Talk:John Chrysostom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 5, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
November 27, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 13, 2008, November 13, 2008, September 13, 2009, November 13, 2009, September 13, 2010, November 13, 2010, September 13, 2011, November 13, 2011, September 13, 2012, November 13, 2012, September 13, 2013, November 13, 2013, September 13, 2014, and November 13, 2014.
Current status: Good article

Year of birth[edit]

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:

  1. c. 347 in the introduction and infobox as in the Catholic Encyclopedia,
  2. in 349 in the first sentence of the article.

Thanks! --Anneyh (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Myth about the Temple of Artemis[edit]

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[edit]

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."

Greetings. I don't think what I've added to this article must stay exactly where I put it, I only am sure that it belongs here. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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)
It would be nice to see a primary reference for this out-of-context quote. Neither of the sources currently cited is notable for being an expert on Chrysostom. Rwflammang (talk) 17:19, 17 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.
The reference is called "Letter to a young widow." Rwflammang (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
More possible sources here and here. Neither is very convincing. Rwflammang (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Blavatsky gives this quote. No source, of course. Rwflammang (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
I vote for removal. There is no substance in the whole section. Rwflammang (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. Haploidavey (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Christianity and antisemitism from several articles[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

Sorry, I somewhat misspoke in my recent change summary.[1] 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[edit]

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).

The whole issue is rather complicated and requires independent assessment. --Sever Juan (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to add content to the article if you wish. Don't be shy about citing Mayer's work as you add to the article. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Die Lügend von S. Johanne Chrysostomo[edit]

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.[2] I for one am perfectly happy with this new status quo. -- Kendrick7talk 16:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I quite agree that it is interesting. And I am well pleased with the new edits, a much more natural, uncomplicated, and balanced means of mention. Evensteven (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


While I'm going to look at what we have available currently on Commons, I'm hoping that one or more of our regular editors here might have some knowledge pertinent to my following question... While the infobox image is beautiful, and undoubtedly the most aesthetically pleasing and important depiction we have of Chrysostom (and thus should remain at the top), are there any earlier images? I note that the terminus ante quem for that image is 130 years after his death, and the mosaic may have even been added after that date. Undoubtedly, it's probably based on earlier images of Chrysostom, perhaps even one which was created during his lifetime. But if we have any from extant images from around that period, given the general portrait style of the time, it'd likely be more realistic and true to life (excepting certain artists, especially monumental sculptors, of course). I doubt that there are any extant, and that the Hagia Sophia image is the earliest which survives to our day. Just wondering if any of you knew of one, so that we might add it to the article. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Good question. I'm unaware of what the earliest image is or which image(s) are considered to be most realistic. Majoreditor (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Patron of Vatican 2?[edit]

I found this on the Vatican website from a homily by Pope Emeritus Benedict on St. John Chrysostom: "Blessed John XXIII proclaimed him Patron of the Second Vatican Council." - I can't find this on the Second Vatican Council page or on this one. Should this get added? I'm not sure how I should add it so... here you go. Pax vobiscum, Emosy (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Chrysostom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

He says that homosexuals are "vile" and an "insult to nature itself". Having a view on homosexuality would be to say that you don't agree it should be recognised in law etc. But this is homophobic abuse. So why keep changing the heading without justifying it? I find that lazy. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia article 'Homophobia' note 10, 25 Sept2017Clive sweeting (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Clive sweeting
The journal article entitled "Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues"? What specifically am I looking at? Contaldo80 (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)