Talk:Timeline of Church History

From OrthodoxWiki
Revision as of 11:29, December 17, 2008 by Angellight 888 (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

On all Timeline articles:

  • Entries should be simple and brief and read like newspaper headlines (e.g., Death of John Chrysostom, not Death of Saint John Chrysostom, native of Antioch and Archbishop of Constantinople, Great Preacher and Compiler of Divine Liturgy, renowned for numerous sermons and letters).
  • Use the historical present tense (e.g., First persecution begins, not First persecution began).
  • There should be no citations or commentary included in entries. Place that sort of material in articles which can be linked to from the timeline.
  • External links contained in entries (e.g., to Wikipedia) should only be included if doing so would significantly illuminate the meaning of the entry. (The idea is not to link nearly every possible word, but only those which have significant meaning to the history of Orthodoxy.)
  • External links should only be used if an article on the subject being linked would be inappropriate for OrthodoxWiki. Otherwise, link the words in question to existing or not-yet-existing OW articles.

Thanks!


Contents

EasyTimeline

Any thought of using EasyTimeline Syntax for this page? Thanks, Fr. John

I looked at that but couldn't make heads nor tails of it. From another look just now, I think that even if I did master it, the complexity would end up inhibiting contribution from others. --Rdr. Andrew 11:53, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)
Yep, looking a little more deeply I can see that it might be more trouble than it's worth! Fr. John

It is very good, brief at the same time, useful and helpful Timeline of Church History. However I am not able to print it.Please advise how to do it. Aleksiy

Hi Aleksiy, this site uses a special stylesheet for printers, so that no "print-friendly pages" are required. Check it out, and let us know how it goes. Yours in Christ, Fr. John

I corrected the date of the Glastonbury mission of St. Joseph of Arimathea, and provided the correct information for the latter date with regards to the Church in Britain. Aristibule

EasyTimeline

I think you've got a great resource here, and I have been exploring constructing something similar using EasyTimeline. I've found that once the timeline is up, it isn't so hard to maintain. Feel free to drop me an email if that is something you'd be interested in and I'd be happy to assist with development. I do of course, also understand the competing need for simplicity of design - so no hard feelings if you don't take me up on the offer. Meanwhile, check out a useful resource one user has developed that can assist in timeline design from scratch: http://newped2.auckland.ac.nz/exe/exe/timeline/form.html. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kidwellj (talkcontribs) .

The year 0

Hi! Some timelines will show Christ's crucifixion etc as 33AD. However, I believe that in the Orthodox Church we are of the thinking that if Christ is born around -6BC and died at the age of 33 then the date of 33AD should be revised (mathematically 33 + 6 = 39years of age.

Father John, would you be so kind as to offer a discussion on this. User:Ixthis888

Gospel of Matthew

According to a resource I have recently purchased, the Gospel according to Matthew is dated ca 80AD - which is significantly different to the dating listed on the site at present. Since it is an existing record, I do not wish to change the information without seeking the appropriate discussion and/or agreements first (as opposed to posting my own new information). Regards, Vasiliki.

The dates of when each Gospel was written are often a matter for great academic debate. The Orthodox Study Bible dates it at 50-75AD, which is probably where the date in the article comes from (Mark is dated 65-70, just before the fall of Jerusalem; Luke at 70-80 and John at c.96 - Matthew, then, is the most vaguely dated.) — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 20:04, January 10, 2008 (PST)

Oh wonderful! I will then for future development list my sourcing on this editing talk page first so that it can be agreed before posting (?) Also, if something requires a Theological discussional development prior to a posting is this the forum for that or do we need to take it offline through email? Vasiliki (Ixthis888) - Just learning still very new to posting.

Sources are actually best listed in the article itself - something like {{ref|1}} tag for articles like this or, for biographies, putting urls in the External links header. Just a tip - the easiest way to sign your posts is to do three or four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of your message. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 23:08, January 11, 2008 (PST)

To the person who edited out some stuff

I first wanted to thank you for taking the time to 'edit' my contributions and I apologise if this has caused you stress but I did want to point out that I disagree with your reasons for removing various bits of my text.

The first example I would like to make is the removal of 'Old Testament' - if we are discussing the Timeline of Church History - then the ORTHODOX perspective is that the 'Church' is the Body of Christ (God) ...you can NOT exclude the development of the Church through the Holy Prophets ...

