Talk:John Chrysostom

message: Quantity written:
The article claims Chrysostom’s quantity of surviving writings is second to Augustine’s in the basis of very vacuous-looking argumentation.
As I am aware, Chrysostom’s writings survive in approximately double the quantity of Augustine’s:
eg https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XY6Rp0_zfu8C&pg=PR15&lpg=PR15&dq=augustine+5+million+words&source=bl&ots=nWar4eFpHa&sig=hqXcfk9ms_mJ27sk-AN4bGuk8lE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj02J_y04HfAhVpB8AKHTjnB-gQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false and passim shows that Augustine wrote 5 million words surviving
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IeTzDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=john+chrysostom+%2210+million%22&source=bl&ots=oWi1oLTEvB&sig=j6ozxzM8MPSskgmjYg4bc4XmqRw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjv6pmK1IHfAhVlCcAKHbnkD8IQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false p146 shows Chrysostom wrote 10 million words surviving  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.225.4 (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

message: Could the fact that the year of birth is discussed be explained in the article (vs. note) and set consistently through the article. It currently says:
# c. 347 in the introduction and infobox as in the Catholic Encyclopedia,
# in 349 in the first sentence of the article.
Thanks! --Anneyh (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of birth 

message: The idea that the Temple of Artemis was "destroyed by a mob led by St. John Chrysostom" is a persistent myth that seems to be based entirely on a single very unclear comment by Proclus of Constantinople in the Fifth Century. In his twentieth Oration, Proclus praises Chrysostom for various things including by sayining "In Ephesus, he despoiled the art of Midas". Exactly how this can be interpreted as "he led a mob to destroy the re-built Temple of Artemis" is a mystery. The supposed source previously given is a secondary genralist history that backs up this claim with precisely nothing and the whole idea seems to be fantasy. In fact, I know of no evidence at all that the Temple was rebuilt after the Gothic sack in the Third Century. I've removed the Chrysostom claim, because I keep coming across people asserting this is true and pointing to this Wiki entry when challenged on it. Wikipedia should not be supporting unsubstantiated pseudo history.TimONeill (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth about the Temple of Artemis 

message: This category has been removed, from this and other wiki pages, using a specific cfd as rationale. Seems to me that such large scale removal of categories should only be done using a Wikipedi policy as rationale, not just one wp:CFD?  However, this is not an area I know very much about, so will let others debate this. XOttawahitech (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's take this discussion to Category_talk:Christianity_and_antisemitism#Removal of bios from this category - is that ok? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of [[:Category:Christianity and antisemitism]] from several articles 

message: I propose moving reference to the divine liturgy in the section Music and literature to the article Divine liturgy because none of the music in  these compositions is for texts accredited to St. John Chrysostom's authorship; some texts are from before his lifetime. e.g., the Sanctus and Lord's Prayer, while others are medieval, e.g., the Cherubikon (6th century) and Axion Estin (8th century). Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divine liturgy in "Music and literature" 

message: Sorry, I somewhat misspoke in my recent change summary. Antisemitism in early Christianity did survive the AfD, but was wisely moved shortly thereafter to a new title, Anti-Judaism in early Christianity. But then last week, a new category, :Category:Ancient Christian antisemitism was invented, which I will send to CfD shortly. I really thought after years of discussion, this whole mess was settled. Antisemitism is a word that was only coined on or about 1860; projecting back to ancient Rome is a huge anachronism. In any case, they are not the same thing per the sources at Anti-Judaism#Contrasted_with_antisemitism and can't be swapped out at a whim. -- Kendrick7talk 06:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No intent at edit war on my part; I am unaware of the discussion history on this topic. I was initially responding on the basis of the 7 Jun article edit that changed its category usage to include this new category, unaware that it was new. All was done at that same time by the same editor, which I accepted as legitimate editing because of appearances. In my opinion, John Chrysostom was not antisemitic at any time, though I do not have sources to support that view at present. I did, however, view the use of the word "ancient" in the new category as at least a way of separating him from modern ideas of anti-Semitism. He did certainly speak out against certain Jewish practices and was one of many who held Jews to ancient account for not accepting Jesus as the Messiah, but I agree that's not anti-Semitism in the modern sense. It appears there's some WP consensus that labels this "anti-Judaism" then? This also seems to me to be a somewhat misdirected label, still smacking of modern viewpoints, but I admit the difficulty of summing up his positions in one or two words. For this reason, I would argue there is no sufficient label, and one should not be applied. But I am guessing that a WP consensus is at least trying to recognize the difference between modern labels and ancient meanings. For lack of a better current recourse, I would currently abide with that distinction as at least a better alternative description than that of the modern criticisms. I am not ready to argue the point further. And of all things, I am most unwilling to reopen another hotbed argument source without reason. I would like to have a better way to deal with the issue neutrally, but I don't see one at present. So, I have restored your edit to the category list. In the same vein, I have also removed :Category:Ancient Christian antisemitism from the article's category list. Evensteven (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "It appears there's some WP consensus that labels this 'anti-Judaism' then?" I think so. I mean, a long time ago -- after a truly epic edit war -- all the editors involved basically agreed to split the difference over the article now entitled Religious antisemitism -- which, if you scroll back far enough was originally called anti-Judaism -- and the near immediate creation, after that move, of the current article about anti-Judaism. I'm still happy to split that difference if need be, but this latest re-categorization from one to the other was basically just a drive-by.  -- Kendrick7talk 10:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of [[:Category:Anti-Judaism]] 

message: The article is tagged as good, but it does meet acceptable quality standards. It still proposes tenets which are not anymore held or are largely questioned by current research.
The bibliography is often lacking and needs thorough updating. For instance, Wendy Mayer's articles that revise Chrysostom's biography are not even mentioned. Ditto for her assessment of Chrysostom's literary output (partly with Pauline Allen).
The whole issue is rather complicated and requires independent assessment.
--Sever Juan (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to add content to the article if you wish. Don't be shy about citing Mayer's work as you add to the article. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal of reassessment or drastic revision 

message: After a second revert to the addition of new material, it is clear that edit comments are not enough to resolve or even express the issue. My objection to the edit is not centered on Luther's book itself. It is largely a matter of the wording of the addition, which is unsupported POV and not neutral in expression. Supported POV, of course, is possible when neutrally stated according to WP:NPOV. In addition, the wording is unclear of meaning, and I can't make out the editing intent so I cannot attempt a clarification. As for the statement regarding the book's influence, that also is unsupported. I grant that the brand-new article on the book exists, but it is little more than a stub, and does not reveal a great deal more about the matter than this editing entry, neither has it had wide contribution.
While I would not try to suppress inclusion of new material in either case, I think the POV issue requires a supported scholastic look covering a wider selection of backgrounds or views, and that there is as yet an insufficient basis provided. Perhaps a discussion here can yield some additional sources that can cover the ground more successfully, along with suggestions for neutralization of the wording. "Lies" is a strong word. The book article makes it clear that it is Luther's opinion that there were lies, but that has not been clear here. Now, I do not suppose that Luther wrote a Life that was full of lies simply in order to point them out in his marginal commentary. So what is the original Life that his editorial additions were an "edition" of? And how much weight do we give this book in this article, even if it is notable enough for its own article? These problems are not likely to be readily resolved in so short a piece of text. Evensteven (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it quite interesting to learn that Martin Luther, one of the pivotal figures in the history of Christianity (he definitely makes any honest and educated top ten list), wrote a legendary about this particular Father of the Church. Bizarrely though, given that editing tends to move fairly slowly on biographies of people who have been dead for a millennium or more, this discussion seems to have been outpaced by more recent editing which incorporates a mention of the work into the main body of the article. I for one am perfectly happy with this new status quo. -- Kendrick7talk 16:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree that it is interesting. And I am well pleased with the new edits, a much more natural, uncomplicated, and balanced means of mention. Evensteven (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Die Lügend von S. Johanne Chrysostomo 

message: While I'm going to look at what we have available currently on Commons, I'm hoping that one or more of our regular editors here might have some knowledge pertinent to my following question... While the infobox image is beautiful, and undoubtedly the most aesthetically pleasing and important depiction we have of Chrysostom (and thus should remain at the top), are there any earlier images?
I note that the terminus ante quem for that image is 130 years after his death, and the mosaic may have even been added after that date. Undoubtedly, it's probably based on earlier images of Chrysostom, perhaps even one which was created during his lifetime. But if we have any from extant images from around that period, given the general portrait style of the time, it'd likely be more realistic and true to life (excepting certain artists, especially monumental sculptors, of course). I doubt that there are any extant, and that the Hagia Sophia image is the earliest which survives to our day. Just wondering if any of you knew of one, so that we might add it to the article. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I'm unaware of what the earliest image is or which image(s) are considered to be most realistic. Majoreditor (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I found this on the Vatican website from a homily by Pope Emeritus Benedict on St. John Chrysostom: "Blessed John XXIII proclaimed him Patron of the Second Vatican Council." - https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20070926.html I can't find this on the Second Vatican Council page or on this one. Should this get added? I'm not sure how I should add it so... here you go. Pax vobiscum, Emosy (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patron of Vatican 2? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Chrysostom. 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/20090327111102/http://www.copticcentre.com/synaxarium.pdf to http://www.copticcentre.com/synaxarium.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The heading "Homilies on Jews and Judaizing Christians, and Anti-Semitism" (bold is recent addition) makes it look like the homilies were on Jews, Judaizing Christians, and Anti-Semitism. I think the edit was meant to say the homilies were anti-semitic, not that they were about anti-semitism, any ideas on how to fix this? Tornado chaser (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Anti-Semitic homilies on Jews and Judaizing Christians"? Nick Michael (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion, but after reading the section, and seeing that it mentions debate about whether he was anti-semitic, it doesn't seem helpful to have anti-semitic in the header.Tornado chaser (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Views on Jews an suggestions of anti-semitism. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Or one might adopt the model you suggested in the section above; thus "Homilies against Jews and Judaizing Christians". When a homily is titled Adversus Judaeos, adding "anti-Semitism" seems redundant. Haploidavey (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Changed accordingly. Haploidavey (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sensible. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-semitisim 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Chrysostom. 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/20080117221849/http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintj25.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintj25.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218074747/http://www.zenit.org/article-20539?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-20539?l=english
*Added  tag to http://www.chrysostom1600.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Chrysostom was particularly influential in shaping early Christian thought that same-sex desire was an evil that ultimately resulted in social injustice – altering the traditional interpretation of Sodom as a place of inhospitality, to one where the sexual transgressions of the Sodomites became paramount.(Michael Carden, Sodomy: A history of a Christian Biblical Myth, Routledge, 2004) -This would seem to contradict his statement that "I have yet to find evidence that until the 1990s, any biblical scholar had ever publicly questioned the homophobic interpretation."Carden p. 7 Chrysostom could hardly have altered a "traditional interpretation" that according to Carden only developed "in the last two decades". ("Traditionally, Sodom and Gomorrah have been associated with homosexual acts.") EB Chrysostom appears to have taken a view similar to Philo, Josephus, and Augustine. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is misleading. Carden is not contradicting himself. On page 7 he clearly talks in relation to the homophobic interpretation of conservative Christianity in contrast to Rabbinic Judaisim that did not have a tradition that homosexuality was the cause of the punishment of the two cities. Therefore Chrysostum altered the traditional interpretation (ie Jewish) as part of the formation of Christian theology. EB clearly refers to the traditions of Christianity. Philo and Josephus weren't influential in the shaping of early Christian thought. Sure Augustine was but that doesn't weaken the point of the original text. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does "p.32" refer to Hall or Carden? Mannanan51 (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Why have you stuck in a quote by Philo? Does the source you're using directly compare Chrysostum with Philo or are you making the comparison? If it's the latter then it's original research and/ or synthesis. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carden 

message: There are some issues with this article, such as uncited text and failure to adhere to MOS:IMAGELOC. The article lead also fails to adequately summarize the contents. buidhe 11:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rearranged the images a bit to make them comply better with MOS:IMAGELOC. —Katolophyromai (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA criteria 

message: "altering the traditional interpretation of Sodom as a place of inhospitality, to one where the sexual transgressions of the Sodomites became paramount"... I find that statement quite rich, since it twists the obvious meaning of the Genesis texts. That "inhospitality" was the problem of the Sodomites is actually quite ludicrous, as the distinctive feature was them old and young seeking intercourse with apparent men. What was Lot's problem then with the affair? Citing Gen19:7 : "Please, my brothers,” he pleaded, “don’t do such a wicked thing!" Guess that wasn't about snubbing strangers. --105.8.2.143 (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Traditional Interpretation"