lede should summarize the topic; see WP:LEDE. Our lede used to, but it doesn't any more. It's been turned into a definition. Who took away the good lede we had and why? Leadwind (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Look again.

All this material was moved to the history section. The article was (and still is) too long (WP:SIZE).

If left in both places, it would be all a repeat.

Also note that it did not summarize the article— it instead summarized the article: History of early Christianity.

Feel free to actually summarize the article for the lead. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 01:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So you agree that the lede is currently lacking because it doesn't summarize the article? That's a productive place for us to start. What information would you like to see added to the lede? Leadwind (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is an okay topic— but is a mish-mash of different information. Different people will read it for different information, and this makes an lead, or intro, both harder to do, and a bit less useful. I guess it can still be worth the effort.

I would say the lead should have a sentence, crafted or found, for each section of the article, that summarizes the main point of that section or most important thing to know. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 08:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Re. length of this article

In my opinion, the note at the beginning of the article saying it "may be too long to read and navigate comfortably" is ridiculous. There are thousands of fine wikipedia articles that are longer than this one. As this article is now, I don't have to look in five different places to get the information. To break it up would make navigation considerably more difficult. It's all in one place here, and that's preferable. Worldrimroamer (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss the general size recommendations at WP:SIZE-- but being able to load the page is an issue-- as some computer connections will not be as fast as yours. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 23:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Worldrimroamer, the "too long" template on this article is "ridiculous". Clearly this article fits under the exception of "articles summarizing certain fields". To dumb it down and break it up into even more subarticles at this point is a disservice to wikipedia. 75.14.208.185 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Every one wants their own article(s) to be an "exception".

If 75.14.208.185 is really concerned with people "gaming the system", he should start by using a registered account name, so messages can acually be sent to him, and so that his opinion is more likely to be seen as that of someone really new to the discussion-- in other words-- not just User:Worldrimroamer while logged off the Worldrimroamer's account.

These "two" editors seem to know a fair amount about how Wikipedia works for people who have not bothered (so far) to create their account pages.^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 20:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Divinity of Christ gone wrong?

I guess that or someone got confused or there had been some bad editing. Now somewhere in the middle of the second paragraph is written:

The book has many other images, in particular that of a fearsome beast whose worshippers and those who receive its mark "will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb" (Revelation 14:9-11), an effect not attributed to the Lamb itself. The book speaks of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God as reigning with him for a thousand years[40] before the final defeat of Satan[41] and the Judgement at the Great White Throne.[42]

I'm no Bible expert, but I don't think that the beast mentioned in the first sentence (cited from Revelations) is Jesus and the second sentence seems at least missing a first part. --Dia^ (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can find in the text no indication that the beast is Jesus or that anything is missing from the sentence that begins "The book speaks of those..." Esoglou (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Esogolou, maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough.

The paragraph before and after the here cited sentences is a long list of how Jesus is described in the different texts in the Bible. Than suddenly the beast is mentioned. So it seemed to me to a first reading that the cited beast should be a description of Jesus. But if you read the text in the book of Revelations is clearly not the case. Moreover I find the following sentences (an effect not attributed to the Lamb itself. The book speaks of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God as reigning with him for a thousand years[40] before the final defeat of Satan[41] and the Judgement at the Great White Throne.) equally unclear.

--Dia^ (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It should probably be removed. It's just describing Revelation in extra detail, which seems to me extraneous to belief about Christ's divinity. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 14:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I remove it and if someone has any objection can reinstate it possibly with some explanation.--Dia^ (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Protestants and Baptism

The section on baptism states (speaking of baptism by sprinkling vs. immersion) that, "This interpretation is debated between Protestants (who believe in baptism by immersion) and Roman Catholics (who believe in sprinkling instead of baptism by immersion)." This would falsely lead the reader to conclude that all Protestants practice baptism by immersion, while in reality most do not and have not historically. I am going to revise this for clarity.

Anothercopywriter (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Pliny?

The word Pliny does not seem to appear on this page. I noted in the edit summary that Pliny the Younger on Christians needs much help. So let this be as SOS call for that page and perhaps a mention of his references to early Christian practices that deserve to show up on this page. History2007 (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Heresy and heterodoxy

Heresy and heterodoxy are not the same thing, as that section seems to imply. Heresy is incorrect doctrine (EG The idea that Christ was only divine after the Resurrection, or that he only went into what we would now call a coma while on the cross [Both of which are actual Early Church heresies, by the way]). Heterodoxy is incorrect praise (EG Worshipping God half-heartedly). This should be clarified. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced of this distinction that you draw. As far as I can tell, heresy is what you call heterodox beliefs that you decide are unorthodox. Can you provide reliable sources that support your definition of heterodoxy? --Richard S (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I could do a lengthy pouring-over of the Catechism and find it. Alternatively, I could email Father Paul (the Priest who taught my RCIA class) and find it in his Seminary notes. (The latter is probably what I'll do.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Richard is right, given that the New and enlarged handbook of Christian theology by Donald W. Musser, Joseph L. Price page 230 says: "HERESY/HETERODOXY: Heresy or heterodoxy is an opinion or doctrine considered to be at variance with established religious beliefs". So it would be either heresy or heterodoxy to assume they are different, which ever way is preferred. History2007 (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not all derive "priest" from the word "presbyter"

Esoglou is at it again. I made a modification the other night that he rudely reverted, because he thinks (wrongly) that there "is no dispute" about the etymology of the word "priest" from the word "presbyter". The point though is that there is "dispute" and "disagreement" in a very real sense. So the modification to make it a bit more clear. So as to NOT give the wrong impression that "presbyter" actually means "priest" when it doesn't. Minor point since the word "elder" is there too. But the simple linguistic fact is that "presbyter" simply does not mean "priest." But rather means "elder". "No dispute"? Ask any Baptist minister, and he'll tell you different. Ask most Protestant authorities, and they'll say there's big-time dispute, in that specific regard. Esoglous is just plain wrong here, about that. Sorry to say. The fact is that yes there is "dispute". With translation or verbal usage. Because, again, the fact is that "presbyter" does NOT mean "priest", but rather means "elder". The Greek word for priest in the NT is "eireis", NOT "presbyter". (Check Revelation 20:6 for example.) So there IS "dispute". Stop your usual edit-warring and Roman Catholic bias, or discuss it here in Talk. Thank you. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please accept what the reliable sources say: the English word "priest" is derived from Greek πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros). Πρεσβύτερος means "elder", but it is the origin of the English words "priest" and "presbyter", as ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos) means "overseer", but is the origin of the English word "bishop". There is no Greek word "Ereis" or "eireis" meaning "priest": the Greek word for "priest" is ἱερεύς (hiereus), and from this Greek word are derived English words such as "hierarchy", "hieratic", "hieroglyph". You have deleted a reliable source that stated that the English word "priest" is derived from Greek πρεσβύτερος and have replaced it with your own unsourced idea that the etymological origin of the word is disputed. You should know by now that Wikipedia does not admit that kind of editing: please read WP:V. Esoglou (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

To address a couple of things you said here.

One: no need to nit-pick about my little mis-spelling of the Greek word (which Greek words sometimes have variations anyway) of ""hiereus". I wrote "Eireis" quickly or maybe as an alternate. No biggie.

Number two, that reference that you put LATER was not what was there originally, but only after you reverted me. And just because a "source" dogmatically says something, that does not mean it ipso facto is infallibly true or law. Or is so "reliable" necessarily. And even what's maybe considered "reliable sources", by some people, are sometimes just flat-out wrong. There are other sources that have problems with translating or "deriving" the English word "priest" from the Greek word "presbyter". Though I'm sure you'll consider them somehow all of them "unreliable" (in circular reasoning fashion.)

Number three (and the most important) is that, in your edit comment, you (wrongly) said "it's not in dispute". Well, the problem with that is that it's simply not true. The notion that you should derive "priest" from the Greek word "presbyter" IS in "dispute", and many authorities DO have problems with that. The point is there IS "dispute". And it's weird and dishonest to say that there isn't.

"Presbyter" may be the Greek word where the word "priest" comes from for SOME people and churches, but definitely not correctly for all.

Is presbyter the Greek word where the word “priest” comes for all churches and groups? Absolutely and clearly not.

Ask yourself this: Is presbyter where the word “priest” comes from for Baptists? Is presbyter where the word “priest” comes from for Presbyterians? Is presbyter where the word “priest” comes from for Seventh Day Adventists? Is presbyter where the word “priest” comes from for Jehovah’s Witnesses? Is presbyter where the word “priest” comes from for Pentecostals? Is presbyter where the word "priest" comes from for Methodists? The Living Church of God? Assemblies of God? The answer is an emphatic “no”. They don’t derive the word “priest” from the Greek word “presbyter”, being that all that word literally and accurately means is "elder". Only the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches somehow get "priest" from "presbyter". And the fact is that many Protestant (maybe not all, but most Protestant) authorities don't agree with that practice and notion at all.

Also, does this website right here indicate "no dispute"?

It reads: "The Greek word "presbyter" does not mean "priest" and no reputable Greek scholar has ever rendered it as such. The word simply means "an old man, an elder." He had to have "believing children" (Titus 1:6), and, thus, only older men were qualified. Catholic officials in their translations of Scripture insert the word "priest" into verses where it does not belong."

And the point is that even if that is not considered a "reliable source" per se, it proves the clear point that this notion that it's correct to get "priest" from "presbyter" is in dispute. By many Protestants and Protestant authorities. That's simply an observable documented fact.

Also, what settles the fact that my edit and modification was correct in saying "some" etc, is this reliable source here...

pres·by·ter (przb-tr, prs-)

n.

1. A priest in various hierarchical churches.

(Notice it says "in various hierarchical" churches,...not all churches.)

2.

a. A teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church.

b. A ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church.

1. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms)

a. an elder of a congregation in the early Christian Church

[from Late Latin, from Greek presbuteros an older man, from presbus old man]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

This dictionary here does NOT say that "presbyter" means "priest" for everyone or that it is dogmatically no question. But only for some "various hierarchical" type churches. Meaning, it's not saying that that's actually the objective definition per se of the Greek word "presbyter" as a settled and all-encompassing linguistic fact. But is only considered such by some churches. It says clearly that the Presbyterian Church (for example) does NOT consider it as "priest", but only as "elder".

So again, the main point is that it's simply incorrect to say that it's "not in dispute", when it's common knowledge (the sky is blue) that it is in dispute by many scholars, historians, linguists, biblicists, ministers, churches, etc. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you perhaps imagine that "derived from" is the same as "meaning"? The article has not in fact said that the Greek word presbyteros in the New Testament meant priest, as you seem to imagine. You have been given time to cite any source that disagrees with the sourced statement that the English word "priest" is derived etymologically (not, of course, entomologically, as first written by an amusing but understandable slip) from the Greek word πρεσβύτερος. You have failed to produce any. In Wikipedia you cannot insert personal conclusions that contradict sourced information. Esoglou (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you cite any source that says the English word "priest" is not derived from the Greek word "presbyteros"? Or do

What are you talking about? I never removed that per se. If you notice. I never deleted the point "derived" (even though that word was not actually there but rather it said "where the origin of priest" comes from, which is only true for SOME churches, not all)...I simply added "by some". Which is true, and a sourced fact. It's ONLY BY SOME...not all. Which is what YOU did not like. The way it was written before is that it was "priest" was from the origin of"presbyter" PERIOD...end of discussion. As if by everyone and is just a linguistic fact. Which is simply not the case. I merely added the modification that it is by some. Which is simply a fact, cited, verified. The Dictionary that I quoted indicates that clearly. That "priest" is from "presbyter" BY SOME CHURCHES...not all. So your whole thing here is a straw-man and not even what took place. You can't claim that "it's not in dispute" simply because you wrongly think that no "reliable source" says that, or because you think all RS indicate "derived" as if by everyone. Clearly it's not. And I never removed "derived", or whatever was there, but simply added "by some" etc...to make it clear that it's NOT by every church or group, that that "etymology" is believed to be. It simply aint. I already "cited sources" that show that the Presbyterians DO NOT get "priest" from "presbyter", but only get "elder" from that. Re-read what I wrote above. And this is not "personal conclusions". What's wrong with you? There's no guessing or opinion that Protestant authorities (you act as if this even debatable) "dispute" the idea that it's ok to get "priest" from "presbyter". Many dispute that Roman Catholic notion, and some vehemently. There's no "personal conclusion" in that. Did you even see the citations above, and points?

ok, I re-did it better now, and with source, so there's no valid excuse at all anywhere, and it's arguably perfect now...

It reads: "and presbyters (elders; where some hierarchical churches derive the term priest),[14]"

The ONLY way you can find a problem with the rendering and revert is because of extreme personal doctrinal and religious bias and agenda-pushing.

Full paragraph:

In the post-Apostolic church, bishops emerged as overseers of urban Christian populations, and a hierarchy of clergy gradually took on the form of episkopos (overseers; and the origin of the term bishop) and presbyters (elders; where some hierarchical churches derive the term priest), and then deacons (ministerial servants). But this emerged slowly and at different times for different locations. Clement, a 1st century bishop of Rome, refers to the leaders of the Corinthian church in his epistle to Corinthians as bishops and presbyters interchangeably. The New Testament writers also use the terms overseer and elders interchangeably and as synonyms. The Didache (dated by most scholars to the early 2nd century),) speaks of "appointing for yourself bishops and deacons" and also speaks about teachers and prophets and false prophets.

just now...I changed it to "where some hierarchical churches derive"...and put in reliable source stating that point...so now you have NO excuse...so if you war and revert again, then it's nothing but Roman Catholic bias and POV pushing...Hashem sfarim (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We still await a citation of any source whatever that says the English word "priest" is not derived from the Greek word πρεσβύτερος. Sources that on the contrary say the English word "priest" is derived from the Greek word (which is also the etymological original of the English word "presbyter") include the one that you have once again deleted without explanation, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company and this book. Now what source can you cite that gives any different etymological origin whatever for the English word "priest"? And the heading you have now given to this discussion, "Not all derive 'priest' from the word 'presbyter'" - I presume you mean "from the (Greek) word 'presbyteros'", which is the origin of both English words - remains only your own original-research unsourced claim. Wikipedia accepts only well-sourced information.

If you are (still) under the misapprehension that a word must necessarily mean what the word it was derived from meant, I strongly recommend to you the reading of etymological fallacy, which should rid you of that unfounded idea. Esoglou (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Let us remember that this is not an article about the word Priest but about early Christianity. It is more important to explain how early Christianity evolved into later forms of Christianity than to argue about etymology. That said, I offer the following two etymologies:

[Middle English preost, from Old English prost, perhaps from Vulgar Latin *prester (from Late Latin presbyter; see presbyter) or from West Germanic *prvost (from Latin praepositus, superintendent; see provost).]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[Old English prēost, apparently from presbyter; related to Old High German prēster, Old French prestre]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Note the weasel words "perhaps" and "apparently". These two dictionaries, at least, are hedging the etymology. I think Hashem Sfarim has a point that there is at least some uncertainty about the etymology of the word priest. However, because our focus in this article is religion, not language, we need not resolve this problem. It is sufficient to say that some churches (e.g. Catholic and Orthodox) point to the concept of the presbyter as the origin of the role of priest and other churches reject this linkage. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have attempted to resolve this issue by rewriting the paragraph to state what I think we all agree on (i.e. that the interpretation of the roles of bishop and elder are radically different in different churches and that this difference is the a major contributor to division in Christianity). While it is "probably" true that priest is derived from presbyter, I left it out of my text. I'm not opposed to putting it back in although I would point out that the Free Dictionary Online says that "priest" is "probably" derived from "presbyter". I think it is adequate to assert that the role of presbyter evolved into the role of priest in some churches. Focusing on etymology risk falling into the etymological fallacy. The arguments of various churches over leadership roles is not primarily etymological. The fact that there is also an etymological link is really a side issue. After all, I doubt the Catholic Church uses the word "priest" in Church Latin. I assume the Orthodox use the word "hiereus" or something similar for priest. Thus, etymology is not the primary driver of the concept of priest. What's important is that these churches link their words and concepts to the original concept of presbyter in early Christianity. And other churches, mostly the Protestant and Restorationist ones, reject this interpretation of the role. (Side note: For what it's worth, the Mormons have both priests and elders. But, they are really a different kind of Christianity and some wouldn't even characterize them as Christian at all.). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My request for a citation in support of the previously unsourced claim has been answered. I agree that there is really no need whatever, and that instead it is out of place, to mention the etymology of the English words, which did not come into existence until many centuries after early Christianity. It is quite enough to mention the appearance in early Christianity of the threefold order of bishop, presbyter and deacon. But in view of the unsubstantiated personal accusations insistently made against me, I prefer not to touch the article for now.

Some more by-the-way remarks. There is no need to say anything either about an alleged development of presbyteral to priestly role, unless you mean (and show) that such a development occurred in the period this article is about. Regarding "Church Latin", "priest", not being Latin, is of course not used, but "sacerdos" is. For about a thousand years, this word was applied only to bishops, but is now applied in the first place to those of the presbyteral order, while being still applied also to bishops. Much the same holds for the Greek word ἱερεύς. In English too, as in present-day Church Latin, "bishops and priests" are understood as two distinct orders, and yet at the same time bishops are also considered to be priests. Another curiosity: my non-recent printed copy of the American Heritage Dictionary and the online version of it that I cited above do not contain the West Germanic alternative derivation of "priest" that Pseudo-Richard found in his (presumably online?) source. Both Richard's source and the online source that I cited claim to be quoting from the same 2000 edition updated in 2009. That is curious. Esoglou (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that there is both history and ecclesiastical evolution and interpretation of that history and evolution. We must work hard to develop an NPOV treatment of these. What's indisputable is that there were presbyters, bishops (episkopos) and deacons (diakonos). What's less clear is what the distinction was in early Christianity between presbyters and episkopos. There is no categorical list of what the duties of a presbyter were (just specifications of what the requirements were to become one). This leaves open the possibility of evolving that role into that of a Catholic or Orthodox priest or that of an elder in a Presbyterian church. There are several ecclesiastical models that all claim to be founded on the early Christian model. We should not represent any of these as being better or more faithful than the others. What we should do is present what is incontrovertible and what is subject to dispute. In presenting what is subject to dispute, we should simply state what the different positions are without taking sides. While the etymology of "priest" is not very important to this article, the linkage between Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican priests and early Christian presbyters is, IMO, worth mentioning. So, too, is the fact that Protestant churches and Restorationist churches such as the Jehovah's Witnesses do not utilize and even reject the concept of priest. I think my edit accomplished that and, if all agree, we should let it rest there and move on to other tasks. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I am far from enthusiastic about the idea of including under "early Christianity" a discussion of how any of its aspects developed later. It is certain that in the second century there begins to be seen a clear tripartite distinction between bishops, presbyters and deacons, while in the first it can be argued that there was at most a bipartite distinction between bishops/presbyters and deacons. (If you want to use the New Testament Greek terms, they should surely be uniform and plural: episkopoi, presbyteroi, diakonoi.) That is amply dealt with in the article, more amply than necessary in my opinion. There is no need to add information on later developments. After all, the Greek and Latin words corresponding to English "priest" (ἱερεύς, sacerdos), while sometimes used of bishops, were never applied to presbyters in early Christianity, nor were they for many centuries later. However, since these later developments continue to be under discussion here, I have decided to refrain no longer from editing the mentions of them in the article.

Thank God, the article (unless I am mistaken) has dropped all mention of the etymology of the English word "priest". But there remains the puzzle of what in fact the latest edition of the American Heritage Dictionary says: does it say, as in earlier editions, that the word comes ultimately from Greek πρεσβύτερος, as the source I cited maintains, or does it say that it comes ultimately either from that Greek word or from Latin praepositus, as the unspecified source Richard referred to declares? Esoglou (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the website from which I picked up one of the entries for "priest". I haven't bothered to dig up the website for the other entry but will attempt to do so if requested. I readily acknowledge that other dictionaries are less equivocal about the etymology of "priest", attributing it to "presbyter". I just wanted to point out that there were at least two dictionaries that hedged their bets. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Was I dreaming? I find now that my citing is the same as Richard's and makes no mention whatever (any longer?) of the Greek word! I assure you that it was much more recently that I looked up the 1970 printed edition of the dictionary and saw, I thought, that it was exactly the same as what I had already found or thought I had found online, with the exception that the online source did not go, as the American Heritage Dictionary usually does (or only did in the past?) even further back than the oldest extant form (in this case Greek) by referring to an entry in the dictionary's appendix on Indo-European roots.

Most likely, I was mistaken. Esoglou (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete Restorationism

Hey all - I propose deleting the section on restorationism and simply adding the term to the "see also" list. From what I understand the movement is entirely contemporary and is not exactly relevant to a page dedicated primarily to the history of the early christian church. Thoughts?Eastern Son (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support, for the reasons indicated. Esoglou (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, it really does not seem to fit within this topic. --^StormRider 10:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Jesus and the first Christians were all Jews?

That's not true. They were Judeans. --ChristianHistory (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Even the Galileans? Esoglou (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You know what I meant.--ChristianHistory (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh? And just what do you think "Judean" basically means? It means "Jew", because "Jew" linguistically and historically ALSO came from the word Judah. But the term "Jew" was then expanded broadly to mean Israelites in general. All the Apostles were "Jews". "Jew" vs "Judean" is really a distinction without a difference, in this overall context. Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I acknowledge that it is an oft-stated truism that "the first Christians were Jews" but, in truth, it is only partly true unless you want to focus on the 12 apostles only. After all, weren't there Samaritan followers of Jesus? There was a Roman centurion who came to get his son healed. And, I think there are a few other nationalities mentioned in the New Testament. So, to be precise, we would have to say something like "The first Christians were primarily Jews, although Jesus had followers from various other nations including Romans and Samaritans." or "Initially, Christianity was a Jewish sect which required that its members be Jews." (note the careful wording, you could become a Christian if and only if you were or became a Jew) Pauline Christianity opened membership to the Gentiles but, before the Council of Jerusalem, there was much controversy over this issue. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, it depends on what is precisely meant. In other words, if you say the VERY first Christians were "all Jews", that is Biblically and Historically correct. (The 12 Apostles, the 120 Disciples in the upper room, etc.) But if you say that the first-century Christians were "all Jews", that, of course, is incorrect. It went like this: Jews first, then Samaritans, then Gentiles. ("Samaritans" were considered neither "Jew" nor "Gentile", but somewhere in between.) Peter was given (according to some churches) THREE symbolic "keys of the Kingdom", while on earth. As leader of the Apostolic band. The first "key" was to open up to fellow Israelites (Acts 2); the second key was to open up to the Samaritans (Acts 8); and the third "key" was to open up Kingdom opportunities and salvation to "Gentiles" (Acts 10). (So it wasn't actually "Pauline Christianity" that first opened it up to Gentiles. Paul helped advance it of course, but was not the first to open it up per se. Peter was, in Acts 10, with the Italian centurion Cornelius.) But you're right, the "first Christians" were NOT "all Jews" if you mean the first-century Christians in general. If you mean the very very first, the Apostles, and the 120 Disciples at Pentecost, etc, then yeah, the very first, in the very beginning, were all "Jews" or "Israelites". And then not too long later it was opened up to others of other nations. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

So what should we do about the second paragraph of the lead section? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Per your points and suggestion, I made the adjustment. To make it more precise, more clear, and more accurate. See how it is now. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have carefully read the above discussion. At Wikipedia we always need to use reliable sources to support our positions. Jesus and the first Christians were Jews but there were exceptions.

Edit: Link to Oral gospel traditions

Today most scholars agree that Jesus and the first Christians were Jewish (but there were exceptions). Indeed over the past ten years the thinking of Biblical scholars has undergone a radical transformation. There is now a growing number of historians that believe:

1. Jesus was a Jewish teacher living in a Jewish society (Sitz im Leban).
2. Jesus and later his disciples were active participants in the Oral Tradition of the Second Temple Period.
3. Early Christians, up to the time of the creation of the first Gospels, sustained the Gospel message of Jesus, by sharing the stories of his life and his teachings orally. This Oral Tradition remained vibrant until the destruction of the Temple.
4. These 21st C. scholars generally agree that Mark was the first to write down the Oral Tradition in the form of a Gospel. They also argue that Matthew wrote down the sayings in a Hebrew dialect and that the canonical Gospel of Matthew does not appear to be a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic but was composed in Greek. (ie Matthew's Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew are two distinct Gospels.)

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman is probably the most formidable Biblical historian of our time. Not only is he required reading at most seminaries, but he has managed to hit New York Times best sellers list. In his most recent work Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 83 - 93 and 98-101 Bart D. Ehrman, explains why the oral traditions about Jesus are an important part of Early Christianity. Some of these oral traditions "were originally spoken in Aramaic, the language of Palestine. These traditions date at least to the early years of the Christian movement, before it expanded into the Greekspeaking lands elsewhere in the Mediterranean." p 87 Ehrman shows that each of the Gospel texts is based on "oral traditions that had been in circulation for years among communities of Christians in different parts of the world, all of them attesting to the existence of Jesus. And some of these traditions must have originated in Aramaic-speaking communities of Palestine, probably in the 30s CE, within several years at least of the traditional date of the death of Jesus." pp 92-93

Then Ehrman explains why Papias, who was born in 63 CE and was a Bishop in the Early Church is so very important in understanding the Oral Gospel Traditions. Papias had written a flve-volume on the Oral Tradition and more importantly, he had direct access to "the sayings of Jesus. He was personally acquainted with people who had known either the apostles themselves or their companions." p 98 Also it was Matthew who reduced the oral tradition to writing as Papias reports, “And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [or translated] them to the best of his ability.” p 100

Finally although Ehrman takes the position that Matthew reduced the Oral Tradition to a Hebrew dialect (probably Aramaic) he does not believe that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is the same as the Gospel of Matthew in our Bible. Because there is "a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to" what we call Matthew. Ehrman adds, in fact, what Papias "says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels." The Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew is distinct from the Gospel of Matthew that eventually came to be included in Scripture.p 101 Papias then, is "testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves."P 101

Maurice Casey

Maurice Casey is one of Britain's most noted historians. He is Emeritus Professor at the University of Nottingham, having served there as Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the Department of Theology. His most recent work Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. p 9-12 supports the aforementioned scholarship. There can be little doubt that the language of oral transmission of the Gospel was Aramaic for "Jesus taught in Aramaic, which was also the language spoken by his family and by all his followers" p 108 during the formative tears of Christianity.

Furthermore, he too believes that Matthew collected the oral traditions of Jesus and reduced them to writing. "Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down... There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. p 86 Therefore "it is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language."88 Finally, he agrees with Ehrman that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel has no connection with our Gospel of Matthew. "This tradition is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognized." p 87

James Edwards

Unlike Casey and Ehrman, James Edwards is a Christian scholar. He is a Bruner-Welch Professor of Theology, an Ordained Presbyterian minister, a contributing editor of Christianity Today, and member of the Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton. In his most recent work the The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 2 he confirms that the Oral Gospel traditions were collected by Matthew and that Matthew wrote them down in the Hebrew Gospel. p3

Then Edwards evaluates the testimony of Papias using the criteria of Casey and Ehrman. Papias is supported by 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Twelve of the Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer, either Christian or Non Christian, challenged these two facts. Google Link

So far this 21st C. scholarship has not been well received at Wikipedia. It has been argued the the material from Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, and James Edwards is 'original research' and has no place at Wikipedia. The result is that we are now in a state of gridlock. We have been unable to get past the Oral gospel traditions stub. What is needed are editors who are willing to review the reliable sources and expand the stub into an article written from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Early Christianity

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Early Christianity's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Bradshaw":

• From Apostolic Constitutions: Bradshaw, Paul F. (2002). The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. Oxford University Press. pp. 85–87. ISBN 978-0-19-521732-2.
• From Apostolic Tradition: Bradshaw, Paul F. (2002). The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. Oxford University Press. pp. 78–80. ISBN 978-0-19-521732-2.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Google Books only gives snippets. Only someone with access to the book can judge which page range is correct. Esoglou (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Shortening the page

I'd be happy to shorten the page, as long as we do so by condensing the information rather than by removing it. We can take a section that's longish, bust it out as its own page, and then condense the information on this page. What section would make a good start? How about we take the "beliefs" and "orthodoxy/heterodoxy" sections and use them as the basis for an article called "Early Christian beliefs"?

By the way, a lead that actually summarizes the topic really helps a long article because it allows the reader to get the gist easily without wading through a lot of text. Of course, if an editor doesn't want a reader to easily learn what historians know about early Christianity, then their goal would obviously be to make it more difficult, not less, for the reader to get the gist. Leadwind (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to see information condensed.

there were many men to believed to be called THE RED DEVIL who organized a group called F10.

I agree the orthodoxy/heterodoxy section is too long. Splitting it out (as I have done with a couple other sections already just to get it down to this size) sounds like a good idea. The material may not be balance for lenght, but it could serve as a good start. I am not sure yet if it would be better to have the article about all early Christian beliefs, including orthodox ones, or not. Gnosticism is not really a form of Christianity. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 08:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's include orthodoxy and heterodoxy within early Christian beliefs as a separate page. It's true that Gnosticism includes a lot more than Christian Gnosticism, but the article could just deal with Gnosticism in Christian heresy and not Gnosticism in general. Leadwind (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds ok theory, and if you start it I will keep an eye on it.

It also seems like if we name if Early Christian theology and heterodoxy some will say it needs to be called Early Christian theology, and then that seems like an article topic bound to genarate a lot of argument over what early theology is still Christian theology. What do you think is the big advantage is of making it about orthodoxy and heterodoxy ?

I am not sure how much time I can put into it. It seems like it could grow very large if time was put into it. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 18:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Coming to this page from an outside perspective, I'd say that while the article is long, the individual sections are pretty short and manageable, and direct readers to articles for further reading. So I was wondering whether maybe the concerns about length had been sufficiently addressed to justify removing the tag at the top. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK taking the tag off. Leadwind (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the thing to do is split of one or both of "(Early Christian) Beliefs" and "(Early Christian) Orthodoxy and heterodoxy" into another page. Even if new page is not created I think those sections should be cut for lenght. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 23:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've created Diversity in early Christian theology. The article is still a little too long. The next step would be to create Early Christian beliefs. --Richard S (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is too long compared to what? I don't believe it's any longer than the average wikipedia article. Breaking things out into separate articles would make it much harder to navigate. Worldrimroamer (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is too much repeated information in the article. I would start by locating all the repeats and consolidating the information while retaining all the references where appropriate. For example, there are several instances where it is said that the persecutions were often generated by the local populace rather than by the Roman authorities. Also, there is an anecdote, repeated at least twice, where a governor tells some volunteer myrtles to go execute themselves. There are many other examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel Durrant (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Christian mysticism

• The Template:Christian mysticism mislabled two Christian writters of late Antiquity under "Early Christianity". The Early Christianity article is only on time up to 325 AD. This is now changed on the template to "Antiquity".
• Since neither History of late ancient Christianity nor Early Christianity discuss Christian mysticism there is no reason to link to either from Template:Christian mysticism.
• Even if one or both articles were linked, WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is only a "common sense guideline" and would still not make sense here because the article(s) do not discuss Christian mysticism. tahc ^chat 20:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason "even WP:BIDIRECTIONAL does not apply" is the three points above. Put another way, since the Template:Christian mysticism does not link to Early Christianity, there is not even that excuse to transclude Template:Christian mysticism on the Early Christianity page. tahc ^chat 17:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No s in the final book in the New Testament

Can some please remind all people who make contributions here that the exact title of the final book in the N.T. is The Revelation of Saint John Divine - there is no need for an s after Revelation?81.140.1.129 (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223092632/http://www.lutterworth.com:80/jamesclarke/jc/titles/makingof.htm to http://www.lutterworth.com/jamesclarke/jc/titles/makingof.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lutterworth.com/jamesclarke/jc/titles/makingof.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122140242/http://www.earlychristianireland.org/index.html to http://www.earlychristianireland.org/index.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Armenia as first state to adopt Christianity as official religion

An edit is required in Spread of Christianity section where it is stated that Osroene became the first state to adopt Christianity as official religion and that the Kingdom of Armenia was the second. It is widely accepted by scholars and theologians that Armenia was the first state to declare Christianity as its official religion in 301 AD. Wikipedia's article on Osroene states that Osroene was "absorbed into the Roman Empire in 114 as a semiautonomous vassal state, after a period under the rule of the Parthian Empire, incorporated as a simple Roman province in 214. There is an apocryphal legend that Osroene was the first state to have accepted Christianity as state religion, but there is not enough evidence to support that point of view." It is clear, therefore, that Osroene was not even a state at the time it allegedly accepted Christianity as state religion and that there is not enough evidence to support that hypothesis. Whereas the Kingdom of Armenia was an independent state formation and there is enough evidence accepted by the scholars that the Kingdom proclaimed Christianity as state religion in 301 AD.--96.231.5.33 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Davidian

"Incest"

I'm not seeing anywhere in Hoffman's intro to Celsus: On The True Doctrine where rumors, accusations, and suspicion of incest are described as any more than that, much less as historical fact.

The only mentions of incest that I'm seeing (with emphasis added):

• Pliny had heard this much and more about the clandestine practices of the Christians including suggestions that they occasionally sacrificed and ate their young and indulged in ritual incest at their love banquets. Pliny himself appears to credit the Christian denial of such charges (p.16)
• Fronto offers an equally full description of the supposed incestuous passions of the Christian congregations (p.17)
• Epiphanius points to an obscure sect called by him the Phibionites, who

unite with each other [sister and brother] in the passion of fornication.... (p.17, note that the Phibionites, or Borborites, were Gnostics)

• Among the charges reported against the Christians in his Apology, Tertullian mentions murder, cannibalism, treason, sacrilege (atheism), and incest--crimes already envisaged in Justin's apologia and perhaps also by the author of I Peter 2.12 (katalalousin hyman hos kakopoion: "[the nations] ... speak against you as evildoers"). (p.18, which frames such charges as alleged abuses of the Christian mystery and suspicion of the new religion, not historical fact)
• if the pagan mysteries were marred by immorality, the Christian cultus had ritualized incest and gluttony (p.23, which frames this as a long history of polemical squabbling remarkable primarily for the banality of its content)

Page 25 further notes that the accusations were Based almost certainly on casual impressions and hearsay, they reflect the common Roman distaste for what is new and unapproved, but tell us very little about what particulars of the new religion the opponents found objectionable.

The source does not support the sweeping claim that Early Christianity as a whole definitely and absolutely engaged in incest. It is WP:UNDUE weight and a complete misrepresentation of the source.

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You misrepresent the quote on p25 (not p.18) which is talking about "early critiques" of Christianity lacking philosophical rigour - because, as it says on p24, "The moral critiques of Christianity antedate the philosophical assaults of writers like Celsus for an obvious reason: the Christianity of the first century had yet to develop an assailable system of belief or a fixed canon of writings from which such beliefs could be educed." As I stated in my edit summary, the relevant quote is already included, from p18 "It is impossible to measure the extent of the alleged abuses of the Christian mystery". You reason for removing it from the article is that you are claiming to have measured the extent of the alleged abuses. (See Wp:NOR) Is that correct? zzz (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The "casual impressions and hearsay" that "reflect common Roman distaste for what is new and unapproved" could only refer to "the moral critiques" that "antedate the philosophical assaults."

Again, pretty much every mention of incest are labelled as suggestions, suppositions, allegations, and suspicions. "We don't know" =/= "all allegations definitely happened," especially when the source doesn't treat the allegations as fact.

I'm not claiming to have measured it, I'm pointing out that the source itself admits that it's neither measured nor confirmed. The application of WP:NOR here would be to not take a source that says "we do not know to what extent the allegations are true" as "this is a fact because we don't know that it didn't happen." Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You cannot equate "It is impossible to judge how common such practices were" - which is reliably sourced - with "This is a fact because we don't know that it didn't happen". zzz (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

And yet the phrasing of the contentious edit starts of with "The Christian practice of incest" as if it is both a historical and universal fact, and does nothing to point out that historians have yet to find anything behind the allegations except more allegations. I'm starting a page at WP:NORN. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What you just deleted did not start as you are claiming. Would it be fair to say then, that you had not read it before deleting it? zzz (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

More than you read the source, given how you've missed the continual use of words like suggestions, suppositions, allegations, and suspicions. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

