Talk:Epistles of Clement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Shouldn't this be referred to as the "Epistles of Clement" vice "1 Clement"? With no information on 2 Clement at present, it is probably best to wrap the pair up together for the moment. Mitsukai 19:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I totally agree. Compare the Pastoral epistles I recently collected together. Context counts! --Wetman 19:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've moved the page, and reaimed all the links to 1 Clement and 2 Clement here. Hope no one minds my being bold. Jwrosenzweig 16:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, these ought to be split. There shouldn't be one article on two different works, unless that article compares the two and two seperate articles exist for the subset works. Thanatosimii 21:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that two separate articles seems appropriate. I'll try to expanding the text substantially and create two the two articles. --Alecmconroy 22:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your stubs are prepared. We don't usually cannibalize existing articles to make new ones. --Wetman 23:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The two epistles should definitely be separated, for several reasons. First, there is no logical connection between them. It is debatable whether both are even by the same author. More important still, we can tie 1 Clement precisely into first-century Roman history, as George Edmundson did in 1913, in his book The Church in Rome in the First Century.
Since all the scholarship I've read suggests pretty strongly that they are both spurious to some extent, I've consolidated the two pages into this one but, for those who feel that they deserve their own pages, have not deleted the originals. I've also cleaned up a few of the syntax and spelling errors. The original individual pages exist but I see no real reason for them to continue to do so. Silvanus42 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Silvanus42. German, Italian and Spanish Wikipedia have separated articles.--Egaida 12:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] deleted information restored
Defenders of POV routinely delete information that they don't like. In this case, I've restored it. If there are issues with the material, let's discuss it on the talk page. Leadwind (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to go through the article and add "citation needed" tags for the parts that need it. I'm also going to make some changes to the structure of the lead section being careful to not remove any text. Dgf32 (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The following section of the text needs refining to achieve NPOV: "The spiritual authority wielded in this epistle comes not from a Pope claiming authority by virtue of office like that envisioned in the eighth century forgeries "The Donation of Constantine" and the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals, but rather from a Church claiming authority by virtue of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as this church reasons with a sister church, quoting the words of God found in scripture and appealing to the apostolic tradition shared by both churches." Dgf32 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just as some use 1 Clement to argue against Roman Primacy, many use 1 Clement as an example of the early Roman Church asserting it's primacy. The text above offers one interpretation of the epistle, which while held by some scholars, is also objected to by many scholars. If you want to include a discussion of interpretation in the article, then the full arguements from both sides must be presented in neutral tone, citing sources on both sides, and avoiding individual interpretation and original research. If you're willing to put in the time to doing it correctly, it could stay in the article. Dgf32 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've gone through several different English translations of the epistle, and none of them use terminology "sister church" or other terminology which might have a similar meaning. Since that section of the text is both factually incorrect and not verifiable, I'm going to remove just that one particular part now. Hopefully in the next few days you can work out a more neutral version of the text I included above. Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I still didn't get a response on this issue. The paragraph starting with "No where in the epistle itself..." has very strong POV. Unless we can balance that interpretation of the epistle out with other interpretations and good, solid citations, I think that entire paragraph can be deleted without affecting the quality of the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If people want religious interpretations of the epistle, either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, they wouldn't be looking in an encyclopedia. If we can't improve this section soon and present a more balanced arguement, I think it needs to be removed from the article. Dgf32 (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- There still were no citations provided, nor was there any attempt to provide a NPOV. Instead of trying to advance both Roman and Orthodox interpreations of the document, I think it's better to leave the article as it was before the uncited information was added. If you can provide citations and reformulate the text with NPOV, please do edit the article accordingly. Dgf32 (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I still didn't get a response on this issue. The paragraph starting with "No where in the epistle itself..." has very strong POV. Unless we can balance that interpretation of the epistle out with other interpretations and good, solid citations, I think that entire paragraph can be deleted without affecting the quality of the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If people want religious interpretations of the epistle, either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, they wouldn't be looking in an encyclopedia. If we can't improve this section soon and present a more balanced arguement, I think it needs to be removed from the article. Dgf32 (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The editor previous introduced into the article that the epistled was sent from "the Church of God which sojourns in Rome" to "the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth", and he used these quotations form the epistle to suggest that Clement was not its author since he did not sign his name to it. This obviously has POV issues, but more importantly, its original research. While I always try to give editors the benefit of the doubt, if you look through the editor in question's contributions history, it's obvious he came to Wikipedia with a particular POV to push. Dgf32 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
