Talk:History of early Christianity/Archive 3

help for Lima
Here is the shorter recension of the Letters of Ignatius:

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE MAGNESIANS SHORTER VERSION "CHAPTER X.--BEWARE OF JUDAIZING. Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour ye shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God. "

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE ROMANS SHORTER VERSION: "CHAPTER III.--PRAY RATHER THAT I MAY ATTAIN' TO MARTYRDOM. Ye have never envied anyone; ye have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions ye enjoin [on others]. Only request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but [truly] will, so that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really found to be one. For if I be truly found [a Christian], I may also be called one, and be then deemed faithful, when I shall no longer appear to the world. Nothing visible is eternal. "For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. The Christian is not the result of persuasion, but of power. When he is hated by the world, he is beloved of God. For says [the Scripture], "If ye were of this world, the world would love its own; but now ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of it: continue in fellowship with me."

75.15.204.88 17:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Current errors in the article
1. is "Shorter and Longer Versions", it says so right at the top

2. The Roberts-Donaldson translation of the Shorter recension is in, just under Roberts-Donaldson English Translation (Shorter and Longer Recensions)

Lightfoot's ''The Apostolic Fathers, Part II: S. Ignatius. S. Polycarp.'' was published in 1885. It has since been revised a number of times, current revision is: The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Paperback) by Michael W. Holmes (Editor), Baker Academic; Revised edition (November 1999), ISBN: 0801022258. My copy, 1992 hardcover, has "ἀλλὰ μεγέθους ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστιανισμός, ὅταν μισῆται ὑπὸ κόσμου" - "Christianity is greatest when it is hated by the world." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.5.199/75.14.214.67/75.15.202.142 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, many sites give the Roberts-Donaldson English Translation of both recensions for each little chapter, placing the shorter recension first, the longer immediately after. Two sites implicitly indicate that in the printed volume the two versions were placed in parallel columns.  When I first looked up one of these sites, I failed to advert to this, but Anonymous 75 was good enough to draw my attention to it.  And yes, almost as many sites present what they claim to be the shorter recension in a form that, with the sole exception of chapter 3, corresponds exactly with what the other sites also claim to be the shorter recension.  And yes, the Lightfoot translation is presented on several sites in modernized form, but I thought it better to give what seems to be what Lightfoot himself wrote.  Thanks also to Anonymous 75 for giving another source for the view that the word "Χριστιανισμός"/"Christianity" is in the Greek text, and for thus, it seems, confirming that the shorter recension does contain the word.  Lima 04:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew c says this is off topic, care to explain?
The idea of an orthodoxy and orthopraxy is found in the New Testament itself, which contains warnings against teachings considered to be only masquerading as those of Jesus (for example, the Sermon on the Mount, Olivet discourse, But to bring a sword, Rejection of Jesus,, , 2 Corinthians ; 2 Peter ; 2 John ; Jude ), and shows how reference was made to the leaders of the Jerusalem Church to decide what was correct doctrine and practice (, see Council of Jerusalem) and they in turn looked to God: "We ought to obey God rather than men!" , heading the earlier warning of Jesus: "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (, a quote of Brenton Septuagint Isaiah 29:13)


 * And I stand by my revert. The last clause with the biblical quotes doesn't follow. This paragraph is discussing false teachings and conflict within the Church found in the New Testament. The first quote, being 10 chapters prior, doesn't even follow from the previous mentioned verse, nor do I understand how it relates to the previous content. What, exactly, is problematic with the previous version, and what, specifically, does this new content (the bible quotes) add?--Andrew c 02:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a theme of Acts, do I have to provide cites? The Apostles appealed to God. They did not teach of their own authority. 68.123.64.135 02:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you addressed any of my questions, and I still do not understand what exactly your point is. This article is not on "themes in the book of Acts". I understand that Acts covers some aspects of Early Christianity, but I do not see how your quotes fit in the existing paragraph. Care to slow down, back it up, and explain a little futher in detail? Thanks.--Andrew c 02:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

One example: the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15:19 "For which reason...". What reason? The previous (16-18) quote of Jeremiah 12:15, Septuagint Amos 9:11 and Isaiah 45:21. Also, there are many who believe, see Council of Jerusalem, that the basis of the Apostolic Decree is the Noahide Laws.68.123.64.135 02:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this better?:

...shows how reference was made to the leaders of the Jerusalem Church to decide what was correct doctrine and practice and they in turn looked to God: "We ought to obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29), heeding the earlier warning of Jesus: "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matt 15:9, a quote of Brenton Septuagint Isaiah 29:13) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.64.135 (talk • contribs)

returning to the lead sentence:

The idea of an orthodoxy and orthopraxy is found in the New Testament itself, which contains warnings against teachings considered to be only masquerading as those of Jesus ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.64.135 (talk • contribs)


 * This article needs major revisions, but this is not the way. The orthodoxy / orthopraxy verbiage sounds like something from turn-of-the-century Tubingen, a school which many of the articles here pay unashamed homage to.  This section has been made more obnoxious with some irrelevant comment about heterodox within the RCC.  Whatever the case, the response is to develop improvements articulated through solid sources and careful revision where more points of view are expressed, while allowing the hyper-critical views to remain in the broader context of the scholarship.  All of these theories have been examined, and good scholarship exists concerning various PoV's.  But clipping on raw Biblical quotes is not the way, nor will it help to add personal commentary to those quotes.  If this is important to you, go to your local library and grab a couple books, give them a read, then come here and contribute some of their points, with references.  My dream for this article is that one day it will draw on principle historical sources, rather than just biblical scholars and theologians &mdash; nothing against them, of course, they have something worth listening to, but early Christianity moves well beyond a biblical context and into antiquity, and thus into inter-disciplinary areas.  Lostcaesar 06:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the supposed importance of "and they in turn looked to God". Any who disagreed with the decision of the apostles and elders would say they too looked to God. What does the looking to God of any individual or group have to do with the point being made, namely that early Christians did refer to a group seen as central for deciding orthodoxy and orthopraxis? Lima 09:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Jerusalem Christians, aka Jewish Christians, were a sect of second temple Judaism. Second temple Judaism, following the Bible, settled theological disputes by convoking a Sanhedrin, and this is what we see in : "the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came to them, much annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming that in Jesus there is the resurrection of the dead ... rulers, elders, and scribes assembled in Jerusalem, with Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family ... they inquired, ‘By what power or by what name did you do this?’ ... But Peter and John answered them, ‘Whether it is right in God’s sight to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge ... After threatening them again, they let them go, finding no way to punish them because of the people, for all of them praised God for what had happened. ... Then the high priest took action; he and all who were with him (that is, the sect of the Sadducees), being filled with jealousy, arrested the apostles and put them in the public prison. ... The high priest questioned them, saying, ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring this man’s blood on us.’ But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than any human authority. ... But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up ... I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them — in that case you may even be found fighting against God!’" How do you interpret that? 68.123.65.69 19:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Would Anonymous68... please explain what, if anything, in all this either contradicts or illustrates the article's statement that early Christians turned to the leaders of the Jerusalem Church to decide what was correct doctrine and practice (Acts 15). I regret that, at present, I can only see it as obfuscating the point that the article is making. Lima 20:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

See also and anarchism
This article does not mention anarchism at all. The Christian anarchism briefly mentions a pre-pauline Christianity (that this article doesn't cover), and the martyrdom of some early Christians. The idea is that Christian Anarchism, something that isn't disputed a modern concept, somehow represents some hypothetical "original" form of Christianity. I believe every sect believes this, or at least isn't going to admit that their brand of Christianity is actually something dating centuries after Jesus' death. For this reason, and because there are already way too many see also links, I feel strongly that the link to Christian Anarchism is off topic and should be removed. Anyone agree with me? What is the counter argument to include it? Thanks.--Andrew c 17:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge "Divisions in the Early Church" to Section on "Orthodoxy and orthopraxy"
This is a substantial duplication, alternatively that article could be developed and this section summarised (currently "Early Christianity" is 30 kb). Paul foord 05:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Article is nearly worthless from a historical perspective (sorry)
1. Jesus is described as a historical figure. However there is as yet no conclusive historical/archaeological evidence as to his being a non-fictional person.


 * Give the reader a break! By the same so-called "standard of proof", we couldn't "prove" that Aristotle, Plato, Homer, or any of the Greek classical authors existed either. This phony standard of so-called proof would relegate all classical literature, Christian and otherwise to mythology. Get real. There is plenty of early classical writing by non-Christians on what to do about the followers of some Judean jew named Chrestus, who was crucified in Judea.SimonATL 23:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * At least Plato, Homer, et all allegedly "wrote" the things allegedly proving their existance. Rekutyn 05:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "There is plenty of early classical writing by non-Christians on what to do about the followers of some Judean jew named Chrestus" ?? This is a statement about the followers, and not about Jesus !! There is not plenty of writing on Jesus. The famous Josephus passage is an interpolation. Corailrouge-eng 16:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

2. The main source used for this article is a text from the bible itself, ie. Acts of the Apostles (Acts). WP: "The traditional view is that both the two books [Gospel of Luke + Acts] were written c. 60 by a companion of Paul named Luke — a view which is still held by many theologians. Alternatively, many modern scholars view the books as having been written by an unknown author at a much later date, sometime between 80 and 150." So for the extremely interesting decades immediately following the death of Jesus there are no sources available, in fact there is likely a large gap and the only sources that follow are far from being at least somewhat independent, being texts designed to promote the Christian sect. This argument is equally valid for all the gospels by different authors.

3. The bible is not an accurate representation of history. It should not be treated as such.

4. Thus the reasoning of the article is based on a unverified (and unverifiable) religious text and presented as fact! WP: "Modernly, many scholars have come to doubt that the author of Luke-Acts was the physician Luke. Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who was not an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text." WP: "While the precise identity of the author is debated, the general consensus is that the author was a Greek gentile writing for an audience of gentile Christians." WP: "Scholars also point to a number of apparent theological and factual discrepancies between Luke-Acts and Paul's letters."

5. This is bad, bad, bad. (IMHO)

I would love to read here a critical article about the historiography of Early Christianity, about recent trends in the perception of the biblical texts, about archaeological finds and ONLY THEN conjecture about what may have happened according to some dead chronicle. This would be best backed up by official Roman documents:)

That would be awesome.

I'm actually posting this:) Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks for reading. Must sleep. --Boo 00:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Boo, the primary text for the history of the early Church is Acts. No one thinks the text is just some literary fabrication.  There are far to many accurate historical details (the description of Paul's boat ride is a famously valuable one for historians, though not relevant here).  It is a challenging text to use historically, but so are many texts, including Roman documents.  I will say, however, that I don't know exactly what "official Roman documents" you speak of, for if you are looking for extended material concerning the first century Church, you will be disappointed.  Neither do I know what archaeological evidence you would like mentioned.  I agree the article needs improvement, but I don't understand what you are looking for here exactly. Lostcaesar 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, here lies the age old problem. You let extremist scholars like Elaine Pagels run around, and all of a sudden you've got the rumor going on out there that the Bible was fabricated in later centuries and isn't a good source. Besides Revelation, II Peter, and often II Thesselonians among probably a few other books, the vast majority of scholars who don't accept the traditional authorship still accept a first century composition. Acts is the main source, along with the four almost unanimously pauline epistles. Thanatosimii 04:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, even if one is a rigorously agnostic scholar, the Biblical texts do bear some historical weight. How do I mean this? Think of it this way: we have reliable non-Christian sources (i.e., disinterested sources, which is what I assume he means by "Roman documents") that Christians existed -- for instance, Tacitus mentions followers of "Chrestus" being blamed for the fire of Rome, and the basic text there is not seriously disputed. Hence, Christians must have existed and been as far as Rome by the 60s. Now, what would these "Chrestians" have believed? Well, something about Christus, i.e., Christ. Eeven skeptical historians date the Gospels at between 70 and the early 100s (depnding on the scholar and the book). Hence, we know that we have people in the mid-first century so committed to a set of beliefs, apparently reflected in at least some of the New Testament books, that they were willing to undergo execution for them.

This does not prove that Jesus was God, of course. It is, however, a fair indication that a man named Jesus from the conquered kingdom of Judea was the source of some religious movement. All of the documents agree that he was of Jewish background, and the apparent fact that early believers made the unlikely boast that he was executed indicate that that is most probably true.

Ok, so, so far, our acknowledged first century sources seem to be good historical indications that a 1st Century rabbi named Jesus, in Judea, launched a religious movement but died at the hands of Roman authorities. That this belief spread so quickly, and so fervently, even to the point of torture and death under nero, is good indication that there were people who had first-hand knowledge of this Jesus, and many others who received that knowledge second-hand: few people, and certainly not significant crowds over many years, are willing to undergo deprivation, torture and death for a mere literary fiction.

Again, none of this is proof of Divinity, or of miracles. But just as the mighty myths of the Trojan War are rooted in history (there was a Troy, and there seems to have been a war), so the story of Jesus appears to be rooted in history. What one makes of this wandering rabbi is another matter.

