![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Below excerped removed -belongs on Wikisource, or edited down to the points. - ==S V 18:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
An effort having been made to convert Marcella to Montanism, Jerome here summarizes for her its leading doctrines, which he contrasts with those of the Church. Written at Rome in AD 385
The linked word power in this article went to a disambiguation page. I am not sure of the meaning of the word in this article, so I have removed the link. Someone who knows may wish to replace the link and make it direct to an appropriate page. Example: [[Power (sociology)|power]] - SCEhardt 18:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
This has got to be the dumbest edit warring I have ever seen on wikipedia. Whether or not the article can specify that the date was AD. You are obviously quite determined to keep the war up in lieu of leaving the status quo and discussing it out first. I saw your note on my talk page, but perhaps you did not see my reply. It was in the next edit summary where I said: "I don't see why AD cannot be used to clarify for user-friendliness' sake, not everyone is as smart or perceptive as you are"... Yes, it may be "redundant" as you put it... but it is still normal and conventional to use it, for ease on the reader, to specify on the first usage, instead of leaving it blank and making the reader figure it out. Yes, you're right, a smart or clever or educated reader should be able to figure out that, if it is a Christian-like sect, it will be AD and not BC... But, you would be amazed at how many people don't know that much, and actually come here to learn something... I say, keep it in just for clarity sake, there is nothing in the guidelines preventing its first use, in fact it is recommended. Now, why exactly are you so dead-set against having any AD in the article whatsoever, to the point of five reverts? Is there some other reason you want to cut it out that you're not telling us? Does it really bother you that much? Surely, you have figured out that continually reverting only leads to more back-and forth reverting, when this is something that should be discussed here instead, and not on my talk page... ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 22:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe you don't have anything better to do than keep up the edit warring over something this trivial. I advise you to wait until you have a consensus to make an exception to the MOS which says it can be used in the first instance. I am of the opinion that when you're talking about the second century AD, it helps to specify, because it isn't that far off in time from the second century BC. THis must be really important to you. But its really a radical change from the way this article has always been, to decide that from now on everyone has to figure out from the context whether second century means AD or BC. Now its a little different for "third century" and later, because they are farther apart and less likely to be confused. Specifying second century is either AD or BC is only a common courtesy o the reader. ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Per this request...STOP IT! Batman2005 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard:
-- Panairjdde 23:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I was alerted to this dispute and want to comment:
Please all be reasonable and reach and agreement. Str1977 (smile back) 09:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.
-- ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, P., for agreeing with me. I just said that your claim that AD must not (=is not allowed to) be there is mistaken. And you are mistaken about the burden of proof. The burden of proof always lies with the one trying to make a change. Hugh! Str1977 (smile back) 00:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Both of you, stop it please. This is ridiculous. If the MOS is unclear about this matter (and it's my opinion that it is for dates near year zero), I would suggest starting a discussion there and come to a consensus across all articles so this war doesn't have to repeat itself all over the place. Until then, stop reverting each other and just leave it be. Both forms are perfectly acceptable. Fagstein 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me clarify that I'm not one of "both of you", as I have no part in this revert war. P., "why am (I) claiming it should"? You don't get it, do you? I am not claiming such a thing. All in all, I agree with your substantial points. However, I don't agree with aggressive reverting of such a trifle and with your appropriation of WP policy. As Fagstein wrote, "Both forms are perfectly acceptable". There is no policy demanding the removal of AD. Hugh! Str1977 (smile back) 08:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I have posted my interpretation for this article on the MoS discussion page. I hope it helps; hopefully another participant in that manual will lend their advice too. Neonumbers 10:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