The second example I would like to refer to is the removal of my original text and making the Martyrdom of St Stephen the focal text. The purpose of that line entry was not to signify the death of a Saint rather the FIRST DOCUMENTED case of a Christian death - do you see what i am trying to say? Even though it is the same thing it is not. If the focus is Church history then it is the fact that someone martyred for the first time that is more important ...not the fact who it was ca. 30 Martyrdom of St. Stephen the Protomartyr

Vasiliki, Ixthis888

I wouldn't want to speak for Fr Andrew, but I suspect his motivations were affected by a combination of space, encyclopaedic look and feel and common understanding of the term 'Church history'. While the proper understanding is that the Church was around through human history, few would have this as part of their natural understanding of Church history, which would have the Church being founded by Christ or at Pentecost (and naturally, probably the latter); it would be far too unwieldy to change the article name to "Timeline of Post-Christ Church History", for example.
Of course, this intertwines somewhat ironically with the next point - the first martyrdom would have occured in the Old Testament or at the Holy Innocents, not at St Stephen, who would have been significant as the first deacon-martyr. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 20:04, January 10, 2008 (PST)

Hi Pistevo! Glory to God for all things! I like your response but you have me scratching my head for two reasons. The first - Father Andrew did not make the change someone else did ... I am to understand Father is on holidays? Either way it doesnt make a difference as I am only a guest not a moderator so i wish to participate in this project peacefully. However, I do hold an opinion that if this is an Orthodox site of knowledge then should not the information reflect the 'Truth' of God ...no matter how profane or non-sensical it might seem to the rest of the world? Or have I not read enough of the 'rules of the site' yet .. please point me in the right direction.

The other is your comment on the Holy Innocents. I have a Synaxario which glorifies a female Martyr and her Seven sons ... I have forgotten the name at this point ... however, these Saints are from the book of Macabees! Another trivial point to chew on ...though, the Mother & her 7 sons are the first technical martyrs for 'God', the Holy Innocents are the first to martyr 'unknowingly' for Christ (who is God anyway) and then St Stephen who martyred 'knowingly' for Christ ...so in a funny way, we have a trinitarian development on the 'First Martyr' category! Glory to God for that amusing conclusion. Vasiliki (Ixthis888)

This is an Orthodox site of knowledge, but it is imperative that we let others access the wealth of information in Orthodoxy - hence, we use the most easily recognised terms. The usual right direction for rules of the site is at the style manual - feel free to peruse to your heart's content there :) — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 23:08, January 11, 2008 (PST)

Evidence of Christianity, 25AD to 250AD

http://www.trinitylight.net/china_ancient_christian_stones.html -- Vasiliki 18:14, February 3, 2008 (PST)

cleanup

Looks great Father Andrew!!!! :) Chris 10:57, February 21, 2008 (EST)

I'm glad you feel that way—I was a bit concerned that you might think me too free with my pruning shears, but with continued collaboration, I think this article is honestly one of the best and most useful here. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 04:20, February 22, 2008 (PST)
Absolutely Fr., couldn't agree more. It is one of the best and most useful, and collaboration this way makes it best. Hopefully some more contributors have more to offer as well. Thanks, and cheers,:)
Q - a lot of information on THIS timelines is NON - Eastern Orthodox ... shouldnt Western Church History be separate? -- Vasiliki 21:17, February 24, 2008 (PST)
The title is in fact called Timeline of Church History, while the overall focus definitely is Orthodox of course, both in the scope and the breadth, major events in Church history ought to be mentioned, especially as they may relate to Orthodoxy or have a bearing on it. This is actually specified in the Notes section of the article itself, and provides a better overall historical understanding in terms of context. Editing is also not yet complete :) -Chris 10:03, February 24, 2008 (EST)

Redirect an article

Hi WSK - are you able to create a "REDIRECT" from Church of Evangelistria (Tinos, Greece) to Panagia of Tinos - they are one and the same thing. Vasiliki 05:23, April 8, 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of Orthodoxy or Timeline of Religion

Hi ... I want to question how much of this information is infact relevant to Orthodox related Christianity? I was going through the wealth of (really really well researched and hard work) but I question some of the information as NOT relevant to Chalcedonean ... in my opinion, this timeline keeps taking on a catholic slant ... Im sorry I dont want to offend because there is a lot of hard work in pulling this together which I as a user really really appreciate. Vasiliki 23:39, May 25, 2008 (UTC)

No offense at all! As noted in the "Notes" section at the bottom of the article, "This timeline is necessarily biased toward the history of the Orthodox Church, though a number of non-Orthodox events are mentioned for their importance in history related to Orthodoxy." Certainly, if this were to be a "Timeline of Religion," the article would need to undergo a massive expansion.
Do you feel that there has become an imbalance in the number of non-Orthodox events included? —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 14:06, May 30, 2008 (UTC)

Large page

This page can only be edited in sections, if you edit the entire page as one, it blanks out. - Andrew 17:39, July 11, 2008 (UTC)

Proposed re-structuring of "Timeline of Church History"

Perhaps its time that the article was composed of a series of "sub" articles? One such structure I propose is as follows:

If you want a Template "header" specific to 10 sub-articles, if that is what you all think is a good idea, I am more than happy to set one up for you (know that I have figured out how to create the "previous" key :-) You all know my email, give me a buzz if you want help.

-- Vasiliki 02:40, July 17, 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, am not in favor of breaking this article up. (Using "/" sub-articles is not how one would do it here, in any event.) I think it mainly needs to be trimmed of extraneous material that is not of great historical significance.
In any event, I do hope that there is some way to fix the technical problem which results from trying to edit the article in anything but a section at a time. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 18:54, July 17, 2008 (UTC)


How about something in between, keep it displayed as one page, but edit it as separate pages. In the same way we include templates, we can include sub pages onto the main page. Put the information text in the in the ten “sub-articles” just for editing purposes, and have the main article include the text as:

 {{:Timeline of Church History/New Testament era}}
 {{:Timeline of Church History/Apostolic era (33-100)}}
 {{:Timeline of Church History/Ante-Nicene era (100-325)}}
 {{:Timeline of Church History/Nicene era (325-451)}}
 {{:Timeline of Church History/Byzantine era (451-843)}} 
 {{:Timeline of Church History/Late Byzantine era (843-1453)}} 
 {{:Timeline of Church History/Post-Imperial era (1453-1821)}}
 {{:Timeline of Church History/Modern era (1821-1917)}}
 {{:Timeline of Church History/Communist era (1917-1991)}}
 {{:Timeline of Church History/Post-Communist era (1991-Present)}}

I know the slash does not make it a wiki subpage this site, but it will just be the name of the page.

I am OK with leaving it as it is, I am just suggesting an alternative. (If one wants to edit the top of the page, just click any of the EDIT links and the change it to http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Church_History&action=edit&section=0 - Andy 15:40, July 28, 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to trim out less major events from this article, but including them in more detailed timelines for the various eras which can be linked to at the top of each section. This makes the most sense to me.
We'd need to come up with a criterion for inclusion in this article (i.e., what constitutes high importance). —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 02:45, July 29, 2008 (UTC)
I very strongly second Fr Andrew's idea above, which would provide the best of both worlds.
#1) We could take the timeline as is, and break it up into separate pages for each of the periods listed, as is suggested above. This would allow for any fuller development of those periods, on their new page, and more attention to thaose periods, should there be any.
#2) The overall page/timeline would remain as is, but (drastically?) reduced of course to the most major events only. Again, as Fr Andrew says, a criterion for inclusion on this page would have to be established (I am thinking along the lines of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, other major councils, the great Schism, the major events of the Apostolic and Early Church, and things of this sort.
#3) Very important from a logistical point of view, would be to have each of the subheadings in the main article, actually linked to the separate and more detailed page for that period. That way, all the information is still accessible from the main page, a click away; and both world-extremes of breath and of scope (i.e. detailed chronlogical history vs major events only) are satisfied this way. Seems an excellent organizational idea.
If there are no objections, I propose we proceed. My two cents,
Cheers,
Angellight 888 20:15, September 4, 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to start a proposed list of criteria for inclusion into the main article (so that we can then proceed to break up the smaller sections on separate pages). Please let me know what you think, this is a rough draft but I think it might work:
Proposeed Criteria for Inclusion on Main Tiemline Page
Inclusion
  • Leave "New Testament Era" and "Apostolic Era" sections largely intact?? (most entries to be included?).
  • Include the 10 major persections of the Early Church, as well as other persections to the modern day.
  • Ecumenical Councils.
  • Other major Pan-Orthodox Councils.
  • Major Church Fathers
  • Key Missions and Missionaries (early and modern)
  • Important dates for each of the Autocephalous/Autonomous Orthodox Churches.
  • Great Schism; All other Church Schisms.
  • Key documents, writings, developments, teachings (ex. 1338 - Hesychasm)
  • Recent developments: Include dates for the key documents from the major Dialogues with Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches.
Exclusion
  • All the Non-Orthodox and purely political events that are mentioned for their importance in history related to Orthodoxy or for reference.
  • All events that can be termed relatively minor or detail oriented, in terms of providing an overall chronological history of Orthodoxy by year (depth of breadth and scope).
Please let me know what you think, feel free to add/revise as necessary...
Angellight 888 18:29, December 17, 2008 (UTC)

Chalcedon

The explanation of Chalcedon in this article seems a little messed up. It reads: "451 Fourth Ecumenical Council meets at Chalcedon, condemning Eutychianism and Monophysitism, affirming doctrine of two perfect and invisible but separate natures of Christ,"

For one, the word "invisible" seems clearly erroneous. If the perfect humanity of Jesus is affirmed, then one of His natures is visible. Rather, I'm guessing the originally intended term was "indivisible".

Secondly, saying "indivisible but separate" is simply logically impossible. Rather, I think it would be more faithful to the Council of Chalcedon if "indivisible but distinct" were to be said. Deusveritasest 22:30, December 11, 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. I've made the edit. Feel free to do so yourself next time!  :) —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 01:35, December 12, 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox