Talk:History of Christianity

↓ Jump to bottom of page ↓

List of things the article doesn't adequately describe

To be expanded: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• What an "apostle" was.
• What the result of the Council of Jerusalem was (in the last paragraph of "Early Christianity")
• What the trinity is (there should be a line in the second paragraph of "Early Christianity")
• What Christian monasticism was.
• Why did the previous version on the Vulgate focus on whether it was similar to Roman jurisprudence, and not on its massive legacy?

I checked one source, Humfress 2015, for the "art and literature (350-500)" section. There was much too high a proportion of close paraphrasing. You also need to pay attention to this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Thank you for giving me something to do! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

That particular instance has been taken care of, but others may be out there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I am bad about forgetting quotation marks. I'll put them at the beginning and forget the end, forget them entirely - I am trying to be more careful. I will be. I will do the rest of this list today, I promise. Do you want the answers here or do you want me to insert them? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• • Dear darling hard-working friend ~~ AirshipJungleman29

1. • Apostle: Persons in the position of apostle are representatives sent out from the Christian community as bearers of a message.

• Burton, Ernest DeWitt (1912). "The Office of Apostle in the Early Church". The American Journal of Theology. 16 (4): 561–588.

1. • Council of Jerusalem

• • The Jewish Christians in Jerusalem decided to allow Gentile Christians their form of Christianity and allow Jews to keep theirs. The only restrictions given were to "abstain from the pollutions of idols and from fornication and from what is strangled, and from blood".

1. • Trinity: God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I do not like the idea of adding this. There are no discussions of theology in this article - nor philosophy - both of which Christianity is heavy with. Both of these change over time, and impacted all kinds of things, like the Reformation, so they would have to be discussed repeatedly. They are probably important enough to be included in a history of the church - but hopefully not a history of Christianity - because its not just rabbit hole, it's a rabbit warren. If we start explaining it we will have to keep on till the cows come home - and I don't have any cows - so they will never come home - if you get my meaning.

   You do not think that excluding a topic which Christianity "is heavy with" and "impacts all kinds of things" means the article is incomplete? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

   ~~ AirshipJungleman29 I am drawing a fine line, to be sure, but academics in this field draw fine lines of meaning using excriciatingly minute detail. I am drawing a semantic line between a history of the church which would include its theology and practices and a history of Christianity in the broader sense of events and impact on society, politics and economics. When you excluded practices from Early Christianity, I felt validated in that choice. If you want it in, the article will end up at 20,000 words, I'll betcha, even if you edit it all with your magic touch. Theology is obscure to most people and requires lots of explaining and most people just don't care. So. The article is incomplete but in a complete way - does that make a weird kind of sense? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

   I will do what you decide. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

   • Monasticism

• • The structured pursuit of the ascetic life. The first sentence of our WP Article Christian monasticism says Christian monasticism is a religious way of life of Christians who live ascetic and typically cloistered lives that are dedicated to Christian worship. That's close enough.

1. • Vulgate and law? Because it was used later to justify many of the changes made in canon law. There's a line in the High Middle Ages section on Law and Papal monarchy: Canon law became a large and highly complex system of laws that omitted Christianity's earlier principles of inclusivity. It is so significant it should be highlighted and underlined. Sociological theory has society becoming more intolerant as the Middle Ages wore on, and power was centralized, and states became more secular, but the church was right there with them. State and church were copying and competing with each other and the tolerance and inclusivity that had been so important to the early church up through the early middle ages got lost somewhere. Augustine said leave the Jews alone in the fourth century. In the thirteenth century the church wrote canon law - law - that restricted Jews to a ghetto, had them wear a yellow patch to identify themselves as Jewish, and forbid them from holding any public office. How did they get from "There is no Greek or Jew..." to that? The Roman law in the Vulgate made them think it was okay. It was too much detail to include in the article, but the mention remained. It's fine to remove it.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• • I was trying to head off controversy with evidence of the majority view on papal monarchy in the note. I feel pretty confident that someone will come along and object to the use of that term, but it is supported, so if you think removal is right, I will accept - while grumbling. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Christendom

The "Early Middle Ages" section begins by talking about three different cultures: Germanic Europe, the Byzantine Empire, and Islamic civilisation. We then have a section of Christendom, which claims that the concept was "pervasive and unifying". Do the sources say if it was pervasive and unifying across Christian communities in Germanic Europe, the Byzantine Empire, and Islamic civilisation, or was it only in the former and maybe the second? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It was used in Europe and included the East up to the big divorce. I like your placement of it. I moved it both places, but yours works best I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Tag

What do you think is missing that should be included? Periodization in this article is broken up according to old standards with Late Antiquity ending in 476, and the early Middle Ages ending in 842 when the iconoclast controversy ended. This is not the same periodization used by the Cambridge history of C., but we can still approximate a total content.

Their Volume 3 begins in 600, and it starts with Christendom. Then it has the emergence of Byzantine Orthodoxy. Then it moves on to stuff that's in the High Middle Ages in this article. The next for them is Christianity and Islam. Then again Part Three is moving into the High Middle Ages for the most part, but it also discusses some "early" in chapter 13 - Asceticism and its institutions. Most of the rest is the next period.

Volume 2 is Constantine to 600, and it has most of what's covered in the Late Antiquity section: chapter 2 - Germanic and Celtic Christianities; 4 - Early Asian and East African Christianities; Jews; pagans; heresy; councils; church law; art and architecture, and a whole section on theology and liturgy and stuff I don't think should be included.

So, what do you think is left out? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Assuming this is directed at me, I'm not sure what this is asking. We are discussing the only tag I've placed above. If not that, then what? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes the only tag, the one that says, "The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject." ???? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, see #Christendom above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Most section titles (Late Antiquity, Early Middle Ages, High Middle Ages, Late Middle Ages and Renaissance) represent a Eurocentric approach. I am not sure that we indeed have to split the early Christian period (that lasted till Constantine) into two. Which cited sources verify this split? Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka, as we already have articles on the apostolic age and Christianity in the ante-Nicene period, per WP:Summary style, it seems good organisation to split the sections accordingly. I agree with the note about section titles, which goes hand-in-hand with the tag I added. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not see an article on Apostolic age. Again, what is the reliable source verifying this division? Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka, Apostolic Age redirects to Christianity in the 1st century, where it is bolded per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. Of course, many sources have different ways of dividing early Christian history—some do Jesus to Constantine, some do Jesus to the fifth century, but the Apostolic Age division is sufficiently common to allow its use. You can find reliable sources verifying its division such as, from a quick look, McGrath, Alister (2012). Christian History: An Introduction. p. 10. or Hitchcock, James (2012). History of the Catholic Church: from the Apostolic Age to the Third Millennium.. If you have a suggestion for a clearer or more well-supported division it would be welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I would not split the period because it adds no value, especially because the Apostolic Age is the beginning of the Ante-Nicene period. Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I have added content - my solution to all complaints... Uh-oh ... but I hope it addresses whatever the issue might be - which I may not be clear about ... but am trying to cooperate anyway. If this doesn't work, perhaps you can explain? Merry Christmas!! I am having company for dinner - again - so I will be off for awhile. Thank you Borsoka and AirshipJungleman29! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

What I do think Jenhawk777, is that the divider at 476 might need another think. Generally, "Late Antiquity" is seen to last a couple of centuries longer. Having a section from 476 ensures that there's going to be an awkward division with the rise of Islam—so the first sentence of that section says "between 600 and 750"...well the first question is what happened between 476 and 600? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 As you explained to Borsoka above, this article was established using the older periodization. That applies throughout. On the question of what happened between 476 and 600, that is in the body of the text in more than one place. It could be summarized for this first paragraph if you think it needs it. I can do that if you tell me to or you can. Or it can be left as is or that first paragraph can be moved. One problem here is you seem to have decided that Christendom only applies to Europe and that's incorrect. It was such a pervasive concept that Herrin says even Muslims used it to question whether it was justified to think of the world that way. Page 8. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

What in the "Christendom" subsection is applicable to the Islamic world Jenhawk777? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