P., I didn't make any fuss about the removal or about the reinsertion. I couldn't care less. Your point is reasonable, but your interpretation of WP policy is not. There is no rule demanding that redundant ADs should be removed. Period. And or course, I cannot quote a rule that doesn't exist. Neither can you. You quote the existing rule and then wrongfully infere that all redundant ADs "must" be removed. Str1977 (smile back) 12:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I found a new reference that will settle this matter, I think. It is again the Manual of Style, but a different section. Infact, we are dealing with an issue about years and centuries, rather than eras, so let's head towards Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Years, decades, and centuries. Here all of the examples miss the "AD/CE" next to years, decades and centuries. This means AD should be removed, because it goes against the MoS. If nobody is against, I will restart my editings.-- Panairjdde 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
"The divisive movement was partly inspired by a gnostic reading of the Gospel of John— "I will send you the advocate [paraclete], the spirit of truth" (Heine 1987, 1989; Groh 1985);"
I need help reconciling this with my understanding of Gnosticism (I am no official expert but am in Grad studies for the Nag Hammadi texts). How exactly is this a "gnostic" reading of the Gospel of John? It is my understanding that plenty of groups used similar interpretations of this passage, including the Prophet Mohammed(!). In fact, this interpretation isn't Gnostic in either a contemporary understanding or in a patristic understanding of Gnosticism - does it focus on a matter-spirit dualism? does it affirm the creator as ignorant? does it appear esoteric? did Montanus reserve his sect for an elite? Gnosticism affirms divinity in all things - does the Montanist understanding affirm people as being divine, or are people, like Montanus, simply being "used" as a channel? I don't see how this interpretation can be said to be 'gnostic' at all - what is 'gnostic' about it?
Do Heine and Groh identify this reading as 'gnostic'? 'Gnostic' is too often used simply as a slanderous umbrella term for 'heresy.' I contest that it is being used here, in this article, for this purpose. Can anyone make a persuasive argument concerning how this interpretation of this passage is 'gnostic'? Or are we relying on the opinions of Heine and Groh, here?
Isn't the statement that Montanism was 'divisive' a bit POV? It may be divisive if you think the Established Church of the time was the only way to interpret the Christian message, in which case everything not of the Roman Church is 'divisive'. I think Protestants etc would not agree. ThePeg 23:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I have Added a note commenting on the Quartodecimen nature of the sect. This info comes From Trevett's 1996 book (as noted).
I have removed the following rather strange sentence, which followed that about Tertullian:
Irenaeus' work does not discuss Montanism at all, but Gnosticism. He lived before Tertullian, not after. If we want to link Irenaeus to Montanism at all, we need something solid here. This mainly seems to be misinformation at the moment. I think I remember reading somewhere that Irenaeus urged moderation in dealing with Montanism, but I don't know of any reference for that. (If you do, of course, do add it in). Roger Pearse 18:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to call into question one line and suggest that it is rather biased:
"The most widely known defender of Montanists was undoubtedly Tertullian, onetime champion of orthodox belief, who believed that the new prophecy was genuine and began to fall out of step with what he began to call "the church of a lot of bishops" (On Modesty)."
Based on my research of Montanism, Tertullian was not a "onetime champion of orthodox belief" but rather a lifelong proponent of such beliefs. His move to Montanism was not one in which he jettisoned orthodox beliefs, but one in which he added to those beliefs. Even after his move to Montanism, he was still looked to by those in Carthage for theological advice. In addition, he never left the catholic church of Carthage, so he could almost be called a "catholic Montanist". He did have issue with some aspects of the catholic church, but as the quote seems to indicate, they were more with the institution than with the theology of that institution. (Csayler)
I'm getting a bit bored of reading articles which claim that non-orthodox approaches to Christianity meant their followers all became very immoral. Let me guess which authorities claim that the Montanists believed that by being Martyred they could behave in as debauched way as possible? Could it be the orthodox Church who ended up stamping them out, by any chance? The same stuff is said of every group that came up with a different idea to the party line - the Cathars, the early Gnostics, the Brethren of the Free Spirit etc. The problem we have is that all the information we have on these 'heretical' movements is from the point of view of their suppressors. Is it always a coincidence that they spring up when people feel the orthodox way isn't working? There's a fair amount of immorality among the Catholic Church down through history so perhaps we ought to view these charegs with a pinch of salt on occasion! ThePeg 23:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The link Montanism in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica is dead. Landau7 14:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There are contemporary groups that are opposed to the doctrine of Apostolic succession who may share certain characteristics of Montanism or who may have been described as such. For instance, various Evangelical or Pentecostal sects will focus exclusively on the morality of the clergy instead of the validity of its ordinations and single out virtue or corruption as the sole rule of faith when determining whether a Church is faithful to the Gospel of Christ. In particular, certain interpretation of Luther's Sola gratia doctrine may have Montanist implications, in that a subjective understanding of grace triumphs over other important legal underpinnings such as episcopal juridcition, sacramental authenticity and historic origins. ADM ( talk) 07:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I have some trouble with this section of the article. The title "Differences between Montanism and Orthodox Christianity" is basically useless. In our world what defines "orthodox Christianity." Are you referring to biblical Christianity, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity or something else?" Also, there are Christian groups today that would consider all but perhaps the first point valid and more biblical than the practice of the dominant church of that time. It seems like it would be better to title the section something more like "Why Montantists were Considered Heretics by the Dominant Church of Their Time." I'll return and make the edits to the page if no one seems interested in discussing this but I'd rather discuss options first.-- Rmawhorter ( talk) 17:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Why not "proto-orthodox" as used by Bart Ehrman and others? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Samjones42 (
talk •
contribs)
04:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the section should rewritten acknowledging some of the analysis of the origin and substance of Montanism at this link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm. This Catholic analysis is pretty even handed, if not partly sympathetic, and notes that what is called Montanism after circa 200CE is a great enlargement and extension beyond what was a relatively non-threatening, prophetical movement oriented about 3 persons that was controversial but hardly heretical. 32tdr ( talk) 17:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I've edited this article considerably today. Here is the diff between revisions. The following is a summary:
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Below excerped removed -belongs on Wikisource, or edited down to the points. - ==S V 18:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
An effort having been made to convert Marcella to Montanism, Jerome here summarizes for her its leading doctrines, which he contrasts with those of the Church. Written at Rome in AD 385
The linked word power in this article went to a disambiguation page. I am not sure of the meaning of the word in this article, so I have removed the link. Someone who knows may wish to replace the link and make it direct to an appropriate page. Example: [[Power (sociology)|power]] - SCEhardt 18:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
This has got to be the dumbest edit warring I have ever seen on wikipedia. Whether or not the article can specify that the date was AD. You are obviously quite determined to keep the war up in lieu of leaving the status quo and discussing it out first. I saw your note on my talk page, but perhaps you did not see my reply. It was in the next edit summary where I said: "I don't see why AD cannot be used to clarify for user-friendliness' sake, not everyone is as smart or perceptive as you are"... Yes, it may be "redundant" as you put it... but it is still normal and conventional to use it, for ease on the reader, to specify on the first usage, instead of leaving it blank and making the reader figure it out. Yes, you're right, a smart or clever or educated reader should be able to figure out that, if it is a Christian-like sect, it will be AD and not BC... But, you would be amazed at how many people don't know that much, and actually come here to learn something... I say, keep it in just for clarity sake, there is nothing in the guidelines preventing its first use, in fact it is recommended. Now, why exactly are you so dead-set against having any AD in the article whatsoever, to the point of five reverts? Is there some other reason you want to cut it out that you're not telling us? Does it really bother you that much? Surely, you have figured out that continually reverting only leads to more back-and forth reverting, when this is something that should be discussed here instead, and not on my talk page... ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 22:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe you don't have anything better to do than keep up the edit warring over something this trivial. I advise you to wait until you have a consensus to make an exception to the MOS which says it can be used in the first instance. I am of the opinion that when you're talking about the second century AD, it helps to specify, because it isn't that far off in time from the second century BC. THis must be really important to you. But its really a radical change from the way this article has always been, to decide that from now on everyone has to figure out from the context whether second century means AD or BC. Now its a little different for "third century" and later, because they are farther apart and less likely to be confused. Specifying second century is either AD or BC is only a common courtesy o the reader. ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Per this request...STOP IT! Batman2005 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard:
-- Panairjdde 23:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I was alerted to this dispute and want to comment:
Please all be reasonable and reach and agreement. Str1977 (smile back) 09:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.
-- ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, P., for agreeing with me. I just said that your claim that AD must not (=is not allowed to) be there is mistaken. And you are mistaken about the burden of proof. The burden of proof always lies with the one trying to make a change. Hugh! Str1977 (smile back) 00:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Both of you, stop it please. This is ridiculous. If the MOS is unclear about this matter (and it's my opinion that it is for dates near year zero), I would suggest starting a discussion there and come to a consensus across all articles so this war doesn't have to repeat itself all over the place. Until then, stop reverting each other and just leave it be. Both forms are perfectly acceptable. Fagstein 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me clarify that I'm not one of "both of you", as I have no part in this revert war. P., "why am (I) claiming it should"? You don't get it, do you? I am not claiming such a thing. All in all, I agree with your substantial points. However, I don't agree with aggressive reverting of such a trifle and with your appropriation of WP policy. As Fagstein wrote, "Both forms are perfectly acceptable". There is no policy demanding the removal of AD. Hugh! Str1977 (smile back) 08:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I have posted my interpretation for this article on the MoS discussion page. I hope it helps; hopefully another participant in that manual will lend their advice too. Neonumbers 10:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
P., I didn't make any fuss about the removal or about the reinsertion. I couldn't care less. Your point is reasonable, but your interpretation of WP policy is not. There is no rule demanding that redundant ADs should be removed. Period. And or course, I cannot quote a rule that doesn't exist. Neither can you. You quote the existing rule and then wrongfully infere that all redundant ADs "must" be removed. Str1977 (smile back) 12:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I found a new reference that will settle this matter, I think. It is again the Manual of Style, but a different section. Infact, we are dealing with an issue about years and centuries, rather than eras, so let's head towards Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Years, decades, and centuries. Here all of the examples miss the "AD/CE" next to years, decades and centuries. This means AD should be removed, because it goes against the MoS. If nobody is against, I will restart my editings.-- Panairjdde 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
"The divisive movement was partly inspired by a gnostic reading of the Gospel of John— "I will send you the advocate [paraclete], the spirit of truth" (Heine 1987, 1989; Groh 1985);"
I need help reconciling this with my understanding of Gnosticism (I am no official expert but am in Grad studies for the Nag Hammadi texts). How exactly is this a "gnostic" reading of the Gospel of John? It is my understanding that plenty of groups used similar interpretations of this passage, including the Prophet Mohammed(!). In fact, this interpretation isn't Gnostic in either a contemporary understanding or in a patristic understanding of Gnosticism - does it focus on a matter-spirit dualism? does it affirm the creator as ignorant? does it appear esoteric? did Montanus reserve his sect for an elite? Gnosticism affirms divinity in all things - does the Montanist understanding affirm people as being divine, or are people, like Montanus, simply being "used" as a channel? I don't see how this interpretation can be said to be 'gnostic' at all - what is 'gnostic' about it?
Do Heine and Groh identify this reading as 'gnostic'? 'Gnostic' is too often used simply as a slanderous umbrella term for 'heresy.' I contest that it is being used here, in this article, for this purpose. Can anyone make a persuasive argument concerning how this interpretation of this passage is 'gnostic'? Or are we relying on the opinions of Heine and Groh, here?
Isn't the statement that Montanism was 'divisive' a bit POV? It may be divisive if you think the Established Church of the time was the only way to interpret the Christian message, in which case everything not of the Roman Church is 'divisive'. I think Protestants etc would not agree. ThePeg 23:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I have Added a note commenting on the Quartodecimen nature of the sect. This info comes From Trevett's 1996 book (as noted).
I have removed the following rather strange sentence, which followed that about Tertullian:
Irenaeus' work does not discuss Montanism at all, but Gnosticism. He lived before Tertullian, not after. If we want to link Irenaeus to Montanism at all, we need something solid here. This mainly seems to be misinformation at the moment. I think I remember reading somewhere that Irenaeus urged moderation in dealing with Montanism, but I don't know of any reference for that. (If you do, of course, do add it in). Roger Pearse 18:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to call into question one line and suggest that it is rather biased:
"The most widely known defender of Montanists was undoubtedly Tertullian, onetime champion of orthodox belief, who believed that the new prophecy was genuine and began to fall out of step with what he began to call "the church of a lot of bishops" (On Modesty)."
Based on my research of Montanism, Tertullian was not a "onetime champion of orthodox belief" but rather a lifelong proponent of such beliefs. His move to Montanism was not one in which he jettisoned orthodox beliefs, but one in which he added to those beliefs. Even after his move to Montanism, he was still looked to by those in Carthage for theological advice. In addition, he never left the catholic church of Carthage, so he could almost be called a "catholic Montanist". He did have issue with some aspects of the catholic church, but as the quote seems to indicate, they were more with the institution than with the theology of that institution. (Csayler)
I'm getting a bit bored of reading articles which claim that non-orthodox approaches to Christianity meant their followers all became very immoral. Let me guess which authorities claim that the Montanists believed that by being Martyred they could behave in as debauched way as possible? Could it be the orthodox Church who ended up stamping them out, by any chance? The same stuff is said of every group that came up with a different idea to the party line - the Cathars, the early Gnostics, the Brethren of the Free Spirit etc. The problem we have is that all the information we have on these 'heretical' movements is from the point of view of their suppressors. Is it always a coincidence that they spring up when people feel the orthodox way isn't working? There's a fair amount of immorality among the Catholic Church down through history so perhaps we ought to view these charegs with a pinch of salt on occasion! ThePeg 23:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The link Montanism in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica is dead. Landau7 14:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There are contemporary groups that are opposed to the doctrine of Apostolic succession who may share certain characteristics of Montanism or who may have been described as such. For instance, various Evangelical or Pentecostal sects will focus exclusively on the morality of the clergy instead of the validity of its ordinations and single out virtue or corruption as the sole rule of faith when determining whether a Church is faithful to the Gospel of Christ. In particular, certain interpretation of Luther's Sola gratia doctrine may have Montanist implications, in that a subjective understanding of grace triumphs over other important legal underpinnings such as episcopal juridcition, sacramental authenticity and historic origins. ADM ( talk) 07:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I have some trouble with this section of the article. The title "Differences between Montanism and Orthodox Christianity" is basically useless. In our world what defines "orthodox Christianity." Are you referring to biblical Christianity, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity or something else?" Also, there are Christian groups today that would consider all but perhaps the first point valid and more biblical than the practice of the dominant church of that time. It seems like it would be better to title the section something more like "Why Montantists were Considered Heretics by the Dominant Church of Their Time." I'll return and make the edits to the page if no one seems interested in discussing this but I'd rather discuss options first.-- Rmawhorter ( talk) 17:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Why not "proto-orthodox" as used by Bart Ehrman and others? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Samjones42 (
talk •
contribs)
04:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the section should rewritten acknowledging some of the analysis of the origin and substance of Montanism at this link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm. This Catholic analysis is pretty even handed, if not partly sympathetic, and notes that what is called Montanism after circa 200CE is a great enlargement and extension beyond what was a relatively non-threatening, prophetical movement oriented about 3 persons that was controversial but hardly heretical. 32tdr ( talk) 17:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I've edited this article considerably today. Here is the diff between revisions. The following is a summary: