Talk:Lucian of Antioch

Untitled
I noticed this article has been tagged for cleanup, there wasn't any notes as to why, but I did notice some gramatical errors and corrected them. I didn't removed the tag since I wasn't exactly sure why it was tagged. --Icthusgirl 21:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It is unclear as to which Macarius is teaching in Edessa. Wikipedia apparently doesn't have that person currently listed in its database. Stevenmitchell 02:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

-

"The contradictory reports are easily reconciled by the assumption that Lucian was a critical scholar with some peculiar views on the Trinity and Christology which were not in harmony with the later Nicene orthodoxy, but that he wiped out all stains by his heroic confession and martyrdom," wrote Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church.

I've read that particular statement in Schaff some time ago, but I wasn't particularly impressed by it, because the Fathers didn't have 'nice' words to say about heretical martyrs. For instance, they said that a martyr's death for a heretic is a well deserved punishmnent for his blasphemies; or -at other times- they warned against the veneration of martyred Montanist Saints. -- Craciun Lucian.

What, if anything, does this mean?
"They too throw out completely the Alexandrines teachings along with the concept of a trinity that from his teachings and that of Arius, his pupil, clearly shows he was against."

I reworded the sentence.
They also dismiss the Alexandrines teachings along with the concept of a trinity. Which Lucian and Arius, his pupil, oppose. Wgabrie 08:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Text-Critical Information is Woefully Out of Date
I notice that this article relies on Text-Critical Information from the 1800s...which is now out of date. For instance it presents "The Syrian Recension" as a matter of fact rather than a text-critical conjecture, one now widely regarded as very mistaken even among text critics. Part of the difficulty in text-criticism is the attention to details and mastery of them...because the text critic has to read everything received from the past and sort through the evidence and class it, as well as consider the past considerations and compare them to evidence, while not accepting whatever has been refuted.

If it is alright, I'm planning to (slowly) accumulate notes in this area of study (slowly working on learning the necessary languages and history too) and start addressing TC on wikipedia. But in regards to the "Lucianic" or "Syrian" recension, I suggest we re-write the article to say that textual speculations (they were indeed wholly speculations, not evidential--and indirecly evidential at that) once attributed a "Byzantine", "Syrian", or "Lucianic" recension to him, which speculation is now generally discredited (although the state of knowledge is not always uniform across schools or as caught-up so I'm unsure as yet whether just a large portion, or most, text critics now discredit that old theory: however I do read in their correspondences that it's generally considered one of the greater faults in the work of Dr. Hort and Westcott). Any suggestions? p.s. my "signing" (the four tildes) on wikipedia always shows "tooMuchData" rather than my screen name "TheResearchPersona". P.S. I also ought to note the historically mentioned recension of Lucian in the OT (not the NT). (rather than speculative) recensian tooMuchData 20:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Why "Turkish"?
While his stomping grounds are today in Turkey, he was certainly not Turkish AAN Al-Nofi (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, can anyone explain this? Endercase (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)