User talk:Gog the Mild/Typos of Constans FAC draft

Collaboration

Hi again. I note that you have done a lot of work on articles involving Christianity, including a range of its myriad forms. 30 months ago I took Type of Constans to GA and have ever since had a hankering to take it to FAC. But I have lacked the theological sources - and to be frank the theological understanding. It may be that our inputs could be complementary. So, if you feel that you have access to the relevant sources and knowledge, would you care to collaborate on improving the article? If you don't, or if you lack the time or motivation, then that is not - obviously - a problem. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I would be honored. I will go look at it immediately. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Actually it looks like you've done an excellent job. Most people won't have a clue what this is about, or care why it matters, but it is significant. You are right to want to include a more in depth explanation of the issues, but I'm afraid I am unsure how to be concise enough for WP without getting deep into the weeds of theology. This is more than you will want to know, I am absolutely sure of that, but let me demonstrate what I mean by getting in the weeds just so you'll know, and can make up your own mind on what to include.

Those outside the argument - inside and outside the church - just think it's petty - but the truth is, there is no single issue more crucial to "What should we think about these events - what kind of faith should we have?" than this one. "Was Jesus divine before coming to earth - or was he made divine only after he died? If he was divine before, did he give that up to become a man or bring some of it with him? When he was here, who was he? What was he?"

The disagreements began quickly. The gnostics were the first real group. They came along in the first century and said 'matter is evil' therefore a divine Christ could not have been a real human - he just looked like one without actually being one. If that's true, it negates all kinds of important things: the goodness of creation that is declared in Genesis one, and the basic goodness of humankind that is also in Genesis, and Jesus' real human suffering that is foundational to atonement, and much much more. The eventual response was to write the Nicene creed - which was more about affirming the human nature of Christ than the divine one as no one really doubted his divinity at that point in history.

But this didn't make the questions go away.

It all hovers around one of the oldest scriptures in the New Testament, Philippians 2:5–11, which is part of an old song. It is a remnant of the oral teachings dating from before the New Testament was written. There are actually several of these 'oral remnants' scattered throughout the New Testament. Since so many were illiterate, scholars believe the early church used easily memorizable short creeds, and songs, and such, to teach the basics to new converts, and then just incorporated them into the material they eventually wrote down.

It's verses 6-8 that cause the trouble. Verse 6 starts out saying: "Who, being in very nature God" or alternately "Who, existing in the form of God." The word for being/existing is the Greek hyparchōn whose meaning can be 'being' or 'existing' also includes "to be in possession of." The word for nature is morphe’ - the word we get amorphous and metamorphosis, anthropomorphism, and polymorphous and other such words from. It can mean form - or 'nature' - and it can also mean outward appearance. So which is it? Does this say Jesus had the nature of God as in 'the very nature of' or is it 'form' - as in 'he had the outward appearance without the inward reality'? Did coming here involve a change of "essence" or just a change of appearance? Think of all the questions that raises!

To make things more complicated, verse six goes on: "Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. The Greek for 'grasped' is harpagmos, and imo, figuring out its meaning, and the author's intent, (not Paul - remember this predates Paul), and all the baggage that has gone with it, has caused more conflict than any other word in history. Scholars simply do not agree on whether it is a verb or a noun, where it comes from, or what it means.

That's because harpagmos is only used this once in the entire NT, so there is nothing to compare it to. The Greek Septuagint uses harpazo, which might be a root word, but is not the word itself. Assuming this is the root doesn't tell us why the word evolved, or how, or what that change means. Its few secular appearances in Greek literature translate it as "rape" or "robbery": “taken by force.” It's difficult to understand how this meaning could fit with the first part of the sentence. King James has: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God". Honestly, does that make sense? So some have concluded this indicates Jesus wanted to take divinity, rob God of it, and therefore he never had it. He had one human nature here on earth and didn't become divine till after he was raised from the dead - if then.

Synonyms (harpagma and harpagmon) were found in Eusebius' histories that mean "an advantage" instead of take by force. This is all about active and passive verbs, but what it results in is this: "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage." This at least makes a little sense within the context of the conversation about humility going on here in Philippians. This is the most widely accepted rendering amongst biblical scholars (NT Wright, Gordon D. Fee, J. C. O’Neill and so on). It is widely used in modern English Bible versions (NIV 2011,HCSB, GNT, AMP, NCV,ERV, NLV, NLT, NOG, MSG, ISV, GW, NRSV and CEV).

I deleted several paragraphs - whole books have been written on this - but I wanted you to see why this is an issue and some of what is implicated by it. All of Christianity was impacted by the decisions made, and that impact rippled outward for centuries. If you can figure out how to communicate that succinctly, then I will know you are probably divine as well. :-)

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Well I am good at boiling complex issues down - it is one of the things I do on Wikipedia. Of course, you are probably going to end up thinking that I have over-simplified or even trivialised it. But if you can live with that creative tension we have a mission. I have a reasonable grip on the military, political and dynastic issues.

As you say, a pivotal moment in the evolution of Christianity, played out against some of the most seismic military events since the fall of western Rome. I know a fair bit more about writing for Wikipedia now than when I first put this together, so I will have a run through tomorrow - it is late here - tidying it up and flagging up where I think I need theological explication. Then you can point out the bits I have missed and we shall see where it leads. Obviously your work on your FAC takes priority, I understand that. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

a pivotal moment in the evolution of Christianity, played out against some of the most seismic military events since the fall of western Rome is a brilliant sentence that should be included somewhere. :-) I indulged myself today, but will put FAC first again hereafter. I don't want waiting on me to cause any frustration for anyone. But I am genuinely looking forward to working with you. I have collaborated before and enjoyed it very much. I think WP produces its best work when we work together. Thank you for this opportunity. Have a good evening. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk777, I have moved the conversation here.

So one of the things I do is write drafts for the Today's Featured Article. See here and here. There is a hard limit of 1,025 characters - including spaces! - and the result needs to read well enough to go on the main page. Which means I have some experience of boiling 5,000 or 7,000 words of an FA down. Let's see how good I really am.

I will start doing some basic work on the article and digging out the sources I have squirrelled away. And on the main page of this (ie here I will list concepts which I think could do with better explanations than they currently have in the article. Obviously, feel free to edit the article at will and to add further concepts that you feel are necessary to understand the Typos. But we should both use that draft space to bounce ideas off each other and to polish the prose and clarity before moving stuff out to the actual article.

I realise that to fully explain it we really need to introduce a fair bit of the history of Christian theology up to that date, but we also need to keep it down to something our average reader can grasp. Let's see how we go.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

That's cool. I now have this page name copied and watched so I will be able to keep up – hopefully. :-) I will go see what sources I can find. I know what I'm looking for so it shouldn't take too long. I will not put anything directly into the article. I will write it here and you can boil away. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 I have put some of the more useful looking sources - other than those already in the article - on the work page. Any that you think may be useful to me, please add. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild if you are in a hurry to get this done I am going to disappoint you and that will make me very sad. Not only have four reviewers responded to your appeal at FA, but after waiting 5 months, a reviewer has shown up -now- on another article for a GA. I dearly want to work with you on this, but however much I desire, it has to be last priority here. If you have sufficient patience, I will do you proud - I hope - I think I may even be able to get to some of it later today or tomorrow. Right now I am in the middle of reviewing every quote in BC for word for word accuracy as I apparently transposed in my mind "how people understand" to "perceived" on one of my quotes and wrote it down that way and now I have to check every one of them for any similar mistakes. So far I haven't found any others but this is taking a while. I love that you want my input. Please be willing to wait on me. I will come back to this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk777:No problem. I took this to GAN 18 months ago and thought "One day I will try to get this to FAC". But the thought of digging into the period theology meant that it always lost out to more immediately attractive articles. It will wait another 18 months if necessary, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. I have been doing some tidying up and prep work, and will finish that, then "file" it again until you have some more time, whenever that may be. It is not as if i don't have a long enough "to do list" without it. Good luck with your nominations. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you and a thousand blessings upon your head and your children's heads present and future! I want to do this. Before I left WP I collaborated with a friend who started an article with one sentence then came and asked me to do the rest. I did. He got the credit for creation that way and I didn't care. He came and picked at it occasionally. This is kind of the opposite of that for me, so this will be great. Oh, and btw, if you run across articles on religion or ethics - my majors - that are tagged, especially heavily tagged, would you send them to me? I love remodeling! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, I tend to be interested in religion where it interacts with military conflict - hence my interest in both Christianity and Islam in the Near and Middle East in the seventh century. I recently took a article from the English Civil wars to FA and am currently working on the article on the Third ECW. This was as much a religious conflict as anything - in the middle of the Battle of Dunbar (my FA) the English cavalry paused to sing the 117th Psalm, then went back to slaughtering the unrighteous. The first conflict of the ECWs was actually called the Bishops' Wars.

