|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Chrysostom article.|
|John Chrysostom has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|Current status: Good article|
|John Chrysostom has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as GA-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on 14 dates. [show]|
- 1 Year of birth
- 2 Myth about the Temple of Artemis
- 3 Chrysostom on women
- 4 Removal of Category:Christianity and antisemitism from several articles
- 5 Divine liturgy in "Music and literature"
- 6 Removal of Category:Anti-Judaism
- 7 Proposal of reassessment or drastic revision
- 8 Die Lügend von S. Johanne Chrysostomo
Year of birth
Could the fact that the year of birth is discussed be explained in the article (vs. note) and set consistently through the article. It currently says:
- c. 347 in the introduction and infobox as in the Catholic Encyclopedia,
- in 349 in the first sentence of the article.
Myth about the Temple of Artemis
The idea that the Temple of Artemis was "destroyed by a mob led by St. John Chrysostom" is a persistent myth that seems to be based entirely on a single very unclear comment by Proclus of Constantinople in the Fifth Century. In his twentieth Oration, Proclus praises Chrysostom for various things including by sayining "In Ephesus, he despoiled the art of Midas". Exactly how this can be interpreted as "he led a mob to destroy the re-built Temple of Artemis" is a mystery. The supposed source previously given is a secondary genralist history that backs up this claim with precisely nothing and the whole idea seems to be fantasy. In fact, I know of no evidence at all that the Temple was rebuilt after the Gothic sack in the Third Century. I've removed the Chrysostom claim, because I keep coming across people asserting this is true and pointing to this Wiki entry when challenged on it. Wikipedia should not be supporting unsubstantiated pseudo history.TimONeill (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Chrysostom on women
Known as "the greatest preacher in the early church", John's homilies have been one of his greatest lasting legacies. He was, however, critical of women, and wrote "Of all the wild animals, none can be found as harmful as women."
- Is it notable? How did Chrysostom's views differ from those of his peers? What were his views exactly? The single quote given is hardly clear. (Statistically speaking, are you more likely to be harmed by a wild animal, or a woman?) Rwflammang (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- So, I've been looking for the primary source of this text, and this is what I have found, (emphasis is mine). Here it is, showing more of the context. What Chrysostom is talking about here is popularity, the fickle favor of the multitude, personified here as a woman:
- For what is more worthless than the honour and glory which is paid by the multitude? What fruit has it? What kind of profit? What serviceable end does it meet? And would that this only was the evil! But in fact besides failing to get anything good from the possession, he who owns this most cruel mistress is continually forced to bear much which is painful and injurious; for mistress she is of those who own her, and in proportion as she is flattered by her slaves does she exalt herself against them, and ties them down by increasingly harsh commands; but she would never be able to revenge herself on those who despise and neglect her; so much fiercer is she than any tyrant and wild beast. For tyrants and wild animals are often mollified by humouring, but her fury is greatest when we are most complaisant to her, and if she finds any one who will listen to her, and yield to her in everything there is no kind of command from which in future she can be induced to abstain.
- Well found (perhaps well "not found" is more appropriate) - and that's pretty much all I could find. An error's an error. I'll take it out. Haploidavey (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- As this would leave the section with a single sentence, perhaps originally writ to balance an extreme, I'll just have to provide something on the broad context. All in all, John's views on women seem to have been fairly moderate, and not untypical for his time and calling. I'll attempt this sometime today. Haploidavey (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Second thoughts. Do we even need a section on "Views on women" at all? His views on men, women and sexuality are available through his writing, and seem more relevant to his opinions on Christian marriage, the Agapetae, Subintroductae and whatnot than to a "reception" discourse based on modern misreadings; do the latter even count as a "Legacy"? I'd say not; they're perhaps worth a footnote to John's writings on marriage, virginity etc. What do others think? Haploidavey (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Removal of Category:Christianity and antisemitism from several articles
This category has been removed, from this and other wiki pages, using a specific cfd as rationale. Seems to me that such large scale removal of categories should only be done using a Wikipedi policy as rationale, not just one wp:CFD? However, this is not an area I know very much about, so will let others debate this. XOttawahitech (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Let's take this discussion to Category_talk:Christianity_and_antisemitism#Removal of bios from this category - is that ok? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Divine liturgy in "Music and literature"
I propose moving reference to the divine liturgy in the section Music and literature to the article Divine liturgy because none of the music in these compositions is for texts accredited to St. John Chrysostom's authorship; some texts are from before his lifetime. e.g., the Sanctus and Lord's Prayer, while others are medieval, e.g., the Cherubikon (6th century) and Axion Estin (8th century). Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Removal of Category:Anti-Judaism
Sorry, I somewhat misspoke in my recent change summary. Antisemitism in early Christianity did survive the AfD, but was wisely moved shortly thereafter to a new title, Anti-Judaism in early Christianity. But then last week, a new category, Category:Ancient Christian antisemitism was invented, which I will send to CfD shortly. I really thought after years of discussion, this whole mess was settled. Antisemitism is a word that was only coined on or about 1860; projecting back to ancient Rome is a huge anachronism. In any case, they are not the same thing per the sources at Anti-Judaism#Contrasted_with_antisemitism and can't be swapped out at a whim. -- Kendrick7talk 06:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- No intent at edit war on my part; I am unaware of the discussion history on this topic. I was initially responding on the basis of the 7 Jun article edit that changed its category usage to include this new category, unaware that it was new. All was done at that same time by the same editor, which I accepted as legitimate editing because of appearances. In my opinion, John Chrysostom was not antisemitic at any time, though I do not have sources to support that view at present. I did, however, view the use of the word "ancient" in the new category as at least a way of separating him from modern ideas of anti-Semitism. He did certainly speak out against certain Jewish practices and was one of many who held Jews to ancient account for not accepting Jesus as the Messiah, but I agree that's not anti-Semitism in the modern sense. It appears there's some WP consensus that labels this "anti-Judaism" then? This also seems to me to be a somewhat misdirected label, still smacking of modern viewpoints, but I admit the difficulty of summing up his positions in one or two words. For this reason, I would argue there is no sufficient label, and one should not be applied. But I am guessing that a WP consensus is at least trying to recognize the difference between modern labels and ancient meanings. For lack of a better current recourse, I would currently abide with that distinction as at least a better alternative description than that of the modern criticisms. I am not ready to argue the point further. And of all things, I am most unwilling to reopen another hotbed argument source without reason. I would like to have a better way to deal with the issue neutrally, but I don't see one at present. So, I have restored your edit to the category list. In the same vein, I have also removed Category:Ancient Christian antisemitism from the article's category list. Evensteven (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- "It appears there's some WP consensus that labels this 'anti-Judaism' then?" I think so. I mean, a long time ago -- after a truly epic edit war -- all the editors involved basically agreed to split the difference over the article now entitled Religious antisemitism -- which, if you scroll back far enough was originally called anti-Judaism -- and the near immediate creation, after that move, of the current article about anti-Judaism. I'm still happy to split that difference if need be, but this latest re-categorization from one to the other was basically just a drive-by. -- Kendrick7talk 10:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Proposal of reassessment or drastic revision
The article is tagged as good, but it does meet acceptable quality standards. It still proposes tenets which are not anymore held or are largely questioned by current research.
The bibliography is often lacking and needs thorough updating. For instance, Wendy Mayer's articles that revise Chrysostom's biography are not even mentioned. Ditto for her assessment of Chrysostom's literary output (partly with Pauline Allen).
Die Lügend von S. Johanne Chrysostomo
After a second revert to the addition of new material, it is clear that edit comments are not enough to resolve or even express the issue. My objection to the edit is not centered on Luther's book itself. It is largely a matter of the wording of the addition, which is unsupported POV and not neutral in expression. Supported POV, of course, is possible when neutrally stated according to WP:NPOV. In addition, the wording is unclear of meaning, and I can't make out the editing intent so I cannot attempt a clarification. As for the statement regarding the book's influence, that also is unsupported. I grant that the brand-new article on the book exists, but it is little more than a stub, and does not reveal a great deal more about the matter than this editing entry, neither has it had wide contribution.
While I would not try to suppress inclusion of new material in either case, I think the POV issue requires a supported scholastic look covering a wider selection of backgrounds or views, and that there is as yet an insufficient basis provided. Perhaps a discussion here can yield some additional sources that can cover the ground more successfully, along with suggestions for neutralization of the wording. "Lies" is a strong word. The book article makes it clear that it is Luther's opinion that there were lies, but that has not been clear here. Now, I do not suppose that Luther wrote a Life that was full of lies simply in order to point them out in his marginal commentary. So what is the original Life that his editorial additions were an "edition" of? And how much weight do we give this book in this article, even if it is notable enough for its own article? These problems are not likely to be readily resolved in so short a piece of text. Evensteven (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- I found it quite interesting to learn that Martin Luther, one of the pivotal figures in the history of Christianity (he definitely makes any honest and educated top ten list), wrote a legendary about this particular Father of the Church. Bizarrely though, given that editing tends to move fairly slowly on biographies of people who have been dead for a millennium or more, this discussion seems to have been outpaced by more recent editing which incorporates a mention of the work into the main body of the article. I for one am perfectly happy with this new status quo. -- Kendrick7talk 16:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)