Talk:Early centers of Christianity

"Origins"

per my comments above I do not mind this article's title as long as it is understood that origins of Christianity redirects here. This means that there should be at least an "Origins" section detailing the "prehistory" of Christianity, i.e. the period predating the Apostolic Age, say 200 BC to 30 AD.

it is also unfortunate to cast the development of Christanity exclusively in terms of its Jewish roots, since it has "inherited" at least as much material from non-Jewish Hellenistic currents. The scope of this article, as opposed to the Early Christianity one, should clearly be to trace the evolution of this syncretism of Jewish messianism and Hellenistic mystery cults of the "Osiris-Dionysus" variety. In this sense, Christianity rather than being a simple "split off Judaism" is a "bastard child" of Asian and European religions as it could only have developed in the Roman Empire, where the cult was rooted in European paganism, but anything "oriental" (Egyptian, Chaldean, Persian, etc.) was considered extremely mysterious, in fact not unlike the status of Eastern religions in modern New Age spirituality. --dab (𒁳) 13:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the following should, with sources, be inserted in its proper chronological order, not before "Apostolic age":

Besides its Jewish origins, Early Christianity as it developed in the 3rd to 4th centuries equally has roots in Hellenistic religion, especially Platonism (as it came to be interpreted in Neoplatonism) but also in the mystery religion of the Roman empire period such as Mithraism and the myths of rebirth deities and sacral kingship. Lima (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hellenistic religion obviously predates the Apostolic Age. For argument's sake, let's simplistically assume that Christianity is a syncretism of Jewish messianism, Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. All three of these have a history predating Christianity. Thus, the "Origins" section needs to discuss

• Jewish messianism and Apocalyptic literature
• Platonism
• Greco-Roman mysteries

all of these equally predate Christianity. Then we enter the historical developments of the 1st to 3rd centuries:

• Ministry of Jesus
• Apostolic Age
• growth of Neoplatonism out of Platonism
• growth of Gnosticism out of Platonism and oriental mystery traditions
• cross-pollination of 2nd to 3rd Christianity and Neoplatonism, Christianity and Gnosticism. Possibly Buddhism although this quickly leads into crank territory.
• the Persecution of early Christians in the Roman Empire
• the desert fathers and Christian monasticism before 451
• the separate development of the Armenian, Coptic and Syrian churches
• and finally the Constantinian shift

the above list would cover the main structure of a properly developed WP:SS article on the "history of early Christianity" (= "early history of Christianity") --dab (𒁳) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A minor clear point first: "Christian monasticism before 451" goes well beyond the period of "early Christianity", which is taken to mean before 325 (First Council of Nicaea). Then, was Coptic Christianity so different from the rest of Christianity within the Empire before 325? Apart, that is, from its strong development of monasticism, which has its own section.

On the following questions I have no clear ideas. Is it really appropriate to consider all of this, if treated in any detail, as coming under what we normally understand as the history of Christianity. Should the questions be dealt with instead in one or more separate articles, with at most a link from here? What is the point in having an article on early Christianity and another on the history of early Christianity, when the first seems not to confine itself to ideas and the second to events? Would Dachmann's ideas fit better under "Christianity" than under "History of Christianity"? Should they be put in a separate article not headed "Origins of Christianity" (which is too easily interpreted as referring to the events that occurred) but something like "Formative influences on early Christianity"? Lima (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

that remains my main question also: what the heck for do we need "history of early Christianity" besides "early Christianity", and timeline of early Christianity? We used to have Early Christianity and Origins of Christianity. The "origins" article was scrapped in favour of a redundant "history of early" besides "early history of".

I realize of course that Christian monasticism before 451 includes in its scope the "not-so-early" period of 325-451. It's still "early", and we certainly don't want an early Christian monasticism article distinct from it. I am unclear on your distinction of "events" vs. "formative influences". How are "formative influences" not "events"? History proceeds by events. An accumulation of numerous events of the same gist tend to give rise to "influences". The whole mess is a result of a well-meaning but ill-advised move request back in January 2008. See above.

I appreciate the point that "Early Christianity" can be considered a religion in its own right, as opposed to post-Nicean Christianity mostly simply known as "Christianity". This makes "Early Christianity" more than just an "early history of" article, and this one a generic "history of $RELIGION" article.

I am fine with treating this article as a clear WP:SS sub-article, expanding the "History" section of Early Christianity. The solution would then be splitting off a full origin of Christianity article which will be a sub-article both to this one and to History of Christianity. --dab (𒁳) 09:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This article was split from Early Christianity after referencing and expansion. Similarly, material was split from this article to the Apostolic Age article for similar reasons.[1] I see no problem with splitting off the origin section in a similar fashion after some referencing and expansion. --Vassyana (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved Christianity in India (Outside the Empire) to Apostolic Period

Thomas the Apostle arrived along the southern Indian Malabar Coast in 52 AD and from this came Thomasine Christianity. It is inappropriate to place 'India' under 'Spread of Christianity. User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• (per Talk:History_of_Christianity#Moved_.27Christianity_in_India.27_to_Apostolic_Period...) That Thomas himself came to southern Indian himself is clearly disputed by some. There is not even any evidence here that it (Thomas coming to southern Indian himself) is a majoity view-- but even if it is the majoity view, it is not necessary or desirable to put this under the "apostolic period," because the text certainly discusses events after Thomas. Indian Christianity is more than Thomas Christianity, and Thomas Christianity developed its distinctions after Thomas.
• AND, more importantly... even if this text was just events concerning Thomas himself... it would still need to be under the "Spread of Christianity" section because it is, and will always be, more about the spread to India via Thomas than about anything else Thomas did-- or even others did after him during the time covered by this article. There is not even detailed records of such other events-- and if there-- we would not be able to include such other material.
• Also-- stop reverting even if you disagree. Following WP:BRD means leaving the text as it was while we discuss. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• The main reason you give is that 'it is disputed by some'. So what?? Why should you give so much importance to those 'some'. Don't you know the fact that there are lots of historians who confirm the fact that St.Thomas landed in South India. Moreover the Saint Thomas Christians belong to various denominations and all of them share the same opinion that Thomas landed in South India. Also several Popes have asserted the origin of south Indian Christianity from the Apostle Thomas.

• No this is not the biggest reason... it is just the first reason that applies here and at History of Christianity, so I listed it first. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• This clearly is not a neutral point of view. This is in favor of the people who dispute the arrival of St.Thomas to South India. How can that be neutral!

OK let me make a suggestion. Move the text to 'Apostolic Church' with minor edits. Instead of saying "Christianity arrived......." change it to " It is believed that Christianity arrived along the southern Indian Malabar Coast by Thomas the Apostle in 52 AD and from this came Thomasine Christianity. These Syrian Malabar Nasranis kept a unique Christian identity untill the arrival of the Portuguese in the 17th century."User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Moreover the text was originally under 'Apostolic Church'. Somebody changed it without any discussion. So there is nothing wrong in reverting it and keeping it back under the 'Apostolic Church'. Please do not revert it just because you are not in favor of it. And please do not give silly reasons like 'it is disputed by some'. I am only moving it to it original position. User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• No, the original state was like this— with none of this text. Stop reverting even if you disagree. You may remove the text entirely while we discuss, but I didn't think you would mind leaving it in the article somewhere— where it has been most of the time since being added. These corrections were made without "without any discussion" mainly because the text was added in the first place without any discussion. If you do want it removed entirely instead, go ahead. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Rahuljohnson4u, you seem to be muddling the reasoning I use here and at History of Christianity-- for example you posted the same reply on both pages but it only makes sense there at History of Christianity. I propose we work on just one discussion first (either you chose) and then the other (if it is still called for) later. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 14:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Even you had been doing the same i guess..! You were also posting the same replies on both pages. Anyways let us discuss in one page at a time. Preferably, History of Christianity.User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added this section back (on Early Christianity, but due to overall article length it will be merged down to Christianity in the 1st century. -- Beland (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Move/Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Ucucha 22:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

---

History of early Christianity → Early history of Christianity —
*This will allow consistent naming for these four parallel articles:

1. History of early Christianity → Early history of Christianity
2. Late ancient history of Christianity
3. Medieval history of Christianity
4. Modern history of Christianity

The origin of the name "History of early Christianity" seems only to be that was created as a split out from Early Christianity, but this name change keeps the same meaning. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 13:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support if for no other reason then consistency.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 13:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Seems a reasonable change. --Elonka 15:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Part of the problem with this is that the naming convention is not obvious to the search box. Why not move to "History of Christianity, Era" style naming convention? Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Jclemens. Esoglou (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Shorter names are better. If you want you can create a redirect at History of Christianity, medieval era, etc., but a search for "History of Christianity, medieval era" finds the "Medieval history of Christianity" right at the top of the list, so I see no need. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think History of medieval Christianity would be much clearer. That is the real topic. "Medieval history" of something could be misunderstood as meaning medieval historiography of it. Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Agree with Esoglou that History of medieval Christianity would be much clearer. Consistency is to be desired but "Early history of Christianity" et al sound as if the adjective is modifying "history" rather than "Christianity". I would prefer that we keep the pattern to be "History of X" as we have History of Judaism, History of Christianity, History of the Papacy, History of the Catholic Church, etc. Modern history of Christianity is something different from History of modern Christianity. --Richard S (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as seemingly stilted English. Also with the medieval ones. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It's the other three that are wrong; Late antique history of Christianity should be about Christian historiography of the fourth through sixth centuries - e.g. Lactantius, Eusebius, Socrates... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above comments. "Early" would modify "history" in this instance. StAnselm (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of just fixing the problem since there seems to be a tide running against the proposed titles. Here's where I see the consensus running

• History of early Christianity - leave it as it is
• Late ancient history of Christianity => History of Christianity in late antiquity (I went ahead and did this)
• Medieval history of Christianity=>History of medieval Christianity (I went ahead and did this)
• [[Modern history of Christianity=>??? (I left this article along for now)

• I see two possibilities for this article
  • History of modern Christianity
  • History of Christianity in the modern age
• Of these, the second would be more in fitting with the two immediately preceding it. However, "modern age" has a meaning which is different from "contemporary Christianity". The "modern age" was succeeded by the "post-modern age". I'd like to hear what other editors think the best title for this article would be.

--Richard S (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What the last article actually contains is History of Christianity since the Reformation; that would be preferable if we can get away with plain English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Revised proposal

• Move to History of modern Christianity, and/or start a discussion on that talk page to move anywhere else. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support proposed move to History of modern Christianity. A word of explanation of what the article means by "modern Christianity" should be enough to overcome difficulties about the expression. Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support although History of Christianity since the Reformation may avoid the ambiguity of "modern"; but this is certainly an improvement over the present title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I've already changed the title to History of modern Christianity as it is a significant improvement over Modern history of Christianity which suggests a revisionist reassessment of all of the history of Christianity. Further discussion of the title should take place at Talk:History of modern Christianity --Richard S (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I tried to edit the section on Spread of Christianity but was reverted

This section is very biased towards Rome and the western empire. Rome is just one center of the Early centers of Christianity. I tried to improve the situation but was reverted, so I say goodbye and good luck to those who value NPOV and care to fight typical wikipedia stupidity. 75.15.193.175 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The section Early_Christianity#Spread_of_Christianity is much better. My suggestion would be to replace the "Spread of Christianity" section in this article with the one from that article. 75.15.193.175 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Since my first reverter apologized on my talk page, I went ahead and was bold and replaced the "Spread of Christianity" section in this article with the one from Early_Christianity#Spread_of_Christianity. This solves my POV complaint, as long as it doesn't get reverted. 75.15.193.175 (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely new

I find the notion from the statement "the new religious group" in the article slightly misleading. The Jewish synagogue in Antioch was not a new religious group, but rather a transformed one. It was the entire Jewish community that became adherent to the Nazareene strand. Suddenly the Jews of the city opened their congregation for Greeks and others. What we call christianity was rather seen as a realisation of the old Judaic mission. --Xact (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

repetition of text

Hi, Just noticed that the end of section 2.3.1 Judaism and Christianity repeats six lines of text from the previous part of section 2.3 Apostolic Age, starting from " The Council of Jamnia..." 178.103.130.1 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Too long?

Shouldn't we remove the Too long Appellation? The article has been reduced by 50% while the appellation was placed. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge to Early Christianity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We've recently had renames of Christianity in late antiquity, and Christianity in the Middle Ages (from formula "History of". We already have Early Christianity. So suggestion would be to simply merge this "History of early Christianity" with "Early Christianity". Interwikilinks seem to confirm the validity of this position. Chicbyaccident (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - the scope of the "History of early Christianity" article is broader than "Early Christianity" - it would be better to change the name of "Early Christianity" to "Early Orthodox Christianity" as that is a better description - although we do have a number of articles covering the same subject, Proto-orthodox Christianity, Ante-Nicene Period, History of Christianity, Apostolic Age, Split of Christianity and Judaism, History of Early Christianity, Christianity in the 1st century, Christianity in the 2nd century, Christianity in the 3rd century, Christianity in late antiquity, etc. - Epinoia (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I would guess anyone could see the WP:NPOV issues, not to speak of risk of confusion, with such an article name. So anyway, what is the broader scope, please? And why cannot that broader scope be implemented into Early Christianity? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

by broader scope I meant that the "History of early Christianity" at least makes some mention of other Christianities (considered heresies). The "Early Christianity" article makes no mention of any alternatives to the Proto-Orthodox church - it's perspective is closer to History of the Catholic Church with emphasis on doctrine on Baptism, the Sabbath, Organization, etc. - I think that merging the two would make for a long, unwieldy article - it might be better to merge "Early Christianity" with "History of Christianity". Epinoia (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't really see that problem. "Early Christianity" obviously implies "History of the early Christianity", doesn't it? Why can't the mentioned content in History of early Christianity, including that which you mentioned, be merged into Early Christianity? If anything, doesn't your comment seems to confirm that you would support that solution, since you disapprove of the current state of Early Christianity? "[I]t might be better to merge 'Early Christianity' with 'History of Christianity'". Fair enough, but then the question about the article name remains. Why choose the longer version, seemingly contradicting WP:CONCISE? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

If you think it can be done, I have no objection. - Epinoia (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Epinoia: Thus, would you mind altering your vote (if needed with condition)? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