My article contains such lines as:

• "formed an alliance bound by the Solemn League and Covenant, in which the English Parliament agreed to reform the English church along similar lines to the Scottish Kirk in return for the Scots' military assistance"
• "Members of the Covenanter government, concerned that their Godly war would be corrupted by feelings of personal loyalty to the King, asked Charles II to leave. They then ordered a new purge, which was quickly enacted in early August, removing 80 officers and 4,000 of Leslie's men, damaging morale as well as weakening the army's strength"
• and "The more practical faction believed that the purges were to blame for Leslie's defeat, and looked to bring the Engagers back into the fold; the more dogmatic thought that God had deserted them because the purges had not gone far enough, and argued that too much faith had been put in Charles II who was not sufficiently committed to the cause of the Covenant".

Hmm, some of this may have looked familiar to Constans!

Articles not "heavily tagged", but in need of some TLC which you may be able to provide include:

• Covenanters
• National Covenant
• Maybe Western Remonstrance?
• Puritans

An acquaintance of mine is a [the?] leading expert on Scottish history during this period, so there would be plenty of support should you want to improve one of them, or even take one or more to FAC.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild I don't think anyone is going to accuse me of being a leading expert in anything - (maybe eating or watching tv). I'm really good at those. Anyway, thanx, I will take a look. Hey, you are going to get a ping from me on BC Fa review because one of the reviewers is pulling out with his review unconcluded. I'm sure this is not the first time something like this has happened, and there's some rule for it, and you would know what that is. If not, just ignore it I guess! Cheers! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild I'm afraid that your lack of response means you are trying to find a tactful way to tell me you really hate what I wrote. Don't be afraid to be honest with me. I won't take it personally. My writing isn't me, and I am more than my writing, so if you don't like it, you can either tell me what else you need, what you want changed, or just tell me you don't think this is going to work after all and to go away and leave you alone. I promise I won't think less of you for it and won't hold it against you. The purpose here is to write a quality encyclopedia. If this doesn't add to that, then it shouldn't be here. I leave it to your judgment. Whatever you decide, please take care of yourself, stay safe and have a wonderful holiday season. PS! I see you are also friends with my wonderful Gerda Arendt. I adore her. I used to live in Germany when I was a teenager and she speaks German to me every now and then! I don't hear it much otherwise so that's nice for me. She says my German is really bad! After I learned "ein bier bitte" I didn't figure I needed much more... Anyway, take care. I won't forget you, and I hope we see each other around often. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jen, in haste. I have been a bit unwell, so been sticking to low-brain power activities. Then this afternoon I got responses on both a GAN and an ACR and - sorry - gave them priority. On a first read through it looked fine. I shall come back with more detailed comments when my brain is feeling a little less mush-like. Hopefully tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm so sorry you're not feeling well. Take all the time you need.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777: Heh! It's a small world, isn't it. It's not serious - sneezing, runny nose and brain not fully tracking. What you have written seems pretty much what is needed. A succinct but clear exposition of the theological background. I now need to work that material into the text. I am struggling a bit to think my way back into the sources for my part of the work, so thanks for bearing with me.

I use harv format sourcing, so you will have to put up with me converting all of your sources. (If you have a look at, say, Battle of Inverkeithing you will see how it can be clearer and neater on longer articles.

More later. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild I'm relieved! My paranoia was kicking in, and I was afraid you were going to hate it and not want to work with me ever again... Do as you please with the refs. I don't know how to do Harvard, I just use the templates. Why isn't there a template for Harvard refs if it's better? There should be.

When your brain recovers from being mush - which I totally relate to but have come to feel like I never fully recover from (I just have different levels of mush these days) - there are two books I would like you to look at personally - w/o reading someone else's review - and then I'd like to discuss them with you. You said you are into where military history and religion interconnect right? So I want to discuss with you The Myth of Religious Violence by Cavanaugh [[1]], and The Formation of A Persecuting Society by Moore [[2]]. When - and if - you have time, if you're interested. I don't get the chance to talk about this kind of stuff with very many people, and it seems we share this interest, so I am taking full and unfair advantage of your kindness. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, happy to do so, if I can get hold of copies. And to subsequently discuss. But I should warn you up front that I stand squarely with Darwin, Dennett, Dawkins and Pinker in my thinking. People with religious sensibilities may well be offended by my views.

Harv refs: there might be, but it took me long enough to figure out the manual way. IMO far superior for longer articles. Other opinions are available. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

These two books are on history. I don't get offended at disagreement. If you don't, then we will be able to discuss and learn from one another. That is always and forever my goal. I embrace the secular view that beliefs should be rationally based, coherent, etc, and was raised as an atheist, so I am neither unfamiliar nor uncomfortable talking with those who embrace those views. I accept modern neo-Darwinism, find Dennett and Dawkins unworthy, though not because I disagree with them; I also disagree with Nietzsche, but I still admire him. I know nothing of Pinker. My desire isn't to convince you of anything, it's to gain other views for myself. I like you. I admire you, so I care about your opinion. More knowledge is always better. But if at any point you feel pressured to agree with me about anything, just say so and we will stop.

Where do I go to learn Harvard refs? I frequently write long articles. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Steven Pinker; I especially recommend The Language Instinct. (I am currently reading his The Blank Slate.)

Harv refs: the techy stuff is here:

• Template:cite book
• Template:cite web
• Template:cite journal
• Template:cite news

but most of what you actually need can be found at the top of User:Gog the Mild/References. I have most of the Typos of Constans in harv refs. Click on a ref and you go to the cite; click on the cite and you go to the source; click on a ^ or letter by a cite and you go to where the reference is in the text. Look at it in edit source mode and you will see how it fits together; or look at some of my recent diffs to see me converting to harv refs. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Very cool. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild OMG! I am looking at Pinker's book and it looks fantastic! My husband is a psychologist - we met because I started out as an undergrad in psychology then switched - he did his master's thesis on language acquisition! It's fascinating. I am a big fan of Chomsky but I really like Pinker's approach synthesizing views with the 'environmentalists'. I feel pretty sure he's right. Language probably does go further back than we have previously thought as well. Thanx for the recommendation! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, glad you like it. That is amazing; your husband can tell you where Pinker is out of date or wrong then. I have a very amateur interest in human evolution and have never really gone with Chomsky's suggestion of late and rapid human acquisition of language. Eg, see Alan Walker on Homo ergaster. (Admittedly getting dated, but not as much so as Chomsky.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Winding down at FAC

It looks like things are winding down on both the FA and the GA, and I am eager to get going here. If I read this correctly, you want some additional discussion of what these things mean? Their significance? I will begin with that approach and you can direct and redirect as you receive my various "offerings". I'm glad to be here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, nah. What I really want is a draft from you, succinctly explaining each. that will fit into the article. Feel free to be expansive - and I shall feel free to ruthlessly chop them down to size. Gog the Mild (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha! That's fine. I am researching now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, I have got myself tied up in an article I have had on my to do list for over a year. I shall tear myself away. Gog the Mild (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild I certainly understand getting one's self tied up! (Actually that could be fun...) No worries mate. I will toddle along at my own pace, and you will be available when you can, and someday we will have a completed article here! There's no deadline, right? I am piddling around in my sandbox right now trying to make decisions. That always takes me awhile... Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, steady on there woman!

