Talk:John of Damascus

message: The section on his criticism of islam uses phrases like "he claimed to speak to muslims." I am not sure if this constitutes unnecessary doubt; the style guide I read said you should not add unnecessary phrases that might be seen as passing judgement. However I am not sure so I have not edited it, but if more experienced person knows if it is wrong, please fix it.nKewlkha (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: potential bias in criticism of islam

message: This is singularly inept biography. I imagine that it needs to be totally rewritten. 
One matter that I can contribute to is his family even though what I say is, in fact, original research in the sense that I made the deductions. Nevertheless surely someone else has made the same deductions and published them in referencible form. His father's name is said to be Mansur. This, of course, needs a reference. His father is also said to be that Sargun ibn Mansur who was Mu'awiya's chief administrator. The time span between Sargun and John is too long. Hence Sargun was his grandfather and Mansur ibn Sargun his father. Unless we have evidence to the contrary it seems necessary to assume that the family lost all their caliphate offices when Abd al-Malik Arabized the government (AH 70-75) which is probably before John was born.
In any case, this article is in desperate need of better references. I cleaned up the ones that were there. 66.234.194.83 (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 Comments 

message: It is also notable that he may have been the first Christian to condemn Muhammad in writing (in De haeresibus), calling him "the forerunner of the Antichrist"(podromos tou antichristou) and a false prophet (pseudoprophetes). (PG, XCIV, 764A, 764B).  The Jade Knight 05:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  quite right, John has clear and concise criticism of Islam, which make sense textually, they are not here nor on the page of criticism of Islam. That is not true encyclopedia, it is nonsensical 92.24.223.232 (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: they should be here, but only listed by footnote 30 2.98.148.209 (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: First to condemn Muhammad?

message: ... was almost certainly not written by John. See R. Volk, ed., Historia animae utilis de Barlaam et Ioasaph (Walter de Gruyter, 2006), brief summary here. Altering article accordingly, --Javits2000 13:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barlaam...

message: I'm considering a change in the picture used, as it's a little choppy (both are, but I'm more concerned with the top image). 
Can anyone give me an opinion regarding the following images?
Forgive that I'm not so familiar with the image policy, so if there could be a conflict with the rules, let me know. Here are the images:
* Arabic, but good quality.
* Rough edges, could be cropped.
* Used on OrthodoxWiki, and better than the second picture (which is hopelessly grainy).
* A bit wide, but very clear.
* Not my favorite, but a good size.
I could also attempt to photograph the icon of him at my church when I get the chance, if the above images are unavailable for use. Please let me know which would work best. --C.Logan 14:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the Pictures

message: :Sorry C.Logan if I misunderstood you. I agree with the version now. Thanks--Aziz1005 12:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnicity

message: The correct name of St John was Yahya ibn Sarjun. His father was Sarjun b. Mansur. His grandfather Mansur ibn Sarjun. --Cloj 18:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found one source to this effect; all other sources, while not listing his Arabic name as such, state his family name as "Mansur/Monsur". The translation of his full name being "John Mansur" is almost universally excepted, and the Catholic Encyclopedia states "Mansur was probably the name of John's father". Do you have any reliable sources to support your argument?--C.Logan 19:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yahya Ibn Mansur?

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Class Rating

message: It is cited in the article that saint John has written about the Assumption of Mary, but in fact the doctrine of the Assumption had not yet been defined in the church. In the Eastern Orthodox Church in fact the doctrine that is held is about the Dormition of Mary, not the Assumption, and the position held by Eastern Orthodox is that saint John Damascene has written about Her Dormition. Should this be corrected in the first paragraph of the article? --K kokkinos (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter that it wasn't defined; all the more likely people talked about what the Church didn't clarify. 98.176.10.168 (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assumption of Mary??? 

message: Which Oriental Orthodox church venerates John of Damascus? Deusveritasest (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oriental Orthodox saint? 

message: There are three different years I've seen given so far: 645, 655(see page 454), and 676. Anyone have any insight on how to deal with this discrepancy? Tiamuttalk 20:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Alexander Hamilton. It should be easier here, especially if all of those are modern estimates; say c. 650 and add a footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll add an ppoximation. Perhaps we could use a section discussing the discrepancy which is covered in some sources. Tiamuttalk 17:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  birth year  

message: It states that he could have descended from the Promenent Christian Arab Tribes of Taghlib and Banu Kalb. Neither of thosr tribes are (mostly) Christians - most of those tribes today are Muslim, and were wuite early to convert to Islam. This the description that they are Christian Arab is misleading, and so I removed it.
Furthermore, as far back as the Islamic Conquests, "Arab" has been used as a linguistic term as opposed to an ethnic term. It was used to describe people with no descent from the Bedouin Tribes of the Syrian Desert and the North Arabian Desert. In the possibility that John of Damascus was descended from those tribes, his ethnicity would be more accurately described as "Bedouin". Thus that is what I have replaced "Christian Arab" with.
Please reply and discuss before editting, or I will automatically revert. Peace. SaSH172 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taghlib and Banu Kalb 

message: Clearly, this article needs substantial work, which I too don't have the time to perform, so I'm setting forth my thoughts here. I'm not at all interested in disputing his ethnicity, per all the comments on this page, and the substantial intro. First, I think the article should explicate his other title, Chrysorrhoas (Golden Speaker). Was he an eremetical priest-monk, or one who went out into the world, per Golden Speaker rather than Golden Writer?
Most importantly, the legend about John's hand being cut off either fascinates or puzzles me, especially in connection with the tradition that high level civil servants could retire to (or be confined in) monasteries, as well as Byzantine scheming. Clearly, it shouldn't be prefaced as improbable or legendary--only the reattachment seems to deserve that, and I'm not sure from this as written even what era of hagiographic bios from long after his death gave rise to that implausibility. Of course, Byzantines were known for treachery, and leaking forged letters has been done many times in history. Was John in fact adjudged by his caliph, punished and later vindicated? Was the controversy over treason, forgery or something else? I'm pretty sure treason was a capitol offense, and maiming was used for a wide variety of crimes, probably also garden variety corruption. Thus, losing a hand for suspected collusion with the Byzantines in Constantinople seems inappropriate, but a monk or priest missing a hand (or with an artificial limb) certainly would be memorable. I also noted the sentence that Muslim sources only mention his father's retirement. Was John blackballed and intentionally forgotten, or did he lose his nepotistic patron? If the Caliph really trusted and protected John from the Byzantine iconoclasts, why did he move to a monastery in Jerusalem, which probably had more Byzantine pilgrims (even if smaller and less prosperous)? The article says John was an administrator before his ordination, and I presumed that was in Damascus proper, but maybe it was elsewhere. Did John prepare all or some of his iconodule writings while also functioning as a civil servant in the Muslim government (moonlighting)? Seems more likely that he had more incentive to write after ordination, and time to write if confined in the monastery, but that if his faith told him to speak, he could have chosen Jerusalem as a platform. Just my 2 cents (or drachma, or dinar!)... Jweaver28 (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career? 

message: I've changed the date 1883 to 1890. This is the correct date - the decretum "Urbis et Orbis" of Aug 19, 1890 says: "Ecclesiam ita concedi posse censuit, nimirum ut de S. Ioanne Damasceno Confessore fiat die XXVII Martii sub ritu duplici minori, addita Doctoris qualitate." This can be confirmed in several sources, such as Vacant-Mangenot, "Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique" VIII.1 p. 695.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirachinas (talk • contribs) 05:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor of the Church - 1890 not 1883 

message: Why was this article vandalized ? The only way you could be called Mansour in this time was if you were of Arabian background. GoulGoul1 (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Syriac family called Mansour ? 

message: Is "John of Damascus" really a Medjay?
10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medjay 

message: The article says John wrote hymns which are still used not only in Eastern Orthodoxy but also, at Easter, in "western Lutheranism". In actuality, the use of hymns by John of Damascus – in particular, two of them, "Come, Ye Faithful, Raise the Strain" and "The Day of Resurrection" – in connection with Easter is widespread across most of Western Christianity where the singing of older texts is maintained. Looking just at those two hymns, far and away his most popular outside Eastern Orthodoxy, and looking just at the hymnals published since 1979 and indexed in the Hymnary.org database, there are 130 instances of those two hymns, if I counted correctly, and they break down denominationally as
29 Anglican (11 of "The Day of Resurrection" + 18 instances of "Come, Ye Faithful, Raise the Strain")
26 Calvinist (12 + 14)
11 Catholic (2 + 9)
14 Lutheran (6 + 8)
9 Methodist (6 + 3)
21 Nondenominational (15 + 6)
20 Protestant (Other) (11 + 9)
Obviously there is nothing particularly Lutheran-leaning there. I'm not sure what the best way to redo this is, and since these stats are actually original research on my part, I'm not supposed to be the one to correct it. But there you go. --Haruo (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just or even especially Lutheranism