Talk:Augustine of Hippo

Notes

I apparently did this incorrectly in the addition on coercion, or it would have shown up in your list, which it wouldn't--it wouldn't show up at all without the separate group=note, but I didn't know how to fix that--so someone who does--please fix it and tell me what I did wrong! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. group=note is a bit redundant, I used Template:Efn instead. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A thousand blessings upon your head! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Ken Wilson Scholarship used uncritically-Violation of NPOV

I have done a couple of edits that have removed most of the quotation of the work of one Ken Wilson from the article in the "Philsophy: Free will" section. His scholarly view that all the Fathers affirms what he calls "traditional free choice" and that Augustine's views are essentially Manichean are not affirmed by most scholars, either of Augustine or of Patristics generically. Certainly the assertions that "Every early Christian author with extant writings who wrote on the topic prior to Augustine of Hippo (412) advanced human free choice rather than a deterministic God.(Cites Wilson) Augustine taught traditional free choice until 412, when he reverted to his earlier Manichaean and Stoic deterministic training when battling the Pelagians."(Citing Wilson again) require far more evidence than one scholar who has a known agenda. Particularly when it comes to earlier fathers, Wilson is known to really reach with them (for example, he argues that Ignatius of Antioch taught his doctrine of free will, because he said that he went to martyrdom willingly) and sometimes downright misquote the fathers entirely.

It is true that Augustine has a more pessimistic anthropology towards the end of his life; but Ken Wilson's view has a very specific bias (Free Will Baptist) that isn't very subtle. As a result the article should not essentially quote him verbatim without any opposing scholarship with regard to Augustine or any other Father on Free Will. The terminology he uses is itself requiring definition, and such defintions would not be appropriate for an article on Augustine.

This is unsigned, and IMO the decidedly wrong approach that itself evidences bias. I do not support it.

1. See [1]: As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. This is the approach that should be taken. Replace and rewrite please. And sign it.

2. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Even if this is a minority view, it should have a place in the discussion, since it has a place in the secondary sources.

3. Even if the source is biased, that is not by itself a reason for exclusion. It is a reason for a recognition of that possibility within the text instead: [2] says biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view.

4. Different interpretations need to be included as there is not universal agreement on this particular topic. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

My issue here was not with the fact Ken Wilson is cited but rather that he was beinf cited unchallenged without context as well as being repeated redundantly. As my new edits appear to have been maintained regarding this passage I can only assume that other editors agree with me that the way it is now is better as it gives context to Ken Wilson's claims and removes a redundant paragraph that didn't add anything to the article. Anyway I think we can consider the matter closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.203.82 (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

ERA

Since I believe it is abundantly obvious that Augustine lived and died in the Anno Domini range of years, unambiguously, I am inclined to remove "AD" from wherever it appears in this article, and avoid WP:ERA disputes entirely. Comments? Elizium23 (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Articles about 4th century figures have no reason to include AD notifications. Dimadick (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hebrew, Greek and Latin

In the Italian article it is linked a renown students' textbook of philosophy which affirms Augustine recommended the teaching of Latin, Greek and Hebrew as well as of the Greek philosophy as a propedeutic tool for improving the knowledge of the Holy Scripture. It isn't available on Google Books nor in an English translation, so I have uniquely to mention it for this source whose full text version disappeared today a couple of hours after the citation on WP.

It talked about the Masoretic text more times. The edit had a concern on the continuity of the Hebrew Bible across centuries even after the LXX and independently from the differences occurring in the two texts. In the City of God (book VIII, chapter 3), Augustine ascribed those textual differences to the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit God:

. If, then, as it behoves us, we behold nothing else in these Scriptures than what the Spirit of God has spoken through men, if anything is in the Hebrew copies and is not in the version of the Seventy, the Spirit of God did not choose to say it through them, but only through the prophets. But whatever is in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew copies, the same Spirit chose rather to say through the latter, thus showing that both were prophets.

— [3]

It was based on the Letter of Aristeas according to which the 70 Greek translators worked individually and then discovered their texts were identical (p. 2, with refeence to the Ep. 28.2.2).

So it seems lowly probable the fact that Augustine could have defined the Septuaginta as the second main authoritative translation of the Bible, uniquely second to the "Hebrew MS", without having a specific knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew Grammar and authors. The questioned "Hebrew MS" couldn't be the Masoretic texts, but at least one or more of the preceeding versions, not so well specified. I apologize for a not enough clear WP edit. Best regards, Philosopