Talk:Tabor Light

Comments
Shouldn't the main title be Uncreated light? True, Tabor light is a better translation of the Greek "Φῶς του Θαβώρ" (although Light of Tabor would be better still), but "Uncreated light" is MUCH more common. E.g., a Google search of "Tabor light" gives 801 results (of which fewer than half refer to the subject of this article), while another of "Uncreated light" returns about 23,200.
 * I support the name change. "Uncreated Light" is a much more common term, and it accurately implies the theological concept behind it. MishaPan 15:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a reference to the lights seen around cemeteries at night? These are perfectly explainable as caused by gases being emited from decaying corpses coming through the ground. They have no theological significance what so ever and looks ludicrious in the context of a theological exposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.212.39 (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Pejorative
The sentence from the article, "(known in the West by the pejorative Palamism)" was recently changed to, "(known as Palamism)" with the Edit Summary of, "how is this pejorative?". To answer the question, throughout the history of Christian theology heretical doctrines have been typically named for the individual who originated them (cf. "Nestorianism", "Arianism", etc.). The adoption by the West of the term "Palamism" is, in this sense, pejorative, as an indication that the concept so described is heretical; whereas in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas is accepted as a part of the mystical theology of the Church, and is not called "Palamism" but is referred to as the doctrine of the "Uncreated Light". I'm going to restore the sentence to its previous status, since it is historically accurate (and the assertion that the doctrine is "known as Palamism" is offensive to Eastern Orthodox readers). However, I would appreciate any comments readers have about this. MishaPan 15:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, this doesn't make sense. A doctrine is named for its originator, yes. Palamism, Nestorianism, Lutheranism. This is regardless of whether you accept it or reject it. Of course, if you reject Palamism, the term will have negative connotations. And if you accept it, it won't. This has nothing to do with the term itself. The doctrine is known as Palamism, by its originator, Palamas. If you want to argue the term itself is somehow pejorative, at least say who has claimed that. "In the West" is utterly pointless, since this  being en-wiki, we obviously give English language terminology. If you had taken the time to do a superficial google search before engaging me, you would have found any number of occurrences of the term in perfectly sympathetic discussions.
 * 
 * dab (𒁳) 06:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Gregory Palamas is not the "originator" of the doctrine, only its defender. Obviously, the concept already existed, or Barlaam would have had nothing to attack (1338). Palamas only entered the debate afterwards (1341), in response to Barlaam. The expression "In the West" has nothing to do with languages, it refers to Western Christianity (as opposed to Eastern Christianity). Furthermore, "Palamism" is not the only English-language term used in writings about the doctrine. If you need some "-ism" by which to call it, "Hesychasm" would be much better. I think it is unfair of you to presume that I have done no research on this question; I have, both on the Web and in print--and more than just a "superficial google search." If you are interested in Western academic sources that treat St. Gregory's teachings negatively, try (characterizing it as "an obscure speculation, with the wildest form of mystic extravagance") and  (accusing it of "pseudo-spiritualism akin to that of the ancient Euchites or Messalians"). With regard to the sources you link to above: MishaPan 20:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Here's another, more recent article with a negative use of "Palamism" from the Western point of view (Anglican). And an interesting quote from the Lutheran point of view : "Just about every "error" that Lutherans point to in Orthodoxy was firmly entrenched by the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Even "Palamism" is seen as far back as the 400s in the works of Macarius and in the monastic milieu." MishaPan 23:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [1] I'm sorry, I don't read Russian, so I can't address the reference.
 * [2] This article does not use the word "Palamism." It does speak of "Palamite theology," but this does nothing to disprove the pejorative use of "Palamism" in the West. Furthermore, the article specifically says, "St. Gregory was suspected of subversive innovations by his enemies and this is still the way he is perceived in general in the West" (emphasis added); and, "St. Gregory starts his theological investigation with the question: What is the essence of the Christian experience? The answer he gives to this question, which is theosis, is not new" (i.e., Gregory did not originate the idea).
 * [3] I don't read German either, but I'll bet the author, Reinhard Flogaus, is a Westerner.
 * [4] Here the author, Otets Hryhorij (Ukrainian for "Father Gregory," whose user profile features a picture of a Dominican, and who describes himself as a "Byzantine monk"--which would appear to mean Ukrainian Catholic, since Orthodox in Ukraine do not normally refer to themselves as "Byzantine"), gives a negative assessment of Gregory Palamas' patristic theology.
 * [5] This Websites' mission statement says, in part: "We will live and defend the faith given to us by Jesus Christ by remaining completely obedient to the teaching authority of His Church" (i.e., the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church). The page referenced treats "Palamism" as part of a class on "Theological Issues".


 * I am not sure what you mean. It is true that Palamism is generally rejected in western theology, but that has nothing (whatsoever) to do with the term Palamism, but with the doctrine itself. Authors rejecting the doctrine would reject it under any name. Palamism is a perfectly neutral for "the doctrine developed Palamas" and in itself has no negative connotation. Claiming "Palamism" is a pejorative term is like claiming that "Communism" is a pejorative term because you'll be bound to find a great number of English language sources rejecting it. dab (𒁳) 07:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, Palamas did not invent the doctrine. The Orthodox Church does not have the Roman Catholic notion of developing new dogmas. The Orthodox believe that the fullness of doctrinal teaching was given on the day of Pentecost. Doctrinal formulas are only "defined"--i.e., the Church finds a specific vocabulary with which to express what it has always believed. When the Holy Fathers elucidate a teaching, they are not speculating; they are only giving voice to what they have recieved from Sacred Tradition. This is why heresies are named after people, but doctrines are not. While some Orthodox sources (Meyendorff, etc.) may use of the term "Palamism" they are doing so only as a bow to Western convention, but is improper from an Orthodox point of view. One might argue that since Wikipedia is an English-language project we should bow to "Western convention." But I would argue that we should not do so if the conventional usage is steeped in one side of the argument. MishaPan 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * that's splitting hairs, and frankly a red herring. Of course, if you believe in a theological truth, you will believe it had already been true before it was formulated. That's just a truism. Muslims argue that "Islam" didn't begin with Muhammad but with Abraham. Will we talk of Abraham and the patriarchs as Muslims to honour Muslim convention? No, and not because we're anti-Muslim, but simply because this would confuse the heck out of the reader. dab (𒁳) 22:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

merge?
ok, so I cobbled together this article without being aware that we already had Essence-Energies distinction. I think the topical overlap is rather too great, and the two articles should probably merged. thoughts? dab (𒁳) 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please respond
Can some please explain this to me (here or on my talk page): The fundamental issue in this debate is the very nature of divine grace itself, which incidentally, is why the debate over the role of divine grace in justification between Protestants and Roman Catholics also is inexplicable in the terms of Eastern theological thought. Thanks in advance. --Paxcoder (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple articles covering Palamism
NB: I am NOT, at this time, proposing a merger of any articles. However, I do think we should look at the inadequacy of coverage of Palamism in multiple articles.

Palamism used to redirect to Tabor Light (which was, in my opinion, the wrong place for it to redirect)

In addition to the article on Gregory Palamas, we also have articles on Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology),Hesychasm,Essence-Energies distinction and Tabor Light.

It seems to me that all of these articles (except for the biographical one on Palamas himself) are just parts of the overall doctrine known as Palamism. We could either merge all of these articles into one big one titled Palamism or we could at least construct an article titled Palamism that introduces each of the subtopics in summary style and then links to the main article on each subtopic.

I think that having so many articles gives the reader a fragmented view of Palamism and requires him to find and read several articles in order to construct an integrated and complete picture. It is much like the four blind men describing different parts of the elephant.

To address this problem, I've created an article titled Palamism. At the moment, it is not much more than a collection of lead sections plus the section titled "Development of the Doctrine" that I originally assembled for this article from Hesychasm andGregory Palamas. I hope this new article can serve as an "umbrella" summary article for all these detailed articles that describe different parts of the elephant.

--Richard S (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Article or footnote?
Is this an article or a footnote? There seems to be more text in the footnote than the article. This is article is not on my path to edit now, but I just do not trust it. The sources used are mostly websites, and are at best borderline WP:RS or perhaps below it. It is an important topic, and really deserves better than this. I only looked on here now because I am doing an article on the iconography of Transfiguration and that relates to this, but I think you guys should improve this article, have less footnotes and better refs. History2007 (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * it was just excessive quoting from the sources used, the article quality as such isn't affected by this, for better or worse. --dab (𒁳) 08:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Saskatchewan
I am not sure if the Saskatchewan thing from 1938 is even relevant here. I came across it back in 2007 when I first collected sources on the topic. Apparently this was an incident of a ghostly light seen in the cemetery of a now no-longer existing village called "Tabor". It isn't clear where this was, online references vary between 27 km, 17 miles and 27 miles, either to the northeast or northwest of Esterhazy. Since 27 km is about 17 miles, 27 miles is probably wrong, but there is nothing at that distance from Esterhazy either to the northeast or to the northwest.

More to the point, the thing was called "Tabor light", apparently in oblique reference to the theological concept, but it isn't clear that it has any sort of notability to the topic. It's still worth noting the existence of this somewhere on Wikipedia if only to prevent it from popping up again without proper references. --dab (𒁳) 08:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed rename to Uncreated Light
The current article scope seems to be about Uncreated light, which is sometimes called Tabor Light, rather than about general theological discussion about the light seen during the Transfiguration. Given that "uncreated light" is a far more common term than "Tabor light", and for clarity about article scope, I propose renaming to. Any objections? Daask (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)