My point was that the concept is not just European. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I moved some applicable to 476-600 back to the front. Does it help? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but every facet of Christendom that the article describes is European—no discussion of how the concept was used outside Europe. I'll reinstate the tag. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777-I suggest that progress may be made if you just delete the two Christendom headings. They appear to be causing contention, the concept is nebulous and they appear to add no value. That would leave others free to offer suggestions for missing subjects. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit revert

Discospinster Others placed those links. It isn't right to remove them all without consensus. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

36 links is quite excessive indeed. I cannot remember seeing any page with more than 15. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

They needn't have added those links, the See also section is not an indefinite list of vaguely-related articles. ... discospinster _talk 04:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I concede. You were right, I was wrong. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey

@Remese why do you feel the need to revert my edits? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Read the edit summary I gave, where I explained the reason. Remsense ‥ 论 17:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

ok so in the edit summary you said "don't use an example of another article to justify this article also being wrong". So you're saying the one about the history of Islam is poorly written? Please remove it then. The one about Islam shouldn't look special and net if you won't let the one about Christianity be. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

This talk page is about improving this article specifically. Mellk (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Also I believe the first paragraph of this article should clarify this article is about the history of the Christian world or Christian civilization more than it is about the religion itself. It talks about the crusades, Nazi Germany, etc. this isn't actually the history of Christianity but more about the history of Christian civilization and leadership in the Catholic Church HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk that's what I was literally writing down when you sent this message lol. But Remese won't let me improve one sentence slightly, so I'm asking the individual to edit the article "history of Islam" because the sentence I tried to add on this article is on "the history of Islam" and they never removed it. I'm just extremely confused lol. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Remese said "you can't just point to another page that is wrong to justify why this one is wrong." Yet they haven't fixed the other page about Islam. but will revert my edit in 3 seconds if I add the same small sentence to improve this article. Sorry for being extremely confused. @Remsense also falsely accused me of edit warring when I only reverted their edit 2 times. I know it's Christmas time so I'm going to wait 6-7 hours, if no one responds to the talk page I'm just going to add the edit back, if people want revert while not making any sense, then just stop discussing. It's happened to me multiple times HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

This still counts as edit warring. You do not need to violate WP:3RR for it to be considered edit warring. It may also be worth checking WP:OTHERCONTENT. Mellk (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

How am I edit warring if I don't violate edit warring. That doesn't make any sense at all. And I said only it people Ghost me on the talk page. Also this page is about the history of Christian civilization, leadership within the Catholic Church etc. it mentions The crusades, Nazi Germany, Hitler, who have nothing to do with the religion Christianity but maybe with Christian civilization during that time period. WP:OTHERCONTENT doesn't say anything about "Clarify what this article is about with a brief sentence". and I had to remove that sentence on "the history of Islam" because Remese didn't care for some wild reason. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You're telling me it would have made more sense to you if we had a confusing disagreement over two article leads simultaneously instead? For what it's worth, I already spend a lot of hours trying to clean up highly visible errors and guideline violations on important pages—as they really do bother me, and I don't just like reverting people for the sake of it—and I apologize that I can't always make the maximum improvement across every page for sheer want of time and cognitive ability. Instead I can seemingly only effect half-measures that merely prevent good material from getting worse, perhaps while also indicating a useful bit of policy for another editor to make use of going forward. Remsense ‥ 论 19:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

If another article violates a guideline you were pointed to, you could try fixing that other article, instead of repeating the error across other articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 thank you I just did. Remese didn't care because it wasn't about reverting my edits, they didn't remove something on another article they say is wrong or violates guidelines. Crazy. Have a good day. Bye guys Merry Christmas HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

HumansRightsIsCool both your last two comments on this talk page are rather indecipherable. Please take more time to compose your comments so other editors can understand them. Otherwise, productive discussion is rather impossible. Thanks, and a merry Christmas to you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Everyone, this statement this article is about the history of the Christian world or Christian civilization more than it is about the religion itself. It talks about the crusades, Nazi Germany, etc. this isn't actually the history of Christianity but more about the history of Christian civilization and leadership in the Catholic Church is incorrect.