- I am still ambivalent about this. I think the two articles have a different focus, Early Christianity on the beliefs and practices of early Christians and History of Early Christianity on the development of early Christianity. It is not unusual to have two articles like this: there is a Protestantism article and a History of Protestantism; there is a Catholic Church article and a History of the Catholic Church; etc. - and I haven't seen a clear reason why the two should be merged - there is some duplication in the Spread of Christianity section, but otherwise they seem like two distinct articles - I don't see the advantage of merging them - but if there is a consensus to merge, I am ok with it - so far there doesn't seem to be a lot of support - Epinoia (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Epinoia: Isn't the difference that these mentioned entities are existing ones, whereas Early Christianity isn't by any comparable criteria? Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: - sorry to seem obtuse, but I don't understand what you mean. (I'm not trying to pick a fight here, or be obstructive, I am sincerely working in good faith, but I need a definite reason to support this change) - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Epinoia: Both the Catholic Church and Protestantism are existing phenomena, but with history. They both merit separate articles with two different scopes; general scope and history scope. Whereas Early Christianity is altogether a historical concept and as such merits only one article with one scope: the history scope of it. To illustrate: how meta does it have to be? Do we need History of historiography of Early Christianity? I mean, you could theorerically argue for it, but wouldn't one single article with one single history scope suffice? Meaning that the article Early Christianity deals with the history of Early Christianity, the history of the historiagraphy of Early Christianity, the history of modern historiography of Early Christianity, the history of medieval historiography of Early Christianity, controverses of historiography of Early Christianity, the archeology of Early Christianity, and everything else pertaining to Early Christianity, collected in one single article called: Early Christianity? Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: - I still think that Early Christianity describing the beliefs and practices of Early Christians deserves an article distinct from History of Early Christianity, an overview of the development of Early Christianity - analogous to the automobile - we have an Automobile article describing the mechanical device, and a History of the automobile article, outlining the development of the automobile - there are hundreds of similar examples - Epinoia (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Epinoia: Yes, but again, the difference is that Car is an ongoing, present, alive subject. Then it merits a separate "History of" article. But that is, again, not the case with Early Christianity. We only have Christianity in the Middle Ages for the same reason, and no "History of Christianity in the Middles Ages" on top of it because that is redudant for the same reason as "History of Early Christianity" is redundant when we already have "Early Christianity", since that includes - or rather is - History of Early Christianity" implicitely. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: - we will have to disagree on that - best wishes - Epinoia (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Agree with Epinoia. While conceptually History is a subset of the institution, at this point it merits it's own article specific to that particular aspect. And that doesn't even begin to address length. To merge all three articles as suggested would result in one in excess 225,000 bytes, which is arguably too long for to be be read and too large to be easily loaded on older browsers (per WP:AS "Total article size should be kept reasonably low, because many readers use low-speed connections including dial-up connections, smartphones, and low-end broadband connections.") The Historiography article alone is over 100,000. Such a merge would inevitably end up with the article being split. Mannanan51 (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per both above. The length issue alone rules this out. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - there's a lot of overlap between the articles, and frankly, there are too many articles on early Christianity. Actually, the contents of both articles should be merged to (Apostolic Age merged with Christianity in the 1st century), Christianity in the 2nd century, and Christianity in the 3rd century. Ante-Nicene period can be redicted to History of Christianity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For a follow up discussion, please see: Talk:History of Christianity. PPEMES (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Merger with Early Christianity

@Tahc: Greetings! Regarding this revert...

I redirected this article to Early Christianity because it was a word-for-word copy with some passages deleted. The two versions have been drifting apart over time and need to be resynchronized as when one copy has been improved the same improvements have not been made to the other copy. This sort of copying does not follow Wikipedia:Summary style. If "history" was to be split off from "Early Christianity", as opposed to beliefs and practices and schools of thought, there should be a single "History" section in "Early Christianity" that summarizes "History of Early Christianity". If that's going to happen, the text between the articles still needs to be synced up. I would argue, though, if "Early Christianity" is too long, it would be a lot easier to simply merge it down into Apostolic Age and Ante-Nicene Period since the content is already neatly split up, and redirect it to History of Christianity#Early Christianity. But again, before that could happen the text from History of early Christianity needs to be synced up with it. During the sync-up process there's no point in having two nearly identical articles, one of which is missing a bunch of paragraphs; readers would benefit most from having one copy, especially if anyone is making any further improvements (which I've actually been doing as I go along). -- Beland (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

They are not and were not ever supposed to be the same topic or the same article. If you want to merge or delete one you need to gain WP:CON to do that, beforehand. tahc ^chat 05:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, they currently do cover the same topic, since they are written with nearly all the same words. Do you favor a split between history at History of early Christianity and beliefs, practices, etc. in Early Christianity with a summary of "History of early Christianity" there? -- Beland (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The scope of these two articles has always been a point of discssion. This article started as a split-off from "Early Christianity," under the name "Origins of Christianity." It was renamed "History of Early Christianity per Talk:History of early Christianity/Archive 1#Requested move, with the argument Origins of Christianity → History of early Christianity — Matches the Christianity/History of Christianity pattern. Yet, the other three articles on the history of Christianity, as mentioned at Talk:History of early Christianity#Move/Rename, have all dropped the term "history of," and simply became "Christiatity in late Antiquity" etc.

And the usefullness of a distinction between the beliefs of early Christianity and it's history has also been dicussed from the start. "Early Christianity" covers a period of three centuries; the beliefs developed during this time, and can't be separated from their historical development. "Early Christianity" is, almost by definition, the same as "History of early Christinaity." They cover the same topic.

And, indeed, synchronising is a problem. So, for the sake of consistency, as part of a series of specific articles on the history of Christianity, "Early Christianity" and "History of Early Christianity" should be merged; they are not separate topics. So, please, go ahead, and merge. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd support a merge of History of Early Christianity with Early Christianity. PPEMES (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

intention and size

The intention of History of early Christianity was cover events as they leads to further events throughout the time period; to cover change within the time frame.

The intention of Early Christianity was cover more the traits of the religion over the whole time (1) to the degree it was stable within the time frame and (2) in contradistinction other religions and other time periods of Christianity.

Sometimes article become more and more similar because Wikipedians copy something the have for one article into as many others as they can. We not necessarily have to keep both articles but we do need to divide up the topic sufficiently to keep the articles size well below 100K in length. Also-- detailing crap from outside the time frame will also not help. That is why we have the other articles. tahc ^chat 16:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua Jonathan that the distinction between what changed during the period and what is stable is a difficult one to apply in practice to this topic, and probably not helpful to readers. Currently the Early Christianity article contains both, intermixed. A more logical division into subarticles would be to follow the existing structure and the length can be easily reduced by merging details down into Apostolic Age and Ante-Nicene Period. -- Beland (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That would indeed be the most reasonable option. 'Stable traits within a timeframe' may be fond in creeds, but not in history; nor can those "traits" be distinguisged from events. The first primary sources (the New Testament) attest to a variety of opinions and beliefs within earliest Christianity, most notably the inclusion of Gentiles; what's more, it's exactly this divergence of beliefs that led to the change of earliest Christianity as a "sect" within Judaism, to a gentile religion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

If that is your plan, Beland, then you should merge them both into Christianity in the 1st century and Ante-Nicene period. Renaming that one to Christianity in the Ante-Nicene period would also work. tahc ^chat 00:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I will sync them up first so the merge-down only has to be done once; the whole process will definitely take a least a few days. Apologies in advance for any mistakes and rough repairs, as the articles are long and the diffs complex (which is also why it's slow going); I'm sure the result will benefit from other eyes. -- Beland (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thumbs-up, and go ahead! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay. tahc ^chat 15:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. I'd also support the rename proposal from Ante-Nicene period to Christianity in the Ante-Nicene period by Tahc. PPEMES (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but it would really be better to propose that over at Talk:Ante-Nicene period instead. tahc ^chat 17:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

delete Early Christianity?

• Coming rather late to this, is the intention to have no article called Early Christianity, or what? There seems an unclear and thin consensus for the drastic changes that are being made. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The intention seems to be to have "early Christianity" redirect to History of Christianity#Early Christianity (c. 31/33–324), which contains links to both Apostplic Age and Ante-Nicene period. An economic and efficient way to reduce the number of articles on early Christianity, and the amount of work needed to keep them synchronized. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Rather than deleting Early Christianity completely, maybe we can leave (only) a list of links to the sub-articles. tahc ^chat 17:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Christianity in the 1st century

• Ministry of Jesus

• Ante-Nicene period (c. 100–325)

• Christianity in the 2nd century
• Christianity in the 3rd century
• Christianity in the 4th century

• Christianity in late antiquity (c. 313–476)

tahc ^chat 18:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I propose we move this to discussion to Talk:Early Christianity#delete Early Christianity. Please pose there instead.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Early centers of Christianity which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)