Talk:History of early Christianity/Archive 2

message: I removed this term/link for being controversial, as the term is commonly used in relation to a number of fringe ideas (who fill up the article linked to). Can anyone give ancient sources for the term (and by ancient I mean 1st to 4th century, not Grail theorists)? Str1977 (smile back) 22:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your suggestion. The Greek desposunos isn't cited in Bauer's Greek Lexicon of NT ... (it is in Liddell and Scott Classical Greek) so it's probably safe to assume it is not used by Hegesippus or any other early writer. Holy Kin might be a good npov version of Brethren of the Lord, I don't object and can't think of anything better. The point is to cover the various relatives of Jesus, primarily as recorded in the NT, and elsewhere that are significant. I agree that the term Desposyni and the article may not be the right link for that issue.209.78.18.48 00:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that you should rather just edit and clean-up the Desposyni article.  I noticed a few statements that were ridiculous and unsupported by the early writers.  You could add a discussion to have the authors cite sources on those, and remove them pending verification for one thing :) Wjhonson 18:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Desposyni

message: Why should Origen not be moved to the heresy section? Wjhonson 18:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Origen himself was not personally condemned as a heretic. A number of his writings were condemned, centuries after Origen's death, because of how others were using or misusing them. Wesley 06:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origen as a heretic

message: New information here. It might be too soon to argue the effects of this discovery for early Christianity (esp. early Gnosticism), but maybe we can mention it in a sentence or two.  Wouldn't it be hilarious to put a header at the top of this of all articles saying, "This article concerns a current event"??!!  KHM03 (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gospel of Judas

message: I was being bold and make a major change before Lima's various edits. I think that mention of the events of 325 are important for context. We can touch on them as part of early Christianity, as long as the focus is on the development and leading up to that point in time. Also, we should avoid using the Bible as a reference. Its not a suitable reference source for historical questions. Its a religious text which is not that reliable as a historical source. This was the main reason I reverted to the version before these changes. I apologize if this also undid some good edits not related but it was easier to revert back to a much better version and then work to restore the valid parts.Professor33 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverting what appears to be two weeks of edits requires more explanation. In particular, the older version has a lot of jargon, little structure, and less history. There ought to be more to early christianity than a thesis on orthopraxy. The "new" version largely references Acts, as did the "old" version. The main addition of bible refs involves one assertion about orthodoxy referenced to 5 different bible texts. The flow could perhaps be better, but it makes the point that orthodoxy was an aspect of at least those communities where these texts were used, and that when the canon formed, Christianity accepted multiple texts mentioning orthodoxy. Gimmetrow 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. I have now simply reinserted the relevant material regarding the origins of Christian ideas (more to come later), into the body of your version while making some adjustments to remove theological points and fixed flow of language. As to the proper use of the bible, there is a scope of applicablility as a a historical source but as a source it is foremost a religious text whose historical reliablity is highly questionable to say that least. If we must, we can review the arguments surrounding this question but my view is representative of the general consensus on the question. Professor33 21:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the changes you made, Prof. I didn't know that these sections were removed, which I originally wrote. It would be good if we could expand with more references of scholars who focus on the history of early Christainity, instead of going by the bible. We should avoid using the Bible as scholarly source becaues it isn't, along with other story books that are mention miracles and other things that simply don't and can't happen. :)Giovanni33 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Professor, please try to gain consensus on the talk page before making massive changes and reverts. I think people on this page should be made aware that this is yet another example of a new user confidently reverting to the version of a known sockpuppeteer.  See here for details. Also, Professor has put in Giovanni's favourite word (in the context of Christianity) — "stories". AnnH ♫ 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "massive changes" were actually not that massive but a restorationg of the long standing material AFTER massive changes a week ago removing valid material which I had included long ago. The article is now restored to a more balanced and fuller picture as it should be. AnnH, your constant attempt to poison the well anytime you find an edit dispute is getting very old. And, btw, "stories" its not my favorite word, its the word used by New Testimant Scholars. But where did the professor use that word, "stories?" I don't see it. Is this a case of you only seeing what you want to see? Giovanni33 02:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  That is certainly a POV, but a peculiar one, given the effort apparent scholars spend on issues of authenticity, authorship and textual recension. Seems to me wasted effort if they can't use the results. Gimmetrow 03:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion

message: If people take the responsibility to edit in Wiki, they should be confident that they have expertise.
This comment, that "Paul was not an active participant" in Stepehen's stoning sounds like someone trying to whitewash the pre-conversion Paul. In fact, as anyone with expertise in Scripture will point out, the Acts states that the participants were placing their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul : that's not casual, he wasn't just looking after the coat-check room that day. It's a symbolic action calling on Paul to be the official witness and presider over Stepehen's execution for the "crime" of "blasphemy." Paul was an expert in the law, a disciple of Gamaliel (a member of the Sanhedrin), a "rabbi" in that sense of the word, and someone close to the Sanhedrin (he was delegated by them with a warrant to act in their name against the "heretic" folowers of Christ after all -- this is no mere bystander, but a sort of delegated official of the judiciary). To say he didn't take an active part is like saying the judge who signs the death warrant takes no part in a modern execution because he is neither a member of the jury who finds a man guilty nor is he the guy who actually sticks the needle in the condemned man's arm. Hardly. Which is, after all, the whole point of the story of Paul in Acts.
Never forget, in dealing with Scripture, that you are trying to interpret a story written in Greek or Hebrew about 1st Century Jews (and others) -- don't assume that because some detail seems to be meaningless to you, or that you know the meaning already "in plain English," in your RSV or NAB or NIV or KJV, based in your experience in 21st Century New York or California or London or Nottingham or Auckland, that it in fact is quite so plain. That's why people spend four years in college and five in graduate school getting degrees in this stuff. It isn't as simple as it looksHarvardOxon 21:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ac 7:58 clearly distinguishes Saul from the witnesses:  (the "witnesses" - not the "participants" - placed their outer garments at his feet. )  He was not a witness in the trial.  If he were, he would be obliged to take an active part in the stoning.  Making a young man who later became an agent of persecution an "official witness of the execution" sounds like transferring present-day United States of America custom to first-century Jerusalem.  Making the young man a "presider" is even less warranted: this is not the Book of Daniel.  Never forget ...  - 194.125.47.212 07:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wrong. Thanks for proving my point. Please read your Mishnah again on court procedures for stoning for blasphemy (Sanhedrinn 6:1-4) -- these are Jewish people after all, and Luke, who was not a Jew, was writing in Greek (which has no separate term for "accusing-witness-participant-executioner) and confer Deuteronomy 17:2-7. The condemning witnesses, by Jewish law, not the witnesses of the execution, had to be the first ones to cast the stones at the condemned man. Please confer with Joseph Fitzmyer's work on this and on the Synagogue of Freedmen (Acts of the Apostles, a New Translation and Commentary). Saul would have been approximately in his 30s (why "young man?") and you will find a wealth of standard commentaries indicating that this. Please also note Acts 8:1, and the use of συνευδωκων from συνευδωκειν, to allow, to assent to, (yes, to think well of in common with, but with a deeper force), the αναιρεσει. The text is sparse, sure, but there is this tendency in Calvinist interpretation to want to see this as some young kid of an innocent bystander, Saul, who happened to be hanging around when all this happened. NO -- the force of the text and the historical context of how these sorts of events worked clearly puts Saul/Paul in a position of involvement, "instigation" according to some commentators (although that may be true, that is a bit to far to be proven by the text), and the whole cloak business seems to be a gesture of acknowledgment of leadership or deference to Saul. I'll live with the "approved of" in the current revision, as it is ambiguous enough to keep the Paul-was-a-bystander group happy, but also is interpretable as "gave permission for," and is close to the literal sense of Acts 8:1.HarvardOxon 08:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul and Stephen 

message: Summary of Professor Robin Jensen’s talk at the Parish Arts Festival, May 4 
Professor Jensen drew on her current studies of Christian portraiture to ask how visual images of Jesus shape the ways we think about and experience him. As a historian of the early Church, she focused on the emergence of such images in the third and fourth centuries. The earliest of these were metaphorical: a fish, loaves of bread, the Good Shepherd. Depictions of the human Jesus first appeared in narrative scenes of miracle working and teaching. They borrowed (as we do today) from imagery available in the culture, as if the artists had thought, “That’s what we want to say about him!” Thus, Jesus often looked like a Greek or Roman divinity—young and beautiful, like Roman savior gods, or bearded and authoritative, like Jupiter. Portraits of Jesus did not appear until the late fourth century. 
A portrait is not necessarily a literal representation of a face, but a work in which the image of a face tells us something about the person portrayed. It also helps to make that person present to us. Perhaps devotional interest in Jesus as an individual corresponded to 4th-century theological interest in his person and nature. On the other hand, perhaps Christians felt free to paint portraits only when the establishment of Christianity (ie. Roman Catholicism) had alleviated the danger (ie. changed the Second Commandment) of worshipping other gods through their images.
Cyril of Jerusalem said that the Savior comes to us in many forms, according to our need.
How does an image help our devotion—and how does it limit us? How have various Christian traditions used images? What does the Bible say about the inadequacy of visual images—and about seeing the face of God?
From "Grace Notes", June 2002 Issue, Grace Episcopal Church, Amherst, MA
--Solascriptura 14:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is going on here? There is an edit war over an unsourced statement? Look at wikipedia policy: The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. I'm fact tagging the image. Please come up with a source, or it may be removed.--Andrew c 17:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. Kleuske 13:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: But this seems to be a problem over which version to post, so the burden of proof lies on both sides. Str1977 (smile back) 17:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm all for removing the whole image if it cannot be sourced. The only information given on the image description page is "Museo Epigrafico". I'm trying to exhaust my resources to verify anything else about this image. Once again, it seems very strange that something so early (2nd century) isn't mention anywhere I have looked. The only early images of Jesus I have been able to find information about only go back to the 4th century. Something so rare should be written about somewhere, no? --Andrew c 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: “The Uses of Art in Christian Formation”