First, there is no such thing as "the Christian world". Second, there have been multiple civilizations that contained people who practiced Christianity, and there are a few countries that claimed it as a state religion, but a history of those would look very different from this article.

Third, Christianity impacted every aspect of life. That has to be explained in an article on its history. This includes limited mention of its cultural impact simply because it did not exist in a vacuum.

I offer one example: the entire thesis of the classic work "The Formation of Christendom" is that it was faith - not economics or politics or anything else - that divided the world into three civilizations that formed the modern world: the Christian West and the Byzantine Christian East and Islam. That means Christianity was instrumental in forming Europe, but it was not a political act. That is impact. Changing the first line to claim otherwise would be misleading. Please don't. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The term "Christian world" refers to the global Christian population. Just like the term Islamic or Muslim world refers to the Islamic community. There's literally a Wikipedia article about the term "Muslim World" and "Christian World". Christianity might be more culturally diverse but the term still exists HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Second off, there have been many countries and empires throughout history that claimed Christianity as a state religion. Please do research before debating religion in Wikipedia talk pages HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyways someone please close this discussion I DON'T CARE!1!1!1 AHHHH!!!! HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I said that didn't I? Consider this closed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hyphens in non-adjectival forms of ordinal enumeration of centuries

What's this edit summary by Jenhawk777 about: "I'm so sorry, all the centuries have to have hyphens apparently. I had to put them all in."? Really?

MOS:CENTURY says: "Treat the 1st century AD as years 1–100, the 17th century as 1601–1700..." and "When used adjectivally they contain a hyphen (nineteenth-century painting or 19th-century painting)." Every style guide I know says something similar. Is using a hyphen in the noun form a feature of Oxford English that I'm not aware of? Carlstak (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not! Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnbod. It was meant to be sarcastic.;-) Hyphens do not belong in non-adjectival forms of ordinal enumeration of centuries. Carlstak (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Johnbod Carlstak Okay, okay, no need to be rude. I had no hyphens originally, and someone (I don't remember who) in the last peer review corrected me using WP:MOS on centuries and millennia: When used adjectivally they contain a hyphen (nineteenth-century painting) IMO, a hyphen should be used in some cases and not others, but he said that was inconsistent, and I should change them all (even though some were nouns). I was trying not to be argumentative, so I just did what he said. It was a big pain to go back and change them all too. Now I'm being told the opposite, but I can't find anything on WP that says do NOT use a hyphen. Clarifying this would be good. Thank you for your input. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

No one's being rude. It's very simple to remove the hyphens, even hundreds of them; it can be done in a minute, semi-automated if you use control-f and the "find and replace" function in Google docs or a decent text editor, checking for exceptions such as adjectival instances. The bad advice you got is one reason I'm not impressed by the featured article review process. This is basic. I see Airship Jungleman fixed it, and you took care of the adjectivals. Thanks. Carlstak (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems there was a misunderstanding at that peer review, but no harm done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Global/Truly global

I find some text here counter-intuitive.

Lead: "making Christianity a truly global religion in the twenty-first century." So Christianity wasn't "truly global" before that? Wasn't Christianity reasonably "global" in the 20th (pretty sure they told me that in school), 19th, and even earlier centuries? "Global" will of course mean what the source-author thought it meant.

WP doesn't have an article for global religion, we have world religion and the lead links global religion to World Christianity, which seems to be about C. as world religion.

History_of_Christianity#After_1945 section: "After World War II, Christianity became a global religion..." That 1938 protestant map (in that context, it's a little unfortunate it's protestant only) looks pretty "global" to me though. And if you fill in the non-protestants, it would look even more so.

"Before 1945, about a third of the people in the world were Christians (with about half of those Roman Catholic), and about 80% of all Christians lived in Europe, Russia, and the Americas." That's fairly "global", IMO, and I'm pretty sure there was a Christian or two in Africa (since, like, the start) and Australia even before 1945.

"Christianity's population center shifted east and south, making it a truly global religion." And here we have "truly global" again, the only use of the phrase outside the lead.

Is "truly global" a helpful phrase to include in this article? Should it mention world religion instead? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)