FYI, in case you didn't know, there is, uin fact, a group of scholars known as The Jesus Seminar, a cross-denominational, cross-disciplinary group that for decades has been debating and discussing the question of who the "Historical Jesus" was and what he in fact taught (as distinguished from, possibly, what later followers or believers developed as their own theology). There are articles covering their work, so look them up.HarvardOxon 05:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment &mdash; to the original poster of this section. If you think this article has as a main source "Acts" then you aren't paying attention. This article goes up to 325 AD. I would say Acts stops well nigh short of that goal. Wjhonson 05:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

new addition removed
I removed a new addition which purported to discuss the sources relevant for early Christianity, but was really just a highly speculative exercise in various theories, with many errors or dubious remarks. It dated Paul's letters 59-61, and unusual range. It said that his letters show "an influence of the Kerygma of the risen Christ" &mdash; a buzzword for certain disputed theories. It stated as fact that Colossians was non-Pauline and written about 80, and that Ephesians was written in 90 &mdash; this is highly disputed and clearly a minority view. It said that Luke was " supposedly the author of the fourth Gospel" &mdash; Luke is third traditionally. It also said that Luke knew John's Gospel, a startling hypothesis to say the least. It stated the Q documentary hypothesis as fact. It even said that Acts "clearly" represents a Gentile position in a supposed conflict between Gentile and Jewish Christians, showing a remarkable willingness to take Ebonite claims at face value, whilst remaining utterly skeptical about anything said by orthodox Christians. It claimed the Gospel of Judas was Galilean in origin and early &mdash; both are disputed if not fringe views. It stated that Constantine's "conversion at Nicea" took up the matter of the canon, but there is no record of such. Though I have said enough, it is worth observing the following statement that a certain "Gospel to the Hebrews" drew "upon an early Aramaic shorter version of the Gospel of Matthew which lacked the birth and resurrection stories, composed in Galilee about 110-120 CE if not before the end of the 1st century." That is an amazingly creative hypothesis, utterly controversial and wholly unsupported by facts. I know exactly how this theory was pieced together and it in no way belongs here, stated as fact and as a well accepted (and unsourced) view. None of this flies in my book, sorry to say. Lostcaesar 15:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Point of View
The article as it stands takes a high pro-Christian point of view and is thoroughly uncritical of its sources. Attempts to overcome these weaknesses with a little modern scholarship have been immediately removed. John D. Croft 18:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's room for some "critical" scholarship, but remember that despite how much they protest, the "critical" position is not the majority, and we must avoid undue weight. Thanatosimii 18:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is an interesting discussion. I think we should present the views of scholars who focus on early Christian history. Right now, sourcing is an issue, and giving a plot summary of Acts is not the same thing as describing early Christian history. I personally would like to see all the references to Acts removed, and replaced with scholarly interpretation of Acts. For example, what is better, citing a scholar who names and describes the early Jewish sects, or cherry picking verses from Acts that mention the Sadducees, Zealots, Pharisees, and Essenes (except the last one which isn't mentioned in the NT anywhere). I agree with LC that John's edit was a bit over the top. I think a better way of going about this (instead of adding a 'critical' section) is to get a few books from a library that cover Christian history, and start reworking the whole article. As for "critical" position and majorities. I think what is meant by "critical" isn't a term to mean "negative" but a term that refers to the scholarly methods used by biblical scholars. Critical, as in Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment, not critical as in Inclined to judge severely and find fault. In this instance, I feel it is much more important to put the views of actual scholars in the article, than to try and represent a Sunday School style fluff piece. I think a good comparison is evolution. Just my thoughts.--Andrew c 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have wanted to work on this myself, but I have been spending most of my time reworking Christian Views of Jesus on my project page. When I am done there then I can help here more.  I agree that we need secondary sources that deal with acts, and the other material.  If someone is worried about an overly critical view (critical here in the less technical sense) then there should be no problem there, as plenty of historians have views that basically respect orthodoxy.  John, I detailed my problems with your write up above, if you would like to discuss them. Lostcaesar 19:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's certainly what critical ought to mean, but it rarely is the way it is used. Scholars can be petty people who call each other names all too often. Thanatosimii 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andrew c on the use of scholarly resources. I suggest the Journal of Early Chirstian Studies as one source of such material. -- Cat Whisperer 18:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By "...respect orthodoxy" I hope you mean that "there will be plenty of scholars who respect orthodoxy to balance the ones who do not." WP should be a source that represents 'proportionately all snotablesourced views. It is possible that the article may get too long, but there are ways to deal with that. Some of the views here really need to be discussed. (And by "discussed" I mean presented in an objective way, and major criticism  of the work from all sides included.) .DGG 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like us to use real historical scholarship, the kind that is "critical" in the sense Andrew means it - rather than taking one side or another at face value, methods are used to see what can be known / verified historically. By "respect orthodoxy" I mean we avoid scholars who think "critical scholarship" means "criticize Christianity" &mdash; i.e. I want to stay clear of people who made a career grinding an axe.  Lostcaesar 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about what we call a "disputed" text. I'm certain there are some out there who will dispute the authorship of anything. What's the criteria where we say a text accepted as Scripture is still disputed? I agree Hebrews is disputed (no one knows who penned it); but sweeping statements like the Pastoral Epistles? --DaXiong 08:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A basic college level introductory text like Raymond E. Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament or Bart D. Ehrman's ''The New Testament: A historical introduction...." both state that the majority view among scholars is that the Pastorals were pseudononymous. See Authorship of the Pauline epistles for more info.-Andrew c 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Andrew, thank you for your references; I understand college/seminary textbooks range wildly in how they present the authorship of the epistles, so I went to your wikipedia reference (thank you). The section on criteria used seemed to place significant emphasis on external evidence. The section on the Pastoral Epistles states right up front the historical evidence is strong, from the early 2nd century, that Paul wrote them. Every claim against Pauline authorship is answered. So the historical, external evidence is strong and supports Pauline authorship, and any recent attempts to discredit the tradition are answered: To most scholars this would imply keep things the way they are - Pauline authorship. --DaXiong 17:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

request for material
The later period between the death of Peter and the Council of Nicea also needs more material--and much of the history of the succeeding  periods is also a little weak--the Councils are of course the major events, and probably a good way of dividing periods, but a good deal went on between them. I am only an hobbyist with respect to this, and probably not the best person to write this, but perhaps others might help. DGG 19:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The period of the councils would be Nicene Christianity. Also, the complete overviews are History of Christianity and Timeline of Christianity. 75.14.210.40 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As it happens, Nicene Christianity redirects to Council of Nicea, and the other pages have even less information than this. If nobody else is interested, I'll start in, but I do not want to interfere with the more learned.DGG 05:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just in case it's not clear, this article is restricted to before 325, which excludes the era of the Ecumenical Councils. Another name for this era is Pre-Nicene, as in: Ante-Nicene Fathers. 75.14.212.55 09:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, for what it's worth, here's an online source: Philip Schaff's HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 75.14.212.55 10:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

next phase of Christian history?
If "early Christianity" is Jesus to Nicea, what's the next phase of Christianity, what's it called, and is there a page on it? Jonathan Tweet 15:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, you've hit on a real weakspot. The main article on the History of Christianity is terrible and doesn't give much guidance.  I don't know of other main articles.  The general timeline divisions are: (1) Primitive Church, (2) post-apostolic age to Nicaea, (3) Late Antique Church, (4) Early Medieval Church (Gregory the Great to just before the crusades), (5) Medieval Church (Investiture Contest + Crusades to 15th century), (6) Reformation, (7) Modern Church.

Lostcaesar 16:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nicene Christianity is the term generally used for the period of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, but I don't believe there is currently an article on it, see also the headings used at Timeline of Christianity. 64.149.82.4 01:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Further comments: Nicene Christianity is currently a redirect to First Council of Nicea, why not change that and develop the article there? Also, History of Christianity could use a lot of work, starting with a framework. 64.149.82.4 01:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

William Jurgens breaks his three volumes of the early Church Father's writings into: v. 1. Pre-Nicene and Nicene eras.--v. 2. Post-Nicene and Constantinopolitan eras through St. Jerome.--v. 3. St. Augustine to the end of the patristic age. I don't know if that helps any. Samuraidragon 01:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Practices
A section on early Christian practices is helpful. However, such a large block of quoted text is not encyclopedic. Could some of it be made concise and summarized? Or are there bits we can cut out? Also, all new information added to an article needs citation, so I added the tag to the other new section.-Andrew c 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Will work on paring down the Christian Practices section paring it down, but until an article called "Early Christian Practices" is written, most of it should stay. BTW, I didn't do any research on this until I read THIS wikipedia article, itself. So this article, for me, personally, was a good jump off point. SimonATL 23:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that we shouldn't go into detail about early Christian practices. Only that wikipedia is not a primary source, nor a collection of quotes. I just believe the section would be more encyclopedic if we could summarize the source material, or put it into our own words (not necessarily make it shorter, just less quoted material). Thanks for your efforts to add more information to this article. It is helpful, and thanks for paring down the quoted material per my concerns.-Andrew c 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Way"
Help is requested by those familiar with this subject. The disambiguation page The Way has recently seen repeated edits from an anon editor whose edits seem to be claiming that "The Way" has not ever been used to refer to early Christianity, but rather to "messianic followers of the mashiakh". The anon's editing is confused; he seems not to realize that he is harming the page when he removes the "See also" section and the "disambig" tag, and he seems also not to realize that disambiguation page are not content pages and therefore not the best place to place long discourses on Yeishua Ha Mashiakh. Therefore he may not realize that if enough people use "The Way" when they refer to a variant of early Christianity it should appear on the disambiguation page even if a scholar would regard that usage as wrong. Can others please help a) determine whether "The Way" is indeed used in the fashion and as such needed on the disambiguation page, b) help this anon editor channel their knowledge into more productive efforts? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

early Christian beliefs
I'd like to see a section on early Christian beliefs. What did they believe about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the crucifixion, the trinity, the end times, the afterlife, the Jews, the church, the gospels, the epistles, baptism, communion, sin, etc? Anyone know? I can throw in what I know, but I hope others can contribute. Jonathan Tweet 00:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a subsection on the Trinity and on early Christian beliefs. There's still more on Christology, salvation, eschatology, etc. that could be added to this article. But this article is so disorganized that it's not clear where a summary of early Christian beliefs should even go. The section that's now orthodoxy and orthopraxy should really be "beliefs and practices." The section on the term "Christianity" is too long, and the various subsections should be grouped together, such as putting the heresies under a "heresies" header. Jonathan Tweet 13:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "Christianity"
This section is a nebulious mess. Is the term from the bible and the apostles or is it from Ignatius? LoveMonkey 12:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Trinity
Why are people who appear to be ignorant of the tradition of Trinitrian doctrine writing about it in this article? Please explain why edits are being made to this section that appear to word that the trinity, as a tradition, has a history only established in later patristics? LoveMonkey 15:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Monkey, I have been watching this, but have not edited recently. In reading the section I still think there is work to do. The problem is that the doctrine of the Trinity was not an explicit teaching of Jesus. Though we can use the scriptures to support the doctrine, it is far from clear and there are just as many scriptures used to disprove it as support it.
 * In reality the doctrine evolved over time and did not simply appear in 325. We need to address that period of doctrinal evolution fairly. As editors we have to get from not being an explicit teaching of Jesus to becoming the defining doctrine of historic Christianity in a neutral manner. Is that a fair summary of what is needed? --Storm Rider (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Trinity IS an explicit teaching of Jesus Christ. Are we now to not include Christmas as a Christian holiday because the word is not in the bible? But the trinity teaching comes directly from the bible and the article make no mention of this at all. LoveMonkey 16:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We have to keep in mind NPOV. We cannot say the the bible DOES say something, when over the past 2000 years, there have been multiple significant POVs that disagree. Granted, today those views are minority views, but they still exist. I agree with Storm Rider's post completely, and I feel it would be detrimental to this article to state, as a fact, that Jesus explicitly taught the doctrine of the trinity (saying that the doctrine is derived from an interpretation of scripture is works much better).-Andrew c 17:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What POV is there, when the teaching is explicitly in the bible? How is it that people are editing this article and seem to not have read the bible?

LoveMonkey 18:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The POV is that you believe the Bible to teach it explicitly; however, there are many verses that would seem to conflict with that doctrine. Just take a simple reading of Nontrinitarianism to see a very short list of some of those conflicting statements as believed by others. Please do not assume that because others believe differently than you that they have not read the Bible; that is both offensive and simple. LoveMonkey, focus on how to edit without personally claiming it is "the truth". On Wikipedia we are not proclaimers of truth, but rather reporters of what others say is the truth. Any statement that moves from reporting to claiming is POV by its very nature. Does this make any sense to you? --Storm Rider (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a matter of a personal belief it is one held by the vast major of 2 billion or so Christians. Please reframe from making such a widely held view unique to my person. Also once again the teaching is literial and scriptural. Please reframe from directing me or accusing me of anything and post here what biblical scripture you think I might be referring to. Or the policy of building consensus no longer applies and instead we can just kind treat the extreme and obsure as the norm. Thanks LoveMonkey 23:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * LoveMonkey, I do not appreciate the tone which I have seen here (and elsewhere) where you accuse other editors of not being knowledgeable enough to deserve to edit certain articles. Please get off of your high horse. Anyone can edit wikipedia, not just experts. Next, just because something is in the bible does NOT mean that Jesus necessarily said it. Third, because there are significant Nontrinitarianism groups that disagree with your personal interpretation of the bible and also cite the bible as support for their unorthodox beliefs, it goes to show that this IS a POV issue. (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia states "The doctrine [of the trinity] is not explicitly taught in the New Testament".) I think we all agree that the Trinity section needs work, and the arguments and development during the early Christian period needs to be fleshed out. We can disagree doctrinally and still edit wikipedia in a NPOV fashion. Can we move past this one point, and start discussing proposed changes and ways to improve this section?-Andrew c 20:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You know Andrew you have not been the most model of wiki editors so I think you complaining about my perceived tone is completely hypocritical. This aside from the unacceptable edits you have done on this article. As well as your continual deletion of my articles. As well as your revert warring and edit attacks on some of my edits. Like the edit warring you did on the Ryland Papyrus article were you even misused a quote that contradicted your position as if the quote supported your position. I find your knowledge questionable at best. This is aside from making completely inaccurate statements about the Porphyry. I don't find you reading into my tone anything like acting in good faith. Maybe you need a cup of tea. Thanks LoveMonkey 23:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from using talk pages to discuss your personal problems with me. Use my user talk. Article talk pages are for discussing article content. Would you care to address my last sentence.-Andrew c 00:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving on
I ask that you please refrain from distractions like pointing out "tone" or under the cover of policy engage in distractions from criticism about content. I would also like to say I accept your apology (from my talkpage) and I would like to see the sincerity of that apology in action. I can say that the above is not consistent with a sincere apologetic stance. But I will act in good faith. Now back again to my criticism, why is the biblical teaching on the trinitarian doctrine not posted? The introduction and even the entire content of the section on the trinity read as if the tradition was a later invention tacked on after the fact. LoveMonkey 01:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does any good to discuss "what the Bible says". You continue to evade the fact that we report facts not proclaim them. You are accurate in your statement above that the majority of Christians believe in the Trinity; however, believing is not fact. This is acutally a simple thing, just quote someone that says what you want. We are discussing BELIEFS; quote the expert you choose, if you don't have one ask and I will provide many. In fact, use the Catholic Catechism if needed. I find it to be an excellent source and because Catholics make up the majority of Christianity it is acceptable. As I said, trying to explain why is pointless. Continue to edit the article and if problems evolve that violate NPOV policy we can discuss it then; until then good luck. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * LM, are you really asking why this article says trinitarianism was invented by the early Christian church? Good times. Like StormRider says, find some experts who express your opinion and cite them. That will be the answer. Jonathan Tweet 05:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No again for those who missed it somehow. I am wanting to know why none of the biblical references to the trinity are not mentioned in the article. Since they do after all exist. The article is worded as if the bible has no mention of the trinity. LoveMonkey 19:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the more detailed discussion should obviously go in more topical article (and if you check out trinity, there is a lot of info on that already). Why don't you make a proposal here on talk and we can all discuss it. I think we should keep in mind that Paul saying "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you." is not necessarily the exact same thing as the modern concept of the trinity. For all we know, he could be referring to three different deities. Or maybe one deity, one demigod, and one magical spirit. The issue of saying "this verse 100% references the trinity" is reading too much into that verse. Because the language is ambiguous, debates and splits and 'heresies' all developed in the ensuing centuries. You have to keep in mind that Unitarians, and JW, and Mormons, and Arians all accepted the same scripture as trinitarians.-Andrew c 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm... Arians and Unitarians, yes, but it isn't quite accurate to say the Mormons and JW's have exactly the same scripture... Thanatosimii 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Gospel of John 20:19-23. LoveMonkey 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew 28:19 LoveMonkey 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Mormons use the King James version of the Bible; JW's have their own translation of the New Testament. It would be very accurate to say they use the same scripture and have joined many, many other people coming to different interpretations.
 * More importantly than focusing on minor groups such as nontrinitarians of today, this period was frought with a broad range of interpretations of the known scritpure (Coincidently, they did not have a "Bible" as we know it today, but rather copies of letters from various apostles with few having more than couple copies). Andrew, is correct, this is not an article on the Trinity, but Early Christianity; a period a broad beliefs inluding what we know as orthodoxy today. LoveMonkey, you might want to read some of the history of the period. To give you a broader range of understanding, look at anything by Bart D. Ehrman or maybe L. Michael White's book "From Jesus to Christianity" for a deeper understanding of this dynamic history. Please understand that I, or anyone else, is attempting to say your beliefs are wrong or incorrect. However, I suspect that your understanding of this period is highly dependent upon your beliefs and not an actual historical understanding of the period. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well might I suggest you read the scriptures I've quoted. And please clarify why it's missing from the article were as a "scholar" who's theory is not accepted in Jerusalem nor Athens nor St Petersburg nor Moscow nor the middle east is? If so what highly regarded people from these places embrace Ehrman how many how common? Why him but, no mention of mainstream scholars and their names and opinions?Tell me(since you've read this above) what is wrong with adding the scriptures I posted to the article? Isn't the message obvious? You've read Ehrman so what's wrong with the quotes? Or for clarity. LoveMonkey 23:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your proposal. You want to add two biblical quotes? How does that help our understanding of early Christianity. I think we need to instead of copy the bible verbatim, cite reliable historians on this. Would you care to be a bit more specific with your proposal? Thanks. Also, that link said nothing about the history of the trinity.-Andrew c 23:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew you know, that's amazing because what you just posted seems to make no sense within the context of the conversation. As for Storm Rider again why are not the scriptural text that the trinity is based not posted in the article. The passage from Matthew explicitily saying "Baptist people in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" seems to be a pretty clear endorsement of the Trinity. The way the section is worded it seems that even this isn't even in the bible. I mean if I was going to talk about where the holiday of Christmas came from I would mention biblical text about Christ's birth even though the name or word Christmas isn't in the bible text supporting it is. So why is the biblical text missing and the section worded to imply that the trinity is a later "invention". Also the link is to the "no one church authority" and biblical distortion of Bauer and Ehrman "interpretation" of biblical history. Since it is a theory and is based on speculation. At best they can say that the biblical text and other unaccepted text might indicate a plurality of early christians that had traditions that contridicted one another. Were as this "theory" is repeatly address in the Cambridge book and conference I sourced to Richard that states that this theory is not correct because none of the early communities remained isolated. LoveMonkey 13:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

neutrality
Why is there a neutrality tag on this page? Can I remove it? The article's not great, but it passes as long as articles are graded on a curve. Jonathan Tweet 14:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I always feel comfortable deleting tags that do not have an explicit explanation for 1) why they were placed and 2) what it takes to remove the tag. I see neither on this page. There is a section above began in December regarding POV issues, but in quickly scanning it I did not think it was enough to support the tag. You choose; I would support removing it at this time. If there is a real concern section tags can be placed. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

cross as a Christian symbol
When was the cross introduced as a religious symbol? What about the fish? For that matter, how was Jesus depicted in art? More Good Shepherd than crucified sacrifice, I think. Anyone know? Jonathan Tweet 03:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not a great article, but there is good information in Christian cross. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

this sentence currently in the article is a gross oversimplification
"While Jews described God as primarily a God of justice, and Greek philosophers described God (or gods) as distant and impersonal, Christians proclaimed a God of love who enjoined them to share love with one another."

The Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism emphasize love, see Judaism and Christianity. The "Greek philosophers" is way too broad, there were many schools of thought, there was the Greek Unknown God but on the other hand there is Athena and Zeus and much more (try Neoplatonism on for instance, see also Ethic of reciprocity). 75.0.2.160 07:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a pretty broad generalization. I'm sketching out the content of the article rather than making any particular section perfect. I'm counting on other editors to step in an expand, clarify, and correct. My first priority is to get at least something written about each topic (scripture, community, beliefs, etc.). Then the community can expand it. In the Hebrew Bible, God is generally described as loving justice. Especially among the prophets, this justice is "how you treat the vulnerable," but it's also whether you have sex with menstruating women, etc. The Pharisees had a generous outlook, and Jesus' own ministry clearly derives from their tradition. In the NT, God is Love. That's not the gist of the OT, and it's certainly got nothing to do with Greek philosophy. The call to "love one another" is reasonably distinct from the Pharisees' directive not to do what's hateful to one another. Can you suggest an alternative, fairer treatment that highlights the special Christian take on God as love? I'm not a Christian so I'm not trying to show that Christianity was better than anything else, but it was distinct and dramatic. Let's not fail to play up this characteristic. Jonathan Tweet 14:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the subject is probably too deep for wikipedia. Christians generally characterize the OT as different from the NT, as the OT as somehow "old" and outdated. Naturally that's not the Jewish perspective - if you want the Jewish perspective, Judaism and Christianity is a fair overview in my opinion, particularly the section on Love. Likewise, Christianity generally debases paganism, again as something "old" and outdated. But, Greek philosophy certainly understood love in its own right, try Epicurianism, Hedonism, Eros, even the roots of Agape. I suppose it is correct that Christianity claims possession of a "higher love" and that previous philosophies/religions lack this higher understanding or revelation, but it would not be npov to not point out that these other philosophies/religions do not agree with the Christian characterization of them. Probably all religions posit a "Divine Love" and some claim to have the only valid version or revelation of it. 75.14.218.29 21:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Gnosticism
The section on Gnosticism is too long. (Please do not take this statement as an invitation just to delete a bunch of work.) This article is long, and the topic is broad, so G doesn't deserve this level of detail. What it needs is a paragraph or two that really clearly explain the relation between G and EC, the conflicts as well as the common themes. Then the material here could probably be ported to History of Gnosticism, which is could really use some help itself. WP's articles on Gnosticism are, in general, in need of help. Jonathan Tweet 14:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
Can this be reorganized? It reads to my layman's eyes like it should be titled Early Catholicism, especially the fact that it has a "Heresies" section. How is that neutral? I came here expecting to read about all the early variants of Christianity. Can it be rewritten in chronological order? A timeline or evolutionary tree of the different sects would be helpful. — Omegatron 03:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You sort kinda gotta read between the lines. Realize that "heresy" means "contrary to the beliefs of the victors," and the page reads fine. There's lots of good information on Ebionites, Adoptionism, Gnosticism, etc. But there are some editors who like the idea that there has been a continuous transmission of divine authority from Jesus to now. That understanding requires orthodoxy from Day One. Plus, some of these heretics really are out of line with the then-majority opinion. Marcion's rejection of the OT probably made sense to some of his peers, but Jesus' tradition and his followers' traditions were based on the OT. If Marcion wasn't a heretic, he was on the extreme end of the anti-Jewish Christians. But please, edit away. I'd love to see what you could do. Your suggestion of a "family tree" would be pretty OK. Or we can make a table. Here's a start, just for fun. Jonathan Tweet 04:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"heresy" means "contrary to the beliefs of the victors," 
 * Of course. But Wikipedia is written from a Neutral Point of View; not a Victor Point of View.  Maybe some of this should be split into History of the Roman Catholic Church?

Plus, some of these heretics really are out of line with the then-majority opinion.
 * See? Relative numbers of adherents of each sect would be a good thing to include in an article like this.

''But please, edit away. I'd love to see what you could do.''
 * I came here to read about the subject. I don't know enough to write it.  :-)

Your suggestion of a "family tree" would be pretty OK.
 * I just saw these today:
 * Messy code, but interesting. Wouldn't provide time or popularity information.  Could be used for short chunks of a "family tree", though.   Probably not viable for a comprehensive one, though we do have things like Isotope table (complete). — Omegatron 04:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Messy code, but interesting. Wouldn't provide time or popularity information.  Could be used for short chunks of a "family tree", though.   Probably not viable for a comprehensive one, though we do have things like Isotope table (complete). — Omegatron 04:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a family tree template as well:

— Omegatron 20:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Revising the article
I have removed a lot of primary sources and original research from the article. I've split a couple lists off into their own list articles. I've removed some uncited and disputed claims. I've made some tweaks to wording here and there. I've done other general cleanup. A lot of work remains to be done. The current article should probably be cut in half, if not more, and then rebuilt using modern secondary reliable sources. I will probably start brutally reducing the article in the next day or two, barring serious reasonable objections. Vassyana 19:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course you realize that someone will probably use your same slash and burn technique on your final article once you are done. Maybe that's what wikipedia is all about anyway, endless cycles of creation and destruction, gotta do something with all that disk space ... 68.123.65.179 21:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not my article. I saw a deeply flawed article filled with original research largely lacking reliable sources. So, I was bold and started on cleanup, which unfortunately in this case includes a significant amount of removal. If you object, please share that objection and why you object. Vassyana 23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When in doubt, could you please tag material as needing citations rather than deleting it outright? Jonathan Tweet 13:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed material such as commentary based on primary sources. There are a number of new tags requesting references and expansion that I added rather than remove the questionable material. It is only fair to allow some time for references to be found. Please look at my revisions more carefully. Also, please sign your talk page comments with ~ . Cheers! Vassyana 21:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked in on this page only a week ago, and saw a number of inaccuracies. Some seemed POV against Christianity. I've not read this whole article, I have a life. Many of Vassayana's comments may be true. However, from the one change made to a paragraph I'd refined, it's clear that Vassayana doesn't understand the value of primary sources. One 19th century scholar is not more reliable than an unambiguous biblical text, whatever one believes about Christianity, or whether one believes Paul wrote Galatians. A 21st century scholar has a big burden of proof to carry if he's to pursuade me he knows Mohammet's mind better than the Qur'an! Where the Qur'an is difficult to interpret, or controversial, an editor's opinion will cut no ice with me either, OR is the category I'd give it too.


 * Vassayana, please flag rather than delete until other editors watching this page have a chance to support your "original research" of judgements of what is reliable or not. Alastair Haines 14:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of reliable or unreliable. It's a question of improperly using primary sources when secondary sources abound. Wiki policy explicitly invites the removal of original research and poorly referenced claims (and in certain circumstances goes so far as to demand its removal). Regardless of how you feel about modern scholars interpreting religious writings and figures, those are exactly the sort of sources we should cite instead of providing explanations and interpretations of primary sources. Vassyana 14:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, the discussion is somewhat moot now. I've added two sources, one to discuss Baur and the other to discuss the remainder of the paragraph. I've also expanded the information a bit, provided some commentary about the conflict between Marcionism and the orthodox (small o) church, per the source used. Cheers! Vassyana 15:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm particularly interested in Marcion just now. Very interesting concise commentary Vassyana, and great sourcing. I think I would be rather impressed if I met you in real life. ;) I think we'd need to have a stimulating discussion about the appropriateness of the Bible as a primary source, and the use of primary sources in general. It wouldn't surprise me to find that we communicated easily and came to a common mind. Peace. Alastair Haines 15:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I tend to agree that we are likely much closer in thought that initially appeared. I find most disagreements tend to be miscommunication. And really I should have just listened to sofixit in the first place, rather than be a pain. ;) Sorry for the dispute, but I'm glad we could resolve it by adding sources and better information to the article in the end. Vassyana 15:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

table
If this table were cited, would it be OK? Jonathan Tweet 13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The best thing would be if the term comparison could be cited and written as prose instead. The relationship between Greek philosophical terms and early Christian theological terms would be best be explored & explained through regular article writing. Vassyana 21:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If there's a policy against using tables to line up parallel treatments of information, I want to see it. In the writing I do professionally, I find that tables comparing elements side-by-side are far more readily understood than paragraphs of text. Jonathan Tweet 13:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you contribution Jonathan. This article is very short at the moment, and lacking interaction with the extensive primary and secondary sources available. It needs considerable expansion, and a constellation of daughter articles. I value your team-playing approach, adding material relevant to already existing material, and in an attractive and concise fashion.


 * I would quibble with you on a couple of points, however. I think academic consensus reads the bible as believing in bodily resurrection, souls and bodies are not strictly distinct. I'm not completely comfortable that philosophy is the field of Greek usage of the terms. Logos in Greek philosophy, yes, Tartarus a philosophical concept? ... hmmm. Although it may sound strange to Christians, who are used to the word in their own specific context, theology is a fair description of pantheist, panentheist, polytheist views, as well as Muslim views.


 * As I said, these are merely quibbles. I imagine you know more about this than I. If you feel more comfortable with philosophy rather than theology, and more comfortable retaining immaterial for soul. If that's the terminology of the sources you work with, that's fine. If it's a little blurry to you though, I'm more familiar with the other terms in the literature I read. Maybe I'm just reading the wrong stuff. ;) Alastair Haines 14:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By all means, cite the table and leave it as a table if you wish. I was offering my opinion. I still believe it would be better as prose, as it is a topic well covered in reliable sources and a reader would be better served with an explanation of the differences rather than a simple comparison table lacking context and commentary. However, there's no reason a cited table couldn't be the starting point or a compliment to such a section. Cheers! Vassyana 14:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Seeing more of Vassyana's work, I am rapidly gaining respect for his judgment. I agree, expansion and sourcing would be good. Prose explanation would also be good. Alastair Haines 15:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[Whatever you say when you stop indenting] I only ever imagined the table as a bonus feature, not as a replacement for text. Let's have a thorough treatment of the most important terms in text, in standard paragraph format. Then let's summarize that information on the table, with a few other examples that might or might not be worth writing about in detail. Tartarus, for example, only gets one mention in the Bible and doesn't really get picked up much in early Christian writing. Nice on the table, not worth explaining in text. Jonathan Tweet 02:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Alastair, the Bible teaches a bodily resurrection, but early Christians came to understand resurrection not as bringing the body back to life but as reuniting the immortal, immaterial soul with the glorified body. Some early Christians went so far into Platonism that they rejected a bodily resurrection altogther (e.g., Origen). Jonathan Tweet 02:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

working on this page
Vassyana and Alastair, are you up for giving this page the overhaul it needs? I've been working on it here and there, but if two reasonable editors are willing to work on it, then I'll pitch in. Jonathan Tweet 02:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Count me in. I've been building references and working on rewriting in agreement with the sources. My recent edits are an example of what I further intend for the article. I can be pretty flexible, so if you disagree with something I'm doing, please let me know. In general, I'm just sporadically researching different bits of the article and rewriting as I build enough verifiable material. The organization of the article needs a bit of work, but that can be handled as referenced material is added. Personally, I'd like to get this article solidly within good standards. Vassyana 22:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm keen to put some effort into this. It's an important topic. There's a lot a great primary sources and some interesting secondary discussion. There's plenty of material of fairly uncontentious historical nature. I think it would be an asset to Wiki for this to be documented. I'm always in and out of theological libraries, so can source material fairly easily. But I'm likely to be sporadic in contributing. Alastair Haines 22:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you could recommend some sources and/or provide some quotations (with page numbers), it would be really appreciated. Cheers! Vassyana 23:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

problems with proposed text
The following text has been proposed:
 * Even though Paul established a Gentile church, it took centuries for a complete break to manifest and was itself an expansion of the Jewish concept of proselytes. However, certain events were pivotal in the growing rift between Christianity and Judaism. The Council of Jamnia circa 85. condemned all who claimed the Messiah had already come. However, it was a teaching and did not carry wide authority.

There are numerous problems with it. It might be a common understanding that Paul "established a Gentile church", but actually, according to the sources, it was Peter who baptized the first gentile convert, Cornelius. It took centuries for a complete break? Unreferenced and sloppy, define complete break? Is Marcionism a complete break? Was an expansion of the Jewish concept of proselyte? Unreferenced and sloppy, The Gentile church is an expansion of the Jewish concept of proselyte? Well, maybe, but it would need a reference. There is no "Gentile church" in Judaism. There are Noahides. "Certain events are pivotal" is pov pushing, rather certain events are perceived as pivotal. Council of Jamnia is circa 90 and I'm not aware of anyone who claims it "condemned all who claimed the Messiah had already come", again an unreferenced claim. It was a teaching? Sloppy. Actually, it was a prayer, the Birkat ha-Minim. Did not carry wide authority? Again, sloppy, it was not "official" because of the structure of Rabbinic Judaism, however it "came to be generally accepted in post-destruction Judaism", see Sundberg.

75.0.1.48 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks you for coming to talk to raise your concerns. I hope the other party does the same. To both of you, please refrain from edit warring, or else the page may be protected, or worse, you could get blocked for 3RR violation. -Andrew c [talk] 20:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not know about 3RR. Sorry. I read the five pillars. I thought No Original Reasearch means they cannot do what they do. There is nothing about peter starting the gentile church in that reference. Plus Peter was the one who said converts needed to be circumcised at that point in time. You know the whole thing with Paul and him arguing about it. I do not see a thing in the other shows proselyte and christian gentile church as related. I am sorry I did 3RR already. I will not be doing it in the future. 72.45.212.67 20:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR is in the pillars. Sorry. I am dumb. My mistake. 72.45.212.67 20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"starting the gentile church" needs definition. What "gentile church" are you refering to? Peter and James and John started the Jerusalem Church, and they admited gentiles, without the requirement of circumcision (which as a side note is consistent with Hillel and Rabbinic Judaism). Peter never claimed that converts needed to be circumcised (but Shammai made that claim). The Incident at Antioch was about eating, not circumcision. Are proselyte and the Christian Gentile Church related? Well, maybe, but that is your claim, and it needs a reference. What Christian Gentile Church? Does such a thing even exist? I can only assume you are refering to Noahides, but I've never heard that called the Christian Gentile Church. 75.0.1.48 20:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed your additions to the "Split with Judaism" section. I have retained the conditionally language that Paul is widely considered to have establish such a church. I have also removed the fact tag regarding Nerva. Both paragraphs are cited and conform to the sources. If you wish to contest the claim that Paul was responsible for the widespread gentile-inclusive church, please provide clear and reliable secondary references to the contrary. It's a very common claim in the sources I've perused. (Peter making a convert or trailblazing does not contradict the claim regarding Paul. An inventor or innovator is not necessarily the same the one who establishes a corresponding structure or popularizes the innovation.) I'm also uncertain as to why you (and/or others) include information about proselytes. While Gentile in origin, proselytes were circumcised and adhered to Mosaic law, making them effectively Jewish and quite distinct from Gentile Christians. On a last note, I removed the comment that the historical significance of the Council of Javneh is disputed. Who is it disputed by? Do you have reliable sources you can cite for such a claim? As for you earlier critique, everything but the proselyte concern (which I've removed) is explicitly compliant with the sources cited. The claims are not unreferenced as you would claim. On a final note, the reference you provide re:Jamnia is solely concerned with the canon, rather than other doctrinal concerns and is therefore not relevant to the material being discussed. Vassyana 22:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added another reference and material directly based on that reference to balance the Jamnia claims. Vassyana 23:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Gentile inclusion is certainly a key point in tension between early Christians and contemporary Jews. That this was so is well documented in primary sources (especially Luke and Acts). This is not contentious in secondary sources, to my knowledge. Treatment of the subject is incomplete if it presents the issue as started by either Peter or Paul. Clearly both contributed to Gentile inclusion in practice. However, it is Jesus who was the first Christian to interpret the Old Testament as predicting Gentile inclusion. This is reported by Luke, and understood that way by secondary sources.
 * "Jesus implied that the gospel would ultimately go to the Gentiles. In their wrath the people would have lunched Him for making such a suggestion."
 * Marshall is something of a specialist on Luke-Acts. Does anyone have difficulties with the idea that Jesus may have had some kind of influence on early Christianity? ;) Alastair Haines 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Luke-Acts isn't a reliable source on the historical accuracy of Jesus wanting his message to go international. These works were written partly to demonstrate Christianity's international character, and critical historians figure that this concept says more about the author's agenda than of Jesus'. Jesus' message was certainly one of inclusion, so including Gentiles makes sense, but it doesn't look like Jesus intended to start a new religion. In fact, the section on the split between Christians and Jews should mention the various agendas of the gospels, some (Matthew) to persuade Jews to join, and others (Luke) to persuade Gentiles that Christianity isn't a Jewish thing. This analysis assumes that we're able to question the historical accuracy of the gospels, which (I think) NPOV requires. That said, a bit about Jesus' influence on early Christianity would be nice, including a paragraph on historical Jesus with a link to that page as its main page. Jonathan Tweet 15:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A Nice Source
Went looking in a library for some sources for this article. Found what I was looking for (Dunn, Partings of the Ways), but also Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins (2003) by George Nicklesburg. He makes an interesting personal note — "A few years after I drafted the first chapters of this book, I discovered my Jewish great grandfather. ... The family silence about my Jewish roots has provided an additional compelling reason to publish the book. This is a probe into that misty time two millennia ago when a family that should have stayed together broke up." An interesting writer! He writes more from a Jewish perspective than a Christian one, but is not an orthodox member of either group — he's not neutral, he likes both faiths and would love to see them reconciled. An interesting and recent source to have to hand. Alastair Haines 11:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

James Dunn (theologian) is an excellent source. 64.149.82.202 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're recommending sources, there's James Tabor's online guide to the cultural context of early Christianity, here . Jonathan Tweet 13:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

outline
Unlike Vassyana, I itch to get this article in order. That seems like a good team-up, if he adds material from sources while I organize. Off the top of my head, here's my take:
 * 1) Origins
 * 2) Jesus' Ministry (early early Christianity)
 * 3) Origin as a distinct religion
 * 4) Christian beliefs
 * 5) Beliefs by topic
 * 6) Orthodoxy (mainstream, no mainstream)
 * 7) Heresies
 * 8) Cultural influences on Christian beliefs
 * 9) Christian writing
 * 10) Scripture
 * 11) Noncanonical gospels, etc.
 * 12) Church Fathers
 * 13) Christian practices
 * 14) Community
 * 15) Worship
 * 16) Hierarchy and organization
 * 17) Cultural context
 * 18) Jewish foundation
 * 19) Hellenization/Graeco-Roman civilization
 * 20) Persecution
 * 21) Rivals (stoicism, Gnosticism, Mithraism, etc.).
 * 22) Constantine and imperial Christianity

I struggle with the tension between presenting the basic information upfront and explaining influences second (here's early Christianity and here's why) versus presenting background and influences first with a description of early Christianity second (here's what influenced it and here's how it turned out). Likewise, Hellenistic influences should be mentioned as they're relevant in other sections, but probably deserves treatment in its own section as well, and it can be tricky to be thorough but not redundant.

Please comment on my outline. It's a lot of work to get the article in order, and I don't want to do it wrong. Jonathan Tweet 16:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Constantine is moving outside of the usual time period for Early Christianity, such material is probably better placed in Constantine I and Christianity. 64.149.82.202 18:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, let's put Constantine in a section summarizing the next stage in Christian history (7 ecumenical councils). Jonathan Tweet 00:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Origins
 * 2) Jesus' Ministry (early early Christianity)
 * 3) Origin as a distinct religion
 * 4) Christian beliefs
 * 5) Beliefs by topic
 * 6) Orthodoxy (mainstream, no mainstream)
 * 7) Heresies
 * 8) Cultural influences on Christian beliefs
 * 9) Christian writing
 * 10) Scripture
 * 11) Noncanonical gospels, etc.
 * 12) Church Fathers
 * 13) Christian practices
 * 14) Community
 * 15) Worship
 * 16) Hierarchy and organization
 * 17) Cultural context
 * 18) Jewish foundation
 * 19) Hellenization/Graeco-Roman civilization
 * 20) Persecution
 * 21) Rivals (stoicism, Gnosticism, Mithraism, etc.).
 * 22) Nicea and the Ecumenical councils

One suggestion. Christian writings ahead of Christian beliefs. We only know Christian beliefs through Christian writings. Additionally, it's an interesting story, canons aside. In fact, the canon story belongs to another article, perhaps the early fathers too. Not everything was controversial. What was controversial for the early fathers could be covered, then we could move to the substantial area of common beliefs. I can see the logic flowing the other way, so it's only a suggestion. Alastair Haines 09:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if there's a style guideline on this issue, but I like to lead with conclusions and follow up with support. To a casual reader, the issue of how we know what early Christians believed is secondary to what they believed. "Who they were and how we know" makes more sense to me than "How we know who they were and who they were." Especially on the Internet, I don't expect people to read the whole page, so lead with the crux of the matter. Christians were defined by their beliefs so put their beliefs first. Jonathan Tweet 13:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that I've rearranged sections, it looks as though the orthodoxy issue and heresies could go in their own section. The Beliefs section is long. But I'm going to let the dust settle before second-guessing myself. Jonathan Tweet 13:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible Fringe theory
This article currently states:
 * "Circa 98 the emperor Nerva decreed that Christians did not have to pay the annual tax upon the Jews, effectively recognizing them as distinct from Rabbinic Judaism. This was a negative turn of events for Christianity."

Cited as reference is: Wylan, Stephen M. The Jews in the Time of Jesus: An Introduction. Pp 190-192. Paulist Press (1995). ISBN 0809136104.

Historian H.H. Ben-Sasson in his History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0674397312, page 322, states:
 * "Nerva even struck a coin in order to 'remove the shame of the Jewish tax'. What this 'removal' consisted of is not known, but it is evident that the Jews were no longer persecuted as harshly as before."

Here's a picture of the coin:

Another reference: Nerva, the Fiscus Judaicus and Jewish Identity Martin Goodman The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 79, 1989 (1989), pp. 40-44

Jewish Encyclopedia: Fiscus Judaicus: "There was some relief during Nerva's short reign. One of his coins, still extant, bears the inscription "Fisci Iudaici calumnia sublata" (Proceedings on account of the fiscus imposed upon the Jews are abolished). But this put a stop merely to the vexations connected with the collection of the tax, which was still levied (Appian, "Syr." § 50; Origen, "Ep. ad Africanum," § 14; Tertullian, "Apologet." § 18). It is not known when it was formally abolished. It was revived in the Middle Ages under the name of Opferpfennig by the German-Roman emperors."

Another reference: The Jews Among the Greeks and Romans By Max Radin

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2006.10.45: "Several contributors to this volume adduce Nerva's famous sestertius (three issues in 96 and 97 CE) displaying, on the reverse, a palm tree (numismatic symbol for Judaea) and the legend FISCI IUDAICI CALUMNIA SUBLATA (S.C.).9 This legend has commonly been interpreted, with reference to Suetonius, Dom. 12.2, and Cassius Dio 68.1.2,10 as Nerva's reform of a practice tolerated by Domitian: non-Jews maliciously accused of Judaizing (and, if convicted, therefore liable for the two drachma tax levied by Titus: BJ 7.218). In "The Fiscus Iudaicus and Gentile Attitudes to Judaism in Flavian Rome", Goodman stresses the lack of evidence for any sizable group of Judaizers in Rome during the Domitianic era; he is (properly, I think) skeptical of the attractions Judaism would have had, at this time, for most non-Jews. Goodman argues that the coin legend did not concern Judaizers, but Jews who had lived a Jewish life secretly and those living as Jews openly, but hoping to avoid the tax by denying their origin. Nerva's reform, therefore, concerned native, practicing Jews and abolished the fiscus Iudaicus. I do not find this convincing. Cotton and Eck (pp. 45-6) are surely correct: the "calumnia" refers to exacting the tax based on malicious denunciation."

64.149.82.202 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources would be consistent were there two separate events -- Christians being formally considered a non-Jewish group, and auditing of the Jewish tax being more careful. It is still possible that the edit misrepresents the source it cites, or that the source could represent an outdated consensus. I make a point of checking references, but only where this is easy, or critical to a major point. This seems major enough to check the source, but not to delete the text until clear that the source claims the events were one and the same. Nice spotting, can anyone check this reasonably easily? Alastair Haines 09:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Using Google books, I checked Wylan, Stephen M. The Jews in the Time of Jesus: An Introduction, page 192 which says: "Around the year 98 the Roman emperor, Nerva, decreed that Christians did not have to pay the fiscus Judaeus, the punitive annual tax upon the Jews. This amounted to legal recognition on the part of the empire that Christians were not a sect of Jews, but a separate religion." However, no reference is given for this claim, which is unusual, thus it may be a fringe theory. The book says Stephen M. Wylen is rabbi at Temple Beth Tikvah, Wayne, New Jersey. I don't know what his other credentials are. 75.0.1.164 17:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources cited by 64.149.xx.xx says nothing in contradiction to the claim made. In addition, a large number of sources talk about how the tax (and its reformed versions in particular) were used to separate Jews and non-Jews, as well as distinguish ethnic and religious Jews. Remember that the tax allows Jews to excuse themselves from state pagan civic rites. An important work that is widely cited in regards to this issue is "Nerva, the Fiscus Judaicus and Jewish Identity" by Martin Goodman. It was published in the Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 79 (1989) Pp 40-44. Regardless, a small amount of research in a library demonstrates the prolific nature of this point of view (that Nerva's reforms excluded Christians, non-practicing Jews, etc to prevent "abuse" of the tax, or to ensure it was "fair"). Christians were not an exclusive group excluded from the tax, however they were excluded from the tax under the reign of Nerva. That means they could no longer pay the tax to exclude themselves from public ritual & religion and were criminally liable for failing to participate. It's not an unusual claim, nor very extraordinary, to say that Christians faced greater difficulty when no longer permitted to pay a tax that would have excluded them from participating in pagan rites contrary to their faith but required generally by law. Of course that would normally be original research to put forward, regardless of how logical and non-controversial such a conclusion may be. However, since it is cited to a reliable source (that does not seem to contradict other sources, and in fact agrees with the majority view), there is no such problem. Thoughts? Vassyana 19:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me that Rabbi Wylen is a reliable source. What other references are there for the claim that Nerva decreed that Christians didn't have to pay the Fiscus Iudaicus or that Christians ever payed that tax? 75.0.9.50 20:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Vassayana's comments accord with my own limited memory of various issues. I'm particularly glad he points out that the tax actually brought exemption from civil sacrifice. It may have been an extortionate price to pay for this privelege, which modern thought would see as a right. Even so, Rabbi Wylen's comments seem incomplete to me. Mind you, even if his view is a minority or unique view, as long as it is published it is sufficiently reliable for inclusion isn't it? Obviously not to the point of silencing other views, though. Yet again I'm impressed by Vassayana's access to the literature.


 * I am rather hoping this article can provide sources that discuss the issue of civil sacrifice, which was a pronounced difficulty throughout the early Christian period. Certification of those who did so sacrifice has survived in 46 mss, four from Oxyrhynchus. Sourced discussion of the issues would provide excellent context for the Libellus and Lapsi (Christian) articles. Alastair Haines 06:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how Rabbi Wylen's book fails to qualify as a reliable source. Also, please check Goodman's article, as it is widely cited regarding Nerva's reforms. Vassyana 17:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If his view is a minority one, we should be careful not to give it undue weight. If his claim were unique, we must be doubly cautious and should attribute it specifically to him. If the claim stands out, such as contrary to the majority of sources or completely without support the majority sources, we should consider it an extraordinary claim and require extraordinary proof (extremely reliable sources and/or multiple reliable sources). I feel the claim is not all extraordinary and quite in line with the majority of available sources, which document the tax and Nerva's reforms which led to fewer people qualifying from exclusion from the civil religion (including Christians). I will dig up some sources that discuss the issue further. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored, but it's also not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT). In general, we try to make well-written and balanced articles based on verifiable information from reliable sources without original research. Not everything that can be verified in a reliable source is appropriate from inclusion, especially in the case of single source claims and claims only supported by primary sources. Vassyana 17:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've provided some additional sources, one talking about the tax in specific and another addressing the early perception of Christians as Jews in the view of the Roman government. That should help remove concerns about the claim being a fringe theory. Vassyana 19:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Historian H.H. Ben-Sasson in his History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0674397312, page 322, states:
 * "Nerva even struck a coin in order to 'remove the shame of the Jewish tax'. What this 'removal' consisted of is not known ..."

I could be wrong, but I suspect the claim that the removal consisted of exempting specifically the Christians from the tax is a fringe theory. I suspect the only primary source on the issue is Nerva's coin, which says nothing about Christians, i.e. it's a fringe or non-scholarly interpretation that remove the shame of the Jewish tax means Christians were exempt or even prohibited from paying the tax. That particular interpretation is certainly plausible, but speculations should not be presented as historical facts. 75.14.213.231 05:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at Nerva, the Fiscus Judaicus and Jewish Identity by Martin Goodman in The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 79, 1989 (1989), pp. 40-44. The following quote stands out to me:
 * "Thus if the hypothesis is correct that Nerva's removal of the calumnia of the fiscus Judaicus should be understood by reference to the abuses under Domitian, it may be suggested that, by a reform intended to help apostate Jews, Nerva for the first time gave Roman legal recognition to Jewish proselytes ..."

Note particularly the words: hypothesis, suggested, and proselytes. Proselytes are not the same as Christians, they could be, but that would be yet another interpretation. 75.14.213.231 05:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the article be structured as follows:


 * Historian H.H. Ben-Sasson in his A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0674397312, page 322, states: "Nerva even struck a coin in order to 'remove the shame of the Jewish tax'. What this 'removal' consisted of is not known ..." Rabbi Stephen M. Wylan in his The Jews in the Time of Jesus: An Introduction, page 192, states: "Around the year 98 the Roman emperor, Nerva, decreed that Christians did not have to pay the fiscus Judaeus, the punitive annual tax upon the Jews. This amounted to legal recognition on the part of the empire that Christians were not a sect of Jews, but a separate religion." Historian Martin Goodman in Nerva, the Fiscus Judaicus and Jewish Identity, Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 79, 1989, pp. 44, states: "Thus if the hypothesis is correct that Nerva's removal of the calumnia of the fiscus Judaicus should be understood by reference to the abuses under Domitian, it may be suggested that, by a reform intended to help apostate Jews, Nerva for the first time gave Roman legal recognition to Jewish proselytes ..."

75.14.213.231 07:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are multiple problems with this proposal and your criticisms. You citation of Goodman's paper is only tangentially related to the context at hand, as it's addressing a specific hypothesis regarding the relation of Nerva's reform to the reign of his predecessor. However, a full reading of his paper is very useful for understanding this topic (get you to a library)  .  Ben-Sasson's work is a bit out of date and oddly ambiguous about the issue even for the time. The theory was gaining serious modern traction by the mid-seventies and is widely accepted and cited in more current scholarship. Additionally, quote farming is discouraged on Wikipedia (and just poor writing). The claim is in no way the fringe theory you are trying to make it out to be. The issue is cited across multiple reliable sources in the article. Additionally, the claim is not that Nerva's reform was exclusively exempting Christians, as you would imply. Rather, it is that it exempted the Christians among others in the "reform". That is hardly a new or unusual claim. It has been the topic of much discussion since at least the mid-nineteenth century and well-accepted in modern scholarship for over two decades. On top of all that, nothing you've cited is contradictory to the claims in the article, much of it doesn't address the context at hand and at worst it casts the claims as being unclear or indeterminate by some scholars (if you provide a couple current reliable sources, we can include a mention of this in the article). Vassyana 08:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Praise
I guess I'm like everyone else, most of the time, I change articles or suggest points for improvement on talk pages. I guess that's the real work of Wiki and I enjoy it. However, I just want to say I stopped to consider the lead in for a few minutes. I really like it. It's not the way I'd write it, but it's just great. Although all it does is concisely list the matters covered and sourced in the rest of the article, it's a jolly exciting list! How on earth did this happen? A small sect in a poor part of the empire, got itself organized and eventually found favour with the emperor, amazing. Without any sensational adjectives, the facts themselves are amazing. Not unlike reading about quasars at the edge of the universe, or the space-warping of black-holes ... the mind boggles. Anyway, thanks to everyone who has worked and is working on this article. If all it does is provide brief accounts from sources that cover what is listed in the lead-in, it will still be a very stimulating article. Cheers. Alastair Haines 13:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As one who contributed substantially to the lead, I'm glad you appreciate it. Leads in WP are too often brief definitions rather than complete summaries of the topic. Controversial pages especially have their editors who want to keep good material out of the lead. The early Christian era is an exciting topic, and I'm glad we're getting this page in order. One item I've wanted to add to the lead is some indication of how much distance there is between early Christian and current Christian beliefs, but I haven't gone ahead with that because it's a touchy topic. It would be factual and attention-grabbing to say "many common early Christian beliefs would be considered heretical or unorthodox today," but the people who see a solid continuity of belief from Jesus to now (or from Adam to now) would likely object. Jonathan Tweet 13:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

religious writing
This paragraph was removed: "Various authors wrote the gospels and other books of the New Testament. The apostolic fathers are prominent early Christian writers who are traditionally understood to have met and learned from Jesus' personal disciples. Church fathers are later writers with no direct connection to the disciples. Apologists defended Christianity against its critics, especially pagan philosophers." Without it, the section deals exclusively with scripture, but there's a lot more to early Christian writing tha scripture. The church fathers wrote a lot of influential material and deserve at least a mention. Perhaps the Religious Writing section should has sub-sections for scripture, would-be scripture, apologies, commentaries, etc. Jonathan Tweet 13:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm working on finding references and expanding per them. :) Vassyana 14:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

recent revert
I reverted the entire change, due to extensive issues. We should not be using primary sources to make assertions and draw conclusions, and neither to draw contrasts or present an analysis (WP:NOR). The fact tags that were reverted (removed) were for information that is already cited, generally by paragraph. One fact tag was restored because support was not provided, but instead a weasel word used. Let's make this a solid article. Let's focus on finding reliable secondary sources and reporting what they present, and avoid relying on things "everyone knows" or drawing from primary sources. It's the best way to produce a verifiable and reliable article, reporting a summary of what reliable sources as a whole state. Vassyana 22:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * While perhaps some neutral edits were reverted, and you should be more careful in the future, I was concerned about Lima's removal of any reference to the apocalyptic sect, and perhaps that could be commented on.-Andrew c [talk] 00:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What is Vassyana's and Andrew c's problem with changing unverified "The followers of Jesus composed an apocalyptic Jewish sect during the late Second Temple period ..." to "In one interpretation, the followers of Jesus composed an apocalyptic Jewish sect during the late Second Temple period ...", and eliminating the repetitious "Early Christianity was an apocalyptic Jewish sect" and "The earliest form of Jesus's religion is best understood as a Jewish apocalyptic sect"? How many times do they want the same statement hammered home in a short space?  I am not saying that the original and now restored statement is false, but I still think it best not to give it as a balanced and unquestioned description, at least as long as it remains unverified.
 * Later, I may go on to raise other matters, such as the article's insinuation that the first followers of Christ were called "Nazarenes" before they were called "Christians" (an idea shown in my revision to contradict the Acts of the Apostles) and similar matters. In other words, how can an article that presents such unverified opinions be considered solid? Lima 04:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "In one interpretation" is a bit weasel wordy and unnecessary. Readers can make the obvious conclusion it is a single theory. Also, it's very widely reported across a wide variety of sources. If you have recent contradictory sources, please provide them. Also, it's not unverified. It's all referenced. The section lede provides a brief overview of that section. It could perhaps be rewritten, however, it is all supported by the following sections and sources, and a "novel" assertion is referenced. The first occurrence of the "sect" attribution occurs in the overall section lede. The next occurs in the discussion of the sect in that light. I have removed the third and redundant mention. The claims are clearly attributed to this source and this source, including page numbers. The "Nazarene" paragraph is also clearly referenced. You cannot use the Acts of the Apostles to show the assertion is wrong. You must cite reliable secondary sources, and you will need additional and better sources for claims that run counter to the common wisdom. Beyond that, it is worth noting your "proof" shows the word Christian being used a few years after the word Nazarene was used, rather than contradicting the claim as you'd insist. Acts 24:5 notes that the group was called "the Nazarene sect". Acts 24:27 shows that at least two years pass, just counting the time Paul was under a form of house arrest and visiting Felix regularly. Even more time passes before the word "Christian" is used in Acts 26:28. Instead of contradicting the claim made, it parallels the claim. Vassyana 09:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Being fair, I should address the rest of the reverted changes. A claim that the similarities between the Essenes and Christians are forced, contrary to the references, requires other reliable sources on the matter. A fragmentary quotation from a book review for a source that 55 years out of date is hardly reliable referencing. You assertion about the "Way" and "Saints" being used as a name for the religious sect of Jews needs to be verifiable in reliable sources, not drawn from interpreting primary source material. Additionally, the interpretation is a bit flawed, as the verses provided do not speak of "the Way", neither does it discuss the Jews as "Saints", but rather simply refers to them generically as "the faithful". (Similarity on that count is a translation artifact and little else, at least in this instance.) On the Hades information, please cite the information to reliable sources. Interpretations of primary sources require such referencing. http://www.earlychristianhistory.net/index.html is not a reliable source, but instead just another website. It has no author information, it is not maintained by a university department, etc. Its reference section is comprised entirely of primary sources and one very influential, but very out of date, work (which is hardly reassuring). Vassyana 09:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that Vassyana has now removed one of the repetitions. Is it really necessary to repeat even once: "Early Christianity was an apocalyptic Jewish sect", almost immediately after saying: "The followers of Jesus composed an apocalyptic Jewish sect"?  That is all I have been asking.  Could this not be rephrased?  I by no means deny that the description "apocalyptic Jewish sect" is commonly applied to the earliest Christianity.  I just thought (but will not insist) that, in view of the widespread idea that the word "sect" is pejorative, the expression should either be tempered in some way or else that a source for the expression should be quoted (there are many that could be chosen).
 * I don't see on what grounds Vassyana, while indicating that he finds it significant that someone is quoted as using the word "Christian" in the year 60 (Ac 26:28), two years after the year 58, in which others are quoted as using the word "Nazarene" (Ac 24:27) - both instances being in the context of the case the Jewish authorities brought against Paul - thought it right to say nothing of the mention of the use of the word "Christian" a decade and a half earlier, in about 43 (Ac 11:26).
 * I think it best to limit my comments to at most two points at a time. Lima 10:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rephrasing can be done without any issue. Removing the information was the problem.
 * You didn't cite the early verse. I was responding to the edits you made. Regardless, it is well-accepted that Nazarene is an earlier appellation than Christian. Nazarene was first used in Judea, while Christian was an appellation used by later outside Greeks.
 * The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Vol. III (ISBN 0802837832) states that Nazarene is "probably to be understood as a Semitic equivalent of the later Greek word 'Christian'". (emphasis added)
 * The Early Christian World (ISBN 0415333121) states that Nazarene "may well have been the earliest term used to label the followers of Jesus". Regardless of whether it is the earliest label, the reference clearly states that "with the inclusion of gentiles into the church, the Greek term Christianoi, 'Christians', became the dominant label".
 * Related Strangers: Jews and Christians, 70-170 C.E. (ISBN 080063733X) states that "'Nazarene' was originally a general term for Christians in Semitic circles" and that it was "superseded by the term Christianoi among the increasingly dominant Greek-speaking converts".
 * There are three additional reliable sources to back the claim, in addition to the reputable source already cited. Let's please move on from this now. Vassyana 02:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Vassyana is right: by mistake (by no means my first mistake, and regrettably not destined to be my last mistake) I typed 24:5 (the figure already in the text) in place of 11:26, when I wrote, or rather intended to write, of the word "Christian" applies to followers of Jesus: "a name that began to be used much earlier, before Paul began his missionary work, as is reported in, which also refers to them as "the disciples". The context ("before Paul began his missionary work") shows up my mistake.
 * Would Vassyana then please do the rephrasing he speaks of. The books he quotes, with their "probably" and "may well have been", do not seem to me to justify the apodictic statements at present in the text. "The earliest followers of Jesus may have been called 'Nazarenes' before they were called 'Christians'" is all that I can see as a conclusion to draw from the books cited. I trust Vassyana can explain to me how one gets from that to: "Nazarenes ... were the earliest followers of Jesus". When that has been fixed, then we can move on.
 * While he is at that, perhaps he would also adjust the curious-sounding "who were possibly the later group". "Later group" seems to distinguish from an earlier group. Does this mean that they were the group later called Ebionites?  Even that is somewhat curious.
 * (Merely as an aside, may I be permitted to remark that the books that Vassyana cites seem to quote no source for their hypothesis other than Ac 24:5, where "Nazarene" appears as part of an accusation, as if being a leader of "Nazarenes" was itself grounds for condemnation, on the same level as being "a pestilent fellow" and "a mover of insurrections". Did these first disciples of Christ accept the designation "Nazarene"? Did they accept the designation "Galilaean", which, according to writers such as John Wesley, in his Notes on the Acts of the Apostles, was another name applied to them - "Nazarene" wasn't the only word - before the word "Christian" was invented?)  Lima 04:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Patience! :o) I was taking the time to plot out some changes and review some sources before diving in. I revised the paragraph to accommodate some of your concerns, while following the sources. I also attributed the claim regarding the translation to the specific scholar who makes the assertion. Hopefully, the revised version is a good source-based compromise. Thoughts? Vassyana 06:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also now found a source from a very reputable scholar to balance out the claims by Dr. Tabor about the Essenes (which is the predominant and popular view), per your concerns. I've added that reference and created a paragraph based upon the source. Vassyana 07:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent changes by Vassyana. Congratulations on the great improvement.  Would he consider the following further retouches, which I am sure he can polish up?
 * Nazarene is one of the earliest names for the group, as evidenced in where Paul is called "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes". Jesus was called "the Nazarene", including in the biblical books of Matthew, John and Luke-Acts.  attributes to Jesus' association with the town of Nazareth the application of the word to him. "The Way"   was the name apparently preferred by the group itself for their religion, and they called themselves people of the way or, much more commonly, "the disciples". .
 * Did Tabor actually use the word "translate" when saying, perhaps only equivalently, that Χριστιανοί was an attempt to translate into Greek the Aramaic term corresponding to the English Nazarene? Surely he meant "find an equivalent", rather than "translate".  Χριστιανός, as the article rightly says, literally means Messianist, and is not, strictly speaking, a translation of Nazarene.  In my poor opinion, the people in Antioch who invented the term Χριστιανοί surely invented it to fit what they saw as most clearly distinctive of "the disciples", namely their belief in Jesus as the Messiah, and didn't have to be looking for a way to translate an Aramaic term into their own slightly Latin-influenced Greek.  Of course, others may well hold other opinions.
 * If the article is (for some reason that I do not understand) to include: "Nazarenes were possibly later called Ebionites, though they may have been separate groups with similar practices. The Ebionites also may have been a splinter group of Nazarenes, with disagreements over Christology", it will have to explain first whatever it here means by "Nazarenes": the only meanings given earlier for the word are "Christians" (Paul was considered to be one, indeed a ringleader of theirs) or "associated with Nazareth".
 * I am sure Vassyana is well able to deal with these matters. I thank him for his patience.  Lima 09:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do about finding some reliable sources to accommodate the changes. The Bible verses cannot be used in this way (analysis) without original research.
 * I'm not entirely sure what he meant when he said translate, but I can gather he probably used it in the broad sense of interpreting or finding an equivalent. "Translate" is a fairly broad word and does not necessarily imply a literal translation. The use by Tabor and the article are well-within standard dictionary usage.
 * Nazarenes is wikilinked, so people can easily find more information, but I will include a short clause to clarify the statement. Vassyana 11:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)I reverted the recent edit. I've integrated the related information already contained in the cited sources. I've declined to include the portion about "disciples", as it's based on a misunderstanding. "Disciple" is mathetes, which just means a pupil or apprentice (and in the "broad" sense, a follower of teachings), and was employed in normal usage in the Bible. I think the information about "nozri" is interesting, but superfluous. Otherwise, I think I've expanded from the sources in the direction you were attempting. What do you think? Vassyana 19:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything by James Tabor needs to be checked for possible Fringe theories. 64.149.83.137 19:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a fair bit of overgeneralizing. While he is involved in some controversial theories (as are many prominent scholars), he is generally a very well reputed scholar and a department chair of religious studies. The information used has nothing to do with his controversial work. The only potentially controversial claims cited (re: the Essenes) are held by many authors, clearly associated with him and followed by a counterpoint. Additionally, most of his material is supported by additional sources in this article. Vassyana 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, Vassyana did not "integrate the related information". "Nazarene" most likely means "associated with Nazareth".  And "disciple" means "... a follower of teachings".  So what?  It is an evident fact that, when the author of Luke refers to those whom we would now calls Christians, he usually speaks of them using the phrase "the disciples".  In fact, he never himself calls them "Christians".  (However, the word is used by the author of one other New Testament writing.)  He most certainly does not speak of them by saying "the Nazarenes".  On what grounds has it now been affirmed that the latter denomination "was accepted by the followers of Jesus, much like the later word 'Christian'"?  Accepted as a factual description of Jesus, yes, because of his association with Nazareth, but was it accepted as a description of themselves?
 * They certainly did not not refer to themselves as "the Way".
 * On what grounds is it stated (as fact) that the later sect known as Nazarenes ("These Jewish Christians") were "originally a central group in Christianity"? Wikipedia is thus supposed to know better than the Jewish Encyclopedia, which does not identify that sect with the original Jewish Jerusalem-centred Christians.  It supposes instead that the sect most likely originated among some Jewish Christians who became geographically isolated from other Christians after the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70.  The at least implicit Wikipedia identification of this sect with the earliest Jewish Christians is the reason why mention of the traditional Jewish use of "nozri" to mean "Christian" in general (and not a subdivision among Christians) was not superfluous.
 * Again, why the insistence on calling the word "Christian" a "later" word? At most a decade and a half later than whatever was first used.  And in that decade and a half there may well have been several different ways of referring to them, even apart from the seemingly hostile "Nazarene", whenever that was first used.  What grounds are there - apart from declarations by writers, declarations, it seems, based on their surmises and not on any citable evidence - for solemnly declaring "Nazarene" to be the usual way (even, the text suggests, the only way) to refer to followers of Christ before the word "Christian" was invented?  To judge by the Acts of the Apostles, "the disciples", used repeatedly in accounts of events from the first preaching of the Apostles in Jerusalem, which the author puts in the context of the feast of Pentecost, was a phrase in use as early as or even earlier than when their adversaries began to refer to them (all of them, it seems) as Nazarenes.
 * I have said enough for now. Lima 07:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually did integrate/expand the section.
 * I've removed the claim regarding accepting the appellation. If I find additional sources to back the claim, or simply a more authoritative source, I will reinsert it but will otherwise leave it out.
 * You are free to disagree with the claim regarding "the Way", however it is reliably sourced and widely repeated.
 * Wikipedia does not "know better". The Jewish Encyclopedia, while a nice reference, is over one hundred years out of date. Modern reliable sources make the claim and as such it is included in the article per the sources. The field of Greco-Roman (including early Christianity) history has changed significantly and made numerous finds since that time. I'll trust a modern secondary reference over the one hundred year old tertiary source.
 * It's called a later term, because it is widely called a later term in the sources cited for the article.
 * It seems that most of your disagreements are over what is reliably referenced. I'd invite you to find and share modern reliable sources which contradict those claims, if possible, to ensure the article is meeting NPOV. Bear in mind that claims which run counter to widely accepted/repeated claims, require limited space in relation to other claims or multiple reliable references, depending on circumstance. Vassyana 08:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By "integrate" I understood something integral, not partial.
 * Thanks for removing both the "strong claim" that Christians accepted the designation "Nazarene" and the perhaps unneeded insistence that that designation was earlier (by at most 10 or 13 years).
 * What "reliable source" says that Christians called themselves "the Way"? I find "the way" used in Acts only of their religion/teaching.
 * I would suggest that what the "modern secondary reference" says should be reported as what it says, not as fact.
 * Ditto.
 * Ditto. Lima 10:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Section split
I've tagged "Origin of Christianity as a distinct religion" to be split into a new article. The section is getting quite long and there is a lot which could be discussed on the topic. Certainly, plenty enough to fill out an entire article of its own. If people support the split, I'll create the new article and draft a summary section for this article. Thoughts? Vassyana 07:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

this statement is nonsense

 * Dr. James Tabor suggests it was an attempt to translate Nazarene into Greek; Christian in essence meaning a "Messianist".

A check of just about any English dictionary will show that Nazarene is derived from the Greek, thus the notion of translating it into Greek is nonsense. I'm sure James Tabor did not make such a nonsensical statement. Just another example of why wikipedia in general has such low credibility. 75.15.201.214 04:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to verify the claim by checking the source, which is online and clearly cited. Beyond that the modern word traces back to middle English, from late Latin, from Greek, from Aramaic/Hebrew. The Greek word was not a translation, but a borrow word, much as it was borrowed from Latin/Greek for the English. Vassyana 05:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The most common explanation is that Nazarene is derived from Nazareth, in fact that claim is made in the Bible. Connections to Aramaic/Hebrew words are speculations at best. Check the Bauer lexicon, I assume you know what that is? 75.15.201.214 07:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the Tabor quote now: "The term "Christian," first used in Greek speaking areas for the movement, actually is an attempt to translate the term Nazarene and basically means a "Messianist."" Just one more reason why anything by Tabor needs to be checked for Fringe theories. 75.15.201.214 07:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have reliable sources that contradict those used in the article, please share them. Vassyana 08:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the standard reference for Koine Greek, the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed., 1979: Ναζωραῖος/Nazoraios (plural: Nazoraioi) is translated into English as:
 * "Nazoraean, Nazarene, quite predominantly a designation of Jesus, in Mt, J, Ac and Lk 18:37, while Mk has Ναζαρηνός [coming from Nazareth]. Of the two places where the later form occurs in Lk, the one, Lk 4:34, apparently comes from Mk (1:24), the other, 24:19, perhaps from a special source. Where the author of Lk-Ac writes without influence from another source he uses Ναζωραῖος. Mt says expressely 2:23 that Jesus was so called because he grew up in Nazareth. In addition, the other NT writers who call Jesus Ναζωραῖος know Nazareth as his home. But linguistically the transition from Ναζαρέτ [Nazareth] to Ναζωραῖος is difficult ... and it is to be borne in mind that Ναζωραῖος meant something different before it was connected with Nazareth ... According to Ac 24:5 the Christians were so called;"

64.149.82.86 19:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of the "other" derivation. Basically, it comes down to the two semetic roots NSR/NZR, and was probably an intentional pun in relation to Nazara (Nazareth). I am digging for an up-to-date reliable source that addresses the issue succinctly. If you have any suggestions in regards to references addressing this issue in-depth and/or in the context of early Christianity, they'd be welcome. In the mean time, I've rephrased the claim to make clear the association with Nazareth is largely ascribed to Matthew. Vassyana 20:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing
I removed the recent addition of sources because the references cited are not reliable references. I have serious doubts about your citation of Notes and Queries, because only snippet views are available on Google Books, meaning that there is no way you could have read the full context of the quote from that source. Additionally, the article already covers that it was used as a slur and that fact is not likely to be disputed. The following source is an apologetic website by a person who admits to not being published in the field with varying excuses as to why. The next reference is just bible study notes from a prison ministry. The following source is from a text from the Holy Order of MANS, which is assured a fringe source, since they are even a fringe presence in Roscicrucianism and esoteric Christianity. I also removed original research. We cannot make the analysis "[t]o judge by the Acts of the Apostles", unless a reliable reference makes such a claim. A simple observation it is common, what "disciples" means and an example of the common usage is permissable since it's a fact unlikely to be disputed, but it should still be referenced to a reliable source to avoid any original research. We need to build this article with modern reliable references. Vassyana 20:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it curious that Vassyana wants a reliable source for the meaning of μαθητής. I am uncertain which to choose, but I will insert one, just any one, to please him.  (I have now chosen Liddell and Scott; if he wants Strong or Thayer or another source, that can be added, even by himself.)  As for the citations I gave, I did not consider them authoritative.  I hope I have not been presenting as a verifiable fact what is in reality only an opinion.  Some such cases may indeed have slipped through.  That was not my aim.  Instead I basically wanted to show that primary texts that the reader can look up personally and directly can be and have been interpreted in a certain way.  Or rather, my aim has been to show that they have in actual fact been interpreted in a way different from the way in which the article was presenting them with a mere footnote quotation-less reference to some writer.  An expert writing in an ordinary encyclopedia is free to put forward his view alone.  Wikipedia cannot present any one opinion, even that of someone as authoritative as Vassyana seems to think Tabor is, as a statement of fact.  And of course, merely quoting a text (whether modern or early-Christian) as saying what it says is surely not original research.  It is interpreting the text, either explicitly or implicitly, that is original research.  Lima 07:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not asking for a reference regarding the meaning of the word. It's fairly undisputed. The observation it is common, the basic meaning and an example are OK since it's not disputed, as I said above. I would simply prefer a reliable source back the claim and perhaps lend some commentary/analysis. And again, the claim about "the Way" is not an unverified claim. It is sourced and in fact repeated widely through modern published sources. If you disagree, provide a reliable source that says otherwise, so we can balance the article appropriately. The sources cited say the label (Nazarene) broadly applied to Jewish Christians. If you can provide a reliable published reference that says it was not so broadly employed, please share it. The claim about approximating Nazarene into Greek is directly attributed to a well-established scholar and it not among the handful of controversial theories he holds. If you have a reference from a reputable publisher refuting the claim, please provide it. The centrality of the Jewish Christians in earliest Christianity is hardly a minority opinion anymore. Also, there are a lot of now-common theories in the study of early Christian history that were minority opinions not all that long ago. A fine example is the state of orthodoxy and heresy in early Christianity. As with the above claims, if you have modern reliable references that say otherwise, please provide them. Regarding the term "Ebionite", if you have an accurate source that contradicts the claim, provide it. If you have an problem or disagree with well-sourced claims in the article, it's up to you to provide references that say otherwise. Vassyana 19:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Addressing your removed comments -
 * This must be some kind of misunderstanding. The Ethiopian Christians do not follow Halacha.
 * The others are addressed above. Vassyana 19:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The others are addressed above. Vassyana 19:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Vassyana merely affirms that "it is sourced and in fact repeated widely through modern published sources" that "the Way" was the name apparently preferred by the early Christians for themselves. He accuses me, on the other hand, of supplying no source for a different view. I did supply a source, not just affirmed that one exists.  I supplied not only a reference enabling Vassyana to look the source up, I actually transcribed it for him: Thayer's Lexicon says expressly that "the Way" is used in Acts to refer to the religion of the early Christians.  Vassyana should surely recognize that a distinction can be made between a religion and its followers. But he only wants his favourite opinion to appear in Wikipedia.
 * That is the central problem. As I already said, Wikipedia cannot present any one opinion, even that of someone as authoritative as Vassyana seems to think Tabor is, as a statement of fact.  Why doesn't he just write: "According to Tabor, …"?  That Wikipedia could accept.
 * Who disputes that Jewish Christians were central to early Christianity? I don't.  Anyone who reads the Acts of the Apostles can see it was so.  But it is quite a leap from that to identifying that central group with those whom Christians, centuries later, called Nazarenes.
 * "The sources cited," Vassyana says, "say the label (Nazarene) broadly applied to Jewish Christians." I have the impression that Vassyana does not realize how broadly the term, in its first-century sense, was applied.  Unlike centuries later, it was applied not only to "faithful to the Law" Jewish Christians, but also to Jewish Christians like Paul. And I am as yet unaware of any reason for holding that it was not then applied to all Christians, even those of Gentile origin, especially since Jewish literature uses "Nozri" of all Christians.  Lima 04:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a linguistic nitpick. Self-reference is common for such appellation and nothing unusual (such as "We're called the Elks Lodge"). So there's no conflict between sources. Also, Thayer's is not reliable for Wikipedia referencing. It's considerably out of date in a field that's drastically changed. He certainly is a pivotal figure in the history of early Christian studies. However, much like Bauer is employed in the article, he should only be cited insofar as modern reliable sources call upon him. You kept insisting the claim in the article was unsourced, which is simply patently false. And, please refrain from insults. There's no reason we cannot be polite. I'm simply insisting we do little more than report what is to be found in modern reliable sources. If you disagree with them, find modern third-party reliable sources. We cannot use 100+ year old sources for a field that's drastically changed since that time. Vassyana 05:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I removed the appellation paragraph you inserted. It is an inaccurate rewrite of an existing section. It is not simply Tabor who makes such claims. The previously existing section is also properly referenced to Philip Esler's work, who is a chair of Biblical Criticism at a high prestige university, studied law and theology, and received his Doctoral degree from Oxford. The existing section is very well-referenced to highly regarded scholars. A similar level of proof is required to present an equal counterclaim, though claims meeting a lower level of proof may be appropriate for inclusion as a minority view. Vassyana 05:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unlike Vassyana, I do not believe that knowledge of the meaning of Greek words used in the New Testament  has "drastically changed" in the last [ half-century ] . I even think that statements in such sources can be (and not rarely are) more dependable than hypotheses (as I suppose them to be - the actual expression is not quoted) or even definite statements by recent writers that have not stood the test of time. The [ mid- ]twentieth century did not, in my view, initiate a new age of illumination to replace a preceding dark age.  I also believe that I am not the only one who lacks Vassyana's faith in these particular recent writers.  I must repeat: Why not attribute their ideas to them, instead of stating their views as graven-in-stone facts?  So would Vassyana please "report (as such) what is to be found in modern reliable sources", and quote the sources exactly, not refer to them generically or even by mentioning one or more whole books that he considers to be modern reliable sources capable of replacing all that went before.
 * I am sorry that Vassyana finds impolite my questioning of his reasoning. Lima 06:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not find the questions impolite. However, you bluntly accused me of POV pushing, along with making other implications. I also find the snarky "apology" a fair bit less than civil. Regardless, it is not simply the meaning of the Greek word. We're talking about the use of the world in context. I'm sorry, but it's indisputable that our understanding and model of early Christianity has drastically changed since the late 19th century. In fact, the article currently reports on that partially, as covered by reliable sources. I reported what I found in references from two current prestigious scholars. It's a bit hard to dispute that is well-referenced. This is not the place to debate if you don't like what modern scholars have to say. Again, if you disagree, find comparable sources. Vassyana 06:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm sure the published edition may only be a half-century old, but the work itself is at least 106 years old, unless the author was writing from the grave. Vassyana 06:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * When I wrote "half century", I wasn't thinking of Thayer: I willing change the phrase to "106 years ago" or to whenever Vassyana would like the end of the dark age to be put. If Vassyana wants to make Wikipedia present the ideas that he attributes to certain modern scholars to be presented as fact, and if I object to his doing that, I can't help it if he then interprets my action as an (in his view) unjustified accusation of POV pushing.  I sincerely believe that what I wrote is justified.  I also seem not to be the only person who thinks that presenting these ideas as hard fact is wrong (see above).  It is largely in the hope of getting others to join the discussion that I use the third person when referring to him: I would like this not to be merely a two-person conversation; but I suppose others are reluctant to contribute while the heat is still on.
 * There. I have once more repeated my negative opinion on the legitimacy of making Wikipedia (as opposed to an ordinary encyclopedia) state as fact certain recent views.  And Vassyana has once more repeated his opinion that anyone who disputes these views is out of date, and even calls these views "indisputable".  Where can we go from here?  Unless, of course, either I say that these views are indeed indisputable, or Vassyana admits that some do in fact dispute them.  Not just I, but also, for instance, some whom he dismisses as ignorant(?) writers on "apologetic websites" or of Bible study notes - and, of course, the many other ignorant(?) people who think sources like Thayer still have value.  Lima 08:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, if you disagree with the claims, you're quite welcome to provide verifiable information from comparable reliable sources. Please bear in mind that we must represent the current consensus and minority views in proportion to the available references. We also cannot provide our own analysis or interpretation. I did not call the facts indisputable. On the contrary, I've invited you to provide comparable references. I called the fact that the state of scholarship of early Christianity has changed significantly in the past 100 years indisputable. Again, even this very article reflects that, drawing upon modern reliable sources. Websites from non-reliable sources are not permitted (WP:EL and WP:RS). I will no longer be debating these issues of basic policy. Vassyana 23:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To put it another way: We do not cite physics work from over 100 years ago, unless we are providing a historical context. If we were discussing the views of early Christianity in the late 19th century, the text might appropriate for use or example. However, the overall aim of Wikipedia is to provide an overview of current scholarship on various topics and represent those views fairly. If historical views are mentioned in reliable sources, or a modern reliable source notes that a particular work or theory is reliable/accurate, then we should include them in the article (as in some cases already done). Otherwise, we're venturing into territory plagued by original research and representing views not represented in current reliable sources contrary to NPOV, especially in regards to undue weight. I hope this helps clarify the issues further. Vassyana 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First, and principally: thanks and congratulations to Vassyana for beginning to present the views expressed in the article as the views of certain writers, not just as hard facts.
 * I regret that he still seems - perhaps I misunderstand - to think that citations from sources over 100 years old about, for instance, what is contained in the Acts of the Apostles, are totally excluded. If what these sources were contradicted by later research, I could understand it; but I do not understand how he could have maintained that the statement, in a lexicon still seen as standard, that ἡ ὁδός is used in the Acts of the Apostles to refer to the Christian religion is of no value whatever!
 * To encourage him to present his preferred views differently, I have now added some recent (? I suppose he does consider a scientific study presented in November 1993 to be "recent") views (with which he may perhaps not agree) in the way I wish he would present the views he wants to include in the article. (I have of course no objection to their inclusion, if presented in that way.) Lima 09:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

recent revert
Most of what was reverted was original research and personal commentary. The Bible and ancient historical sources cannot be used for interpretive claims. The other section was sourced, but was a repetition of claims, some lost in our edits back and forth, that was already extant and sourced. Additionally, it ruined the sourcing of the section edited, which defeats our goal of verifiability. Vassyana 14:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My thanks and congratulations to Vassyana in my last intervention were sincere. Unfortunately, I see almost nothing this time to thank or congratulate him for except his abandonment, at last, of the adverb "fiercely".  Also, although I think most people would understand by "the Jewish law", the "law of Moses" or the Torah, he has at least added an explanation of what he means by adding a link to Halacha.
 * I hope he doesn't object to my asking him some questions.
 * 1. Why has he deleted the paragraph reporting the contents of the 1993 study by C. Dauphin? This was the major part of the visible text that he has reverted.  Is Dauphin's study not recent?  Is it not scientific?  Is it not verifiable?  What was wrong with it?  Did it "ruin the sourcing of the section edited", whatever that means?  I suppose the information in it is, in general, "already extant", since I don't believe that recent studies have put "not" with every verb in previous studies.  In any case, the sources quoted by Dauphin, who is himself recent, are, if I remember, mainly recent too.  Or by "extant" does Vassyana possibly mean "already in the article" (not, I think, the usual meaning of "extant")?  Where?  Vassyana repeatedly quotes "Tabor (1998)".  Is the 1993 date of Dauphin's study a problem, on the grounds that by 1998 all that was said in 1993 was out of date?  I cannot believe that.  So what is the explanation?
 * 2. As I said, Vassyana repeatedly quotes "Tabor (1998)" as a source at the end of paragraph. Does that mean that everything in the paragraph faithfully represents what Tabor said in whatever "Tabor (1998)" means?  Or does it refer only to the final statement in the paragraph?  I think it would contribute to clarity if either each statement was sourced or if the paragraph as a whole began with "James Tabor says:..."  Vassyana has kept putting back into his attribution to Tabor of the suggestion that "'Christian' was an attempt to 'approximate' 'Nazarene' in Greek" the phrase "derived from Χριστός, which means 'Messiah'". If I remember right, it was I who added that phrase, thinking it would be helpful for explaining how Χριστιανός means "Messianist", but then, on second thoughts, I thought it best, for the sake of accuracy, to place it outside the statement expressly attributed to Tabor.  Perhaps Vassyana has found that, by mere chance, I was reporting Tabor correctly.
 * 3. I at least allowed readers to see for themselves what Dauphin said, by both giving a link to Dauphin's actual text and by citing for each statement in the paragraph (the paragraph that for some reason Vassyana deleted) the page or pages of Dauphin's study on which the statement was based. But readers have no means of checking the accuracy of what is being attributed to "Tabor (1998)".  Would it not be better, at the very least, to indicate the page numbers, so that those who have access to "Tabor (1998)" (book or whatever) can see that what the article states is an accurate report of what was actually said by the discoverer of "The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity"? - but this book was of 2006, not 1998.
 * 4. Why does Vassyana insist on saying that μαθηταί means "students", not "learners"? The words are almost fully synonymous, but what is so important about "students" (its overtones perhaps?) that Vassyana keeps changing back to that translation?  What is his recent authoritative source that has made out-of-date the lexica that give "learner" as the meaning?  He has not cited it, while I quoted Liddell and Scott as a source for the other translation and could have quoted others.
 * Good night. I will look this up again some time tomorrow.  Lima 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. The information is already contained in Early_Christianity. If you think there's an essential piece of information missing, please let me know. The problem with that addition was largely the breaking of referencing previously existing and a repetition of material already in the article. We could certainly add the study to a "Further reading" section without issue.
 * 2. It's a standard style of referencing. The source is clearly shown under References. The citation is simply a footnote indicating which reference is used, as well as page numbers for the citation (where applicable). For example, if you see Esler (2004), you know the reference used is: Esler, Phillip F. The Early Christian World. Routledge (2004). ISBN 0415333121. I've correct the error in my edits that lead to a repetition of that claim.
 * 3. The source is clearly listed under References, as appropriate.
 * 4. That wording was simply reverted along with other less appropriate changes. Outside of the word being clumsy, most synonyms are just as good as another within reason. I really feel this is bit of a nit though, since which synonym we choose here (unless we choose very poorly) is going to have little effect on the article. Vassyana 05:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. As far as I can see, the deleted information did not leave untouched certain statements that Vassyana wants the article to present as facts. Is the deleted information without relevance to the statement that "These Jewish Christians" (those for whom the word "Nazarene" was later used by Christians), not just "Jewish Christians" in general, were "originally a central group in Christianity"?  The deleted information suggests that the sect of Jewish Christians actually denounced was that better known as "Ebionites", and that these may have arisen only after the death of James the Just.  It suggests that there never was any difference in faith, but only in praxis, between Christians (in general) who were faithful to Jewish law and practices (whom Dauphin too calls "Nazarenes"); that there was no denunciation against them (Jerome wrote against the Ebionites, as he explicitly says, and only remarked that the Ebionites were commonly called Nazarenes) and that those "holding to orthodoxy except in their adherence to Jewish law" (a phrase in the Wikipedia article that curiously suggests that faithfulness to Jewish law was incompatible with orthodoxy: "orthodoxy except ...") were, in the end, peaceably absorbed precisely because of their orthodoxy.  Is this already contained in or in conformity with a passage that states that the same Christians "were not at first declared to be unorthodox, but were later excluded and denounced" and indicates that "they were declared heretical" upon "the dominance of orthodoxy in the fourth century"?  (I suppose the last phrase refers to state support for orthodoxy with the Council of Nicea, a support that soon passed to non-orthodox Arianism.)  So is the deleted information really already contained in the text?
 * 2. Up to now, I have only known the practices whereby either the first reference to a publication gave full information on it, and the abbreviated form then appeared in later references (the system used, for instance, in Dauphin's study), or else a list of abbreviations was placed before the text (as in Raymond Brown's books). I have now learnt from Vassyana that it is enough to list a book even after the text, under "References", and without saying that an abbreviated form will be or was used to refer to it. I apologize for my previous ignorance.
 * 3. Ditto, to some extent. But would it not still be good to indicate the page numbers in "Tabor 1998"?
 * 4. Thanks to Vassyana for changing "students" back to "learners". Would he consider also accepting "the brethren who are of the Gentiles" (which can be sourced) rather than the vague "converts" (to what?) as a description of the people that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem accepted?  And is "Jewish Christians were among the earliest followers of Jesus" really an improvement on "Jewish Christians were the earliest followers of Jesus"?  I thought all the earliest followers of Jesus were Jewish.  Would it perhaps be more exact to say: "The earliest followers of Jesus were Jews, and Jewish Christians were an important part of Judean society ..."?  Or else just start with something like: "From the start of Christianity, Jewish Christians were ..."?
 * I feel that there are signs of the possibility of progress. I am glad for that.  Lima 12:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm putting some thought into your comments before embarking on changes. I'm trying to take into account your concerns, while staying close to the sources. I should make a revision or two later tonight. Cheers! Vassyana 00:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. I've look over the reference for C. Dauphin. Pg 235 does indeed say they differed in their practice, but not in faith. (Which is already noted in the article.) It also notes that they constituted a separate community from the Pauline Christians. Pg 240 supports the practice not faith distinction. However, it also explicitly mentions the post-Nicene "double rejection" of the Jewish Christians by both Gentile Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. Pp 241-242 Does not support your interpretation of the source. It certainly does not say "and it was precisely because of the unity of faith that the Jewish strand of Christianity, in spite of its difference in praxis, was able to be absorbed eventually by the more numerous form". It does mention there was no direct confrontation/persecution between Gentile and Judaic Christianity. However, it states that their practice was diluted, both by internal schisms and external pressures. (It then, very oddly, makes the bizarre claim that the Ebionites somehow survived (at least in part) in Nestorianism and Islam. Perhaps some context is missing here, in that it is saying something akin to the unorthodox Christiologies of some Ebionities survived as doctrines in such, but that is unclear and we can't make that assumption.) Regardless, it follows that those remaining fully faithful to Halacha became purely Jews. Then it states that the true split of Jewish Christianity from both Judaism and Christianity, or rather the true end of Jewish Christianity, occured only in the fifth century. It follows by mentioning that Gentile Christianity remained the sole strand of orthodoxy and imposed itself on the previously Jewish Christian sanctuaries. Together, that hardly puts forward the kind of view you were ascribing to it. The source certainly does have additional information to impart, however it complementary, not contradictory, to the sources and information already present in the article. I will consider how to integrate this information into the article.
 * 4. This really seems like a pot of nits. "Converts" is pretty plain in the context of the article. The section is discussing Jewish Christianity, so there should be little question about why the focus lies where it does. Additionally, it relies on the sources, not our own conclusions, so no I could not replace "Jewish Christians" with "Jewish converts" (which are not synonymous) without breaking the verifiability of the section. Vassyana 09:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With fidelity to the sources (oἱ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἀδελφοί NRSV: "the believers of Gentile origin"), someone from Reno, Nevada, USA has now helpfully put "Gentile converts" in place of "converts". I think it is a worthwhile improvement.  :)
 * Who are we to judge on behalf of Wikipedia that an article by a scholar is bizarre? Some would call Tabor's ideas, e.g. about a Jesus dynasty, are bizarre.  I don't know enough to judge.  Even if I did think I knew enough to judge, I could not on that basis make Wikipedia express that judgement.  All I could do would be to quote some expert who has declared that the idea is bizarre, and cite that expert.  Wikipedia, at present, says that Jewish Christians "were later excluded and denounced".  If this means Jewish Christians in general, as seems to be indicated by Wikipedia's statement that they were "originally a central group in Christianity", Dauphin, who denies that there was "affrontement" (confrontation) between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, seems to deny that these Christians were "excluded and denounced".  I would think that unsourcedly deciding that Dauphin's ideas are bizarre (on the point to which this adjective is explicitly applied, not just Dauphin's ideas, but also those of the other writers whom Dauphin cites on that point) or just plain wrong is surely Original Research, not to be done in Wikipedia, which therefore cannot present the contrary idea as pacifically accepted.  If, on the other hand, the phrase "(they) were later excluded and denounced" refers to a particular sect among Jewish Christians (perhaps those whom Dauphin calls Ebionites, as opposed to the orthodox Jewish Christians, whom he calls Nazarenes), then Wikipedia cannot declare, again unsourcedly, that this heterodox sect was originally a central group in Christianity.  :)
 * Of course I agree that the true end of Jewish Christianity occurred only in the fifth century, when the remaining orthodox Jewish Christians either abandoned the Christian faith in favour of the Jewish or abandoned Jewish praxis while keeping Christian faith. And, when there were no remaining orthodox Jewish Christians, it follows that Gentile Christianity remained the sole strand of orthodoxy, and Gentile Christians, having already become involved, as members of the same faith, in originally Jewish Christian sanctuaries, found themselves in sole possession not only of orthodox Christianity but also of these sanctuaries.  :)
 * I could argue about the interpretation of Dauphin's study, but I think that (except for what I have said above) it is for now better just to ask again why an Original Research judgement is being imposed on Wikipedia concerning the value of different theories about early Christianity. Any theory mentioned, even if it is the only one to be mentioned, could surely be explicitly attributed to its author(s), with page numbers, if possible.  That, really, is all I am asking.  :)  Lima 18:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tabor's "odd" ideas are not included in this article, so please drop that ad hominem. We're not discussing Tabor's disputed work, but rather the normal bulk of his scholarship which is held in high repute. Regardless, I mentioned that it probably comes across as bizarre because what exactly the author means is unclear in that instance, and that we cannot assume what he means without engaging in original research. Dauphin does not deny they were denounced and excluded. On the contrary, he specifically mentions that Jewish Christianity was rejected by both Gentile Christians and Jews, and that Jewish Christians were subsumed by both of those faiths. I agree the source is good, makes good points and quite clearly it contains additional information which we can include in the article. Vassyana 18:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now added Dauphin's paper to the reference to the list and created a paragraph of additional details based on that source. Vassyana 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Article split
There were no objections to splitting the large section dealing with the origins of early Christianity. Since silence is the ultimate measure of consensus, I went ahead and did the split. The current section needs to be rewritten as a summary of the "new" article. Cheers! Vassyana 19:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Address issues in the proper article
Please do not make substantive citations or arguments in summary sections. Instead, please address issues in their main article. Vassyana 03:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And please do not make statements that suggest that one side of a disputed question is the correct one; instead, please address those issues also in their main article. (Example, the suggestion that the Ebionites certainly existed as an identifiable body at the same time as or - since they were mentioned first - even before "early church leaders in Jerusalem".)
 * (As for accusations of "Original Research", why not follow the Wikipedia norm: "Anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source"? Anyone who read the Acts of the Apostles was able to verify that the Wikipedia statement agreed with the Acts of the Apostles.  With the removal of the quotation from the Jewish Encyclopedia, that statement is no longer required.  It was inserted because I do not believe in just reverting what other editors contribute.) Lima 07:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This was a good revision and a very good way to avoid self-reference and a potentially controversial statement. Good deal. :) Vassyana 07:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On the original research, you were using a primary source to make an interpretive or analytical claim, which is expressly prohibited. Vassyana 07:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To call stating objectively what Acts says an interpretative or analytical claim seems to my poor mind to be itself a disputable interpretative or analytical claim (admittedly, on Talk, not in the article). :) The explicit reference to the Jewish Encyclopedia statement was added only at the last editing in response to insistence on separating the reference to Acts from what occasioned its insertion.  It did not change the objective character of the statement about what Acts says (a statement not of opinion about the truth of what Acts says or about how the words of Acts should be interpreted or analyzed, and accordingly a statement permitted, as far as I can see, under Wikipedia rules).  The further statement, added at the last editing, about the difference between what the quotation from the Jewish Encyclopedia said and what is in Acts was itself an objective statement that I think nobody would dispute.
 * Enough on this, I think. :) Lima 08:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

First Convert
"Traditionally the Roman Centurion Cornelius is considered the first Gentile (non-Jewish) convert"

This is what this text says. But as far as I can see Mc 5:1-19 tells of another non-jew that was converted. But my knowledge reaches only to the scripture itself, and not geography and etnicology and stuff like that. So what do you think?

Denolaj 19:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim is referenced in the article by a Reliable sources. Namely: Catholic Encyclopedia: Cornelius: "The baptism of Cornelius is an important event in the history of the Early Church. The gates of the Church, within which thus far only those who were circumcised and observed the Law of Moses had been admitted, were now thrown open to the uncircumcised Gentiles without the obligation of submitting to the Jewish ceremonial laws." 75.0.2.95 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)