Talk:History of Christian theology

Article Improvement

As the archives demonstrate, frequent editors have pointed out the need for improvements to this article. I've already begun working on this by writing new Background, "First century" and "Second century" sections. These are my thoughts for further revision. At this time, I'm mainly focused on the early periods of Christianity.

For the lede:

• There isn't a real lede (this was pointed out years ago and the situation remains the same). The article begins by abruptly talking about the Trinity.

For the section "Biblical Canon":

• I'm seeing primary sources (ancient Christian writers) used as sources
• Some good facts with good sources

For the section "Patristic theology":

• It's entirely unsourced.
• The subsection "Ante-Nicene Fathers" is a list of writers that is not very informative.

For the section "Nicene Creed":

• One unsourced paragraph that is confusing. What is the "argument" that was "closed" in the first sentence?
• The subsection "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers" is unsourced, uses pov language ("heretical Byzantine emperors), and is mainly just a list of the writers of the time.
• The subsection "Papacy and Primacy" has some sources but not sure about the overall accuracy.

For the section "Early heresies":

• I don't like lumping the early "heresies" into one section. They should be threaded throughout the chronological narrative as they appear. Often, "orthodox" theology was developed or clarified in response to theological controversies, so both "heresy" and "orthodoxy" should be discussed alongside each other.
• Section uses Scripture verses as sources
• Some of these sources look like they are devotional rather than scholarly but not sure. Need a closer look.

With all this being said, my approach is to focus on developments up to 500 for now. I will probably divide things up by century, but preserve the section on the Biblical canon as I think it would be useful to keep that information altogether. As for the "Early heresies" section, I think it best to spread that information throughout the chronological narrative. Ltwin (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this article could be promoted to B Class (and I would do that) except that it needs a more reasonable lede, if it not an ideal one. Countercheck (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses and the gospel tradition

@Silverfish2024, you seem to be trying to link the authors of the written Gospels to direct eyewitness accounts, which is possible. However, Byrskog does not say that the authors of the written Gospels "consulted" eyewitnesses. He says the eyewitnesses were "questioned and interrogated as the gospel tradition eventually took shape and developed". The gospel tradition is larger than just the written Gospels. It includes oral tradition that predates the written Gospels. The Gospel writers could have indirectly drawn on eyewitness accounts as mediated through oral tradition, but that is not the same as saying they directly "consulted" eyewitnesses. Ltwin (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly; I said that the oral tradition which became the Gospels was shaped by eyewitnesses; I do favor the idea of the current Gospels as the social product of the early Christian community rather than highly individualized eyewitness accounts (though I am not sure Byrskog would agree). The oral tradition was informed by eyewitnesses and this would become the Gospels Silverfish2024 (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to my most recent edit, just to avoid confusion Silverfish2024 (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we mostly agree on the essence of the relationship between the initial eyewitness testimonies and the canonical Gospels a few decades later, so the disagreement is over the way this has been expressed. Silverfish2024 (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)