message: thumb|220px|right|
This is first or second century Roman graffiti, I have seen it dated c. A.D. 90 - 200; lots of internet info on this under Alexamenos Graffiti (or Graffito) or "Alexamenos worships God" if you want to have a look.  Lostcaesar 09:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is an image of "Jesus", why the horse or animal head? Looks more like an idol to me ... Did early Christians really engage in idolatry ... ? How can such an image be associated with Christianty, a religion that was borne from Judaism's absolute disdain for imagery and idolatry?? --Solascriptura 09:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sola, it was made by a pagan mocking Christianity; its a donkey's head. Lostcaesar 10:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that this is an important image and should be included in this article, but maybe, due to the fact it is graffiti aimed negatively towards the topic, it shouldn't be the top image. Maybe an image of an early manuscript, like P52 could be used for the top, and the "good shephard" image removed if never sourced/verified.--Andrew c 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Andrew on this issue. Annales XV, 44 comes to mind. The bit about Nero, the fire of Rome and the early christians. There might be some mention of Plinius Epistulae X, 97, which after all, quotes Trajan saying not to search for them, but if reported, they should be set free if they renounce their god and make offerings to roman gods, or else.... Anonymous reports should, however, not be investigated and should not play a role in any case of Law. Tertullian has some bitter remarks about this chapter... Kleuske 23:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I question the second-century dating of the current top image. I have been trying to verify this info, and can not. If you have a link, or offline citation, or anything besides the text on the image page, it would be really helpful. If the claims are correct, this would make it the earliest image of Jesus. For such a great claim, I'm shocked that I have yet been able to find any information outside of wikipedia on this magnificent find. As you can imagine, my skeptical sensors have been going off. There has to be a reason why no one on the web knows of the earliest image of Jesus in existance, right? It sounds like you know a bit about this image, do you have any more information or a citation/link, anything at all? (I don't object at all to the image on the left because I have found multiple bits of information on the web to verify that image)--Andrew c 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Kleuske 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps this image would be better 

message: As much as some people seethe with rage whenever Jews are mentioned in the same sentence as Christians in the "origins" section of the article, please don't fiddle around with this based on something you read by somebody. Wiki is not meant for people with half-knowledge to insert their points of view, and just because it is an open process doesn't mean people shouldn't have the good sense to avoid amateurishness. In Antioch, there were Jews -- Aramaic-speaking and Greek-speaking ("Hellenistic Jews"). There were also Gentiles who were "hearers," interested in Jewish faith who attended synagogue services and who might be considered associate members of Jewry, not in fact converts but "righteous" and sympathetic to Jewish ethics and even theology. When Jesus-believing Jews appeared among them, these Jesus-believers openly welcomed these Gentiles, even shared meals with them and started baptizing them and accepting them as converts. The other, pagan, Antiochenes looked at this, and as outsiders observing this distinguished "these Jews" whom they had always known (a bit stand-offish, a bit insular, due to halakhic law) from "those Jews," whom they called "Christians" to distinguish them as a new party, and who welcomed Gentiles at table. Acts, etc., clearly indicates everybody still thought of all of these as Jews - the whole point of the Council of Jerusalem (50 AD or thereabouts) was whether converts to Christian-style Jewishness were still bound by kosher rules and the like. The finding that they were not was the first step toward the notion that they were no longer Jews who had found the Mesiah, but that Christianity was something else, more, in continuity with the Jewish past perhaps (in their minds) but so radically tyransforming it that they were no longer Jewish in that strict, civil sense. This was still not hashed out by Jerusalem, but it was the start, note though that Paul continues to go to the synagogue, Peter and John etc. to the Temple, not as interlopers, but as fellow practicing Jews. It was the rabbis at Yavneh, later, who dropped the ax: with the 18th Benediction in the Shemoneh Esreh, now a Christ-believer had to choose -- you cannot be both a Jew if you are a Christian. It is therefore a mistake to retroject some people's modern uncomfortableness with being identified with the Jewish people back to the 1st half of the 1st Century. The term Christian did not arise from, "Thank God we aren't Jews anymore." HarvardOxon 16:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the term "Christian" began to be applied to them precisely after they had begun at Antioch to preach Jesus to "Greek-speakers" (), which, in view of the presence of Greek-speaking Jews among them earlier, and the contrast, in this context, with the Jews mentioned in the preceding verse, clearly means non-Jews.  Lima 04:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good case of over-interpretation. Acts only says "it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called ‘Christians’.", it doesn't say when it happened or how it happened. One can guess that the writer heard about Ignatius of Antioch or read one of his letters. But that would be only a guess, Acts 11:26 gives *no* other information on the subject, other than that the term originated in Antioch. Now, Western Acts on the other hand tells a bit different story: "And having heard that Saul was at Tarsus, he went out to seek him; and when he had met him, he entreated him to come to Antioch. When they had come, for a whole year a large company of people were stirred up, and then for the first time the disciples in Antioch were called Christians." -Metzger. Acts 26:28 uses the term with Paul, perhaps implying that Paul invented it.75.14.214.67 18:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  term "Christian"