First sentence of the removed content: "The practice of incest among libertine Christian sects was widely reported by contemporary pagan and Christian authors." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• "It is impossible to judge how common such practices were" presumes by definition that the practice happened; a presumption not supported by the source. An accurate rewording might be "it is impossible to judge whether this practice took place, or if so, how common it was." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That seems ok (with "such practices" for "this practice"). zzz (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Here's a possible summary of the source in question:

Early Christians were accused by Roman authors of a variety of charges, including drunkeness, atheism, orgies, incest, murder, and cannibalism.(p.16-25) Some Roman authors, such as Pliny, reported the charges but doubted them,(p.16) while others, such as Marcus Cornelius Fronto, assumed all allegations were true.(p.16-17) Christian authors, such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, blamed Gnostic sects such as the Phibionites for these practices.(p.17-18) Tertullian also denied the allegations and explained what practices he had seen.(p.18-19) To what extent these claimed practices were prevalent is not known.(p.18) Roman authors were uncomfortable with the new religion's claims to exclusivity and believed that Christianity's rejection of commonly held beliefs and practices left them with no basis in morality.(p.20-21) Until Christianity's philosophical doctrines had yet to develop, the Romans launched moral attacks against Christianity, to which Christian apologists responded in kind.(p.20-24)

This would also be further resolved through additional sourcing, especially tertiary sources (instead of an intro to a primary source). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No, your rewrite is totally unsatisfactory (and unnecessary). "Christian authors, such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, blamed Gnostic sects such as the Phibionites for these practices": that is pure WP:OR. The source says nothing of the sort. zzz (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

the early writers are anxious to deflect attacks on the libertine sects by insisting that they have falsely laid claim to the name "Christian": "We demand that those accused to you be judged in order that each one who is convicted may be punished as an evildoer and not as a Christian." This process of differentiation, together with its theological and doctrinal corollaries, is of inestimable importance in guaging the emergence of Christian "orthodoxy" or "right belief"; for it is in the effort to correct an impression given by the extremist movements that the articulation of opposing systems of belief comes into focus. (p.18). Our article on the Phibionites notes that they were Gnostic. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The content you deleted already said that the Christian writers claimed that those guilty of these practices were falsely claiming to be Christian. And that is what the quotes you just provided confirm (not that they "blamed Gnostic sects such as the Phibionites for these practices", which is what I just raised). You are just proposing adding your Original Reasearch spin to what is currently properly reliably sourced material. (Not to mention, ironically, accusing me of misreading the sources) zzz (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking into other sources, it would be WP:UNDUE to even claim that it was only "libertine sects":

• p. 569, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. Everett Ferguson, Routledge, "Incest" has nothing affirming any claim beyond accusations.
• ...no Christian was convicted of cannibalism or incest or other flagitia, and these charges do not actually occur in the records of the persecutions. - p.99, Penal Practice and Penal Policy in Ancient Rome, by O. F Robinson, Routledge
• The usual explanation adduces 'standard accusations' levelled indiscriminately against minority religious groups, always suspected of the worst by prurient outsiders. [...] Orthodox Christians were themselves willing to believe such things of the 'gnostic heretics'; Clement charges the Carpocratians with promiscuity, and Epiphanius the Phibionites with both promiscuity and cannibalism. So, 'incest and cannibalism' are to be seen as standard denunciations directed against esoteric religious groups. - p.136 Making Sense in (and Of) the First Christian Century, by Francis Gerald Downing, A&C Black
• Christian, Jew, Greek, Roman, they were all said to be guilty of sexual excess of some sort or another. [...] Clearly, allegations of moral turpitude were standard fare in ancient rhetorical invective, available to any author interested in discrediting an opponent or set of opponents. The practice of charging one's intended victim with sexual misbehavior can be read as part of a rhetorical tradition extending back as least as far as fourth-century Athens. [...] Political opponents, unpopular emperors, controversial philosophies, new religions, and "barbarian" cultures were all characterized as debauched, depraved, and perverse. Sexual slander, therefore, was a widespread practice in ancient polemics, and similar charges were deployed both against Christians and by Christians. [...] These accusations do not offer straightforward evidence of sexual practice; rather, they indicate a conflict between the author and those whom he maligned. - p. 4-6, Abandoned to Lust: Sexual Slander and Ancient Christianity, by Jennifer Wright Knust, Columbia University Press

These accusations were dead common all around. Hoffman describes orthodox Christians as blame-shifting accusations to other sects, but doesn't prove that there's any basis anywhere for any of the accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

When men and women kissed each other on the mouth (the Christian kiss), in the darkness before dawn (they were slaves, so they met before going to work), calling each other brother and sister, Pagans thought Christians were engaging in incestuous orgies. When they stated that they eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son, Pagans thought: cannibalism, they eat the children born from incest. Source: Ehrman's TTC courses on the history of Christianity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Dubious

I have marked the claim that Osroene was the "first Christian state" as dubious, since it contradicts the information written under Osroene#Kingdom.--AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Any interested parties, please note the discussion at Talk:History of early Christianity#Merge to Early Christianity to merge History of early Christianity with Early Christianity appears on that page, as is also the case with Proto-orthodox Christianity and Historiography of early Christianity. Mannanan51 (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This will likely not go anywhere. Fragmenting merge discussions defeats the purpose of a centralized discussion. Otr500 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

No. This is a separate topic. Misty MH (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

If they are separate topics, then what is the point of merging? Mediatech492 (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC) e