Well, that was a refreshing cold shower. Now, where were we? You're right - you toddle and piddle away and we shall get there. Things are often better if one takes one's time. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"Things are often better if one takes one's time." LOL! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777: You beg to differ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed not! I was just laughing at yet another - probably unintentional - double entendré. Don't let me bother you. He he he... I love to tease... Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, good. So do I. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely love running across people with a sense of humor on WP! It brightens up my whole day. I am really glad I did the FAC - no matter how stressful - because it introduced me to some of the best people on WP. I had some bad first experiences and working with you guys has totally made up for it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hu ... hum ... h hu ... Umm, no; run that past me again. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild No? No what? No, you don't have a sense of humor? No, humor doesn't brighten my day? No, you guys at FAC are not wonderful, great and the absolute best? I'll fight you on that one! No, good experiences don't make up for bad ones? My first year on WP was really rough, because of one guy who eventually ran me off for two years, but dealing with all of you at FAC has restored my faith in WP. I now think WP is great, most of the people here are good, and he was the anomaly. Is that what confused you? Well, now we are confused together! At least I am in good company. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, it’s that H word. I never touch the stuff personally. Doesn’t make sense to me. [/feeble attempt to be humorous]. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild Nope! Too late to hide now! I know you are good humored, kind and skilled. I got you now! I may even go around telling everyone! Sorry! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, unmasked! And by a heartless wench! Doomed, I am doomed!! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Note the demented over-use of exclamation marks!!!

Exclamation marks are my favorite punctuation mark, although I also love dashes and semi-colons. Yes, yes, I'm afraid you are indeed doomed. Doomed to be well thought of and admired. Such a fate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777: No, no! I am a monster, a fiend, an ogre, a heartless and brutal despoiler of the dreams of others. I am. ma'am, a cad! Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

We are going to have to stop this, people will talk. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha!! It's been fun though! Exclamation point!! Hey my GA passed! Whoo hoo! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Plan - to do list

1. Expand on the Byzantine-Sasanian War. Maybe its own section? Sasanian support for Nestorism?
2. A paragraph on the origins and early conquests of Islam.
3. Byzantium: triumph to disaster, up to 647ish.

1. Pre-Chalcadonian orthodoxy and controversies.
2. Council of Chalcadon.
3. Rise of differing views. Esp during the Sasanian conquest.

1. Position and authority of the Emperor.
2. Military situation.
3. The Monophysite "threat".
4. The Typos.
5. Responses and effect.

1. Opposition
2. Condemnation - these two based on expanded versions of the current article. (@Jen, or what did I miss?)
   • The new orthodoxy. Any new controversies
3. Ongoing repercussions - esp within the Catholic Church - swearing in of bishops etc.

Discussion

OK, before I go to bed I have rattled off an outline of what the new article might look like. What do you think? Particularly about having the political and military background first and the (Christian) religious background second. We will need something on early Islamic doctrine - how are you at that? I have a passable knowledge and sources, but no more. Rushed together off hte top of my head, so do point out the things I have got wrong/missed out. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild I just today came to look and see if you had done anything with this! Sorry for the delay. It didn't show up in my watch list for some reason. As far as I can tell your outline looks great. But just so you know, Byzantine history is not my strong suit. I don't really know enough - except where it connects to the West - to be the kind of help you apparently think I am. I studied world religions at university as an undergrad, along with philosophy, in order to study ethics at grad school, (though I didn't finish due to health and then family issues). I took several history of Christianity courses along the way, with a focus on European history and the middle ages, and I have continued to read and study that on my own, but that's about it for me. My point is that I probably won't recognize if you have anything wrong because it's Eastern and not something I know a lot about. If I misled you to think otherwise it was unintentional. I'm happy and willing to do any of the work and help out here all I can, but I am by no means an authority on Byzantine history. Assign me anything you would like help working on and I will do it. I have enough general knowledge to have a few ideas on where to look, but beyond that, Eastern religion is all Greek to me... Oh I love bad puns. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk777, that's fine, I have taken 14 Byzantine articles to GA, including the TofC. This will be my first attempt at FAC with a Byzantine article and I confess that I am a little daunted. But I didn't anticipate your knowing anything about that fairly obscure area and period. Your contribution will be the communicating the theological side. I was running the outline past you partly out of politeness with a collaborator and partly for you to check if you thought I had really gooffed on anything and partly so you could see/agree where your contributions fit in. Eg, you may think that it makes more sense to discuss the religious background before the political; rather than how I have it. You don't need much of a grip on the political side to argue that; any more than I need much of a grip on the religious to outline it how I have.

And apologies, I have recently been appointed the person who writes most of the blurbs for the FAs which appear on the main page each day. I got distracted getting to grips with that and writing the blurbs for January. But that is now sorted, so back to TofC.

So, based on what little you know , any comments as to the order I suggest we lay things out in?

And apologies if I am a bit hit and miss on my attention to this; I note that a big slab of text related to my FAC coordinator role has just hit my talk page. I need to get more content creation time, but everything seems to conspire against me. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild No apologies necessary, really, I am hit - and miss - on this as well. So, as long as you accept that your TA is not an expert in this field, we are good to go. First I note that this outline is not in chronological order - if you care about that. Monophysitism and Chalcedon were a couple hundred years before Islam.

For "A paragraph on ... Byzantium: triumph to disaster, up to 647ish." I recommend The Western Humanities by Dewitt and Platt. I will quote some that you can paraphrase accordingly and get a sentence or two out of it.

• In 476 when [the western empire] fell the Byzantine empire in the East had the greatest prospects for replacing it. It had "an autocratic government, a stable farm economy, Greek intellectual heritage, and what came to be called Orthodox Christianity".(page 181) It became a "static entity in a world of great upheaval and movement of populations. The changing boundaries of the Byzantine world tell the story of an empire under continual siege. Byzantium's borders reach their farthest western limits in the sixth century and then contracted more or les steadily for the next 800 years". This is all from page 181 of the original 1992 version. (I took a class and kept the book and it is still the standard.)
• For "Position and authority of the Emperor." It's probably important to note that the Eastern church never developed any independence from the secular rulers. The emperor was in charge of the church and the state. The Patriarchs worked under him.

For "A paragraph (4 or 5 sentences?) on the origins and early conquests of Islam" Dewitt and Platt are equally short and sweet yet cover all the pertinent facts. Beginning with a short history on Muhammad:

• "At the beginning of the seventh century, political and social life in Mecca was dominated by a wealthy merchant aristocracy of the Quraish tribe. Into this society in about 570 was born Muhammad ... he became a wealthy merchant. At the age of 40 he had a vision in which he felt himself called by God... Declaring that there was but one God, Muhammad attacked the polytheistic beliefs of his fellow Arabs and condemned the Kaaba, a local pagan shrine that housed a black stone... Since the Kaaba was a source of revenue... the Quraish leaders reacted ... with hostility and persecution." (pages 191 and 192)

Muhammad left, traveling to the town of Yathrib, now called Medina, in what's referred to as the Hegira of 622 which marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar.(page 192) This is where the Koran was recorded, and it's where Muhammad began his jihad quickly conquering the Arabs and Bedouins in the surrounding area. Another source says he began by killing the Jews who had taken him in, but I don't have that on hand right now, so don't quote me!

• "In the century or so after the death of Muhammad from 632 to 750, the energies awakened by his mission were unleashed in a series of military campaigns. Motivated by the lure of plundered wealth, the pressures of overpopulation, and the command to make Holy War, the Arabs built a world state whose extent rivaled that of the Roman empire. By 650, the Arabs ruled Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Persia, and by 740 North Africa had been added along with most of Spain. Only the militant kingdom of the Franks in the West and impregnable Constantinople in the East were able to withstand this Arab fury". (page 192)

All of those territories taken had previously been Christian from the time of Paul and the Apostles and on into the second century. Maps from the middle ages show Jerusalem as the center of the world.

As to "Pre-Chalcadonian orthodoxy and controversies." that is the monophysitism and monothelitism we have been discussing - and the Nestorians and Arians which I avoided so as not to complicate things more.

"The new orthodoxy" is the same as the old orthodoxy. It didn't change.

Putting this in chronological order will impact your outline but otherwise it will get really confusing - not that it isn't confusing anyway!

Anyway, that's my initial off the top of my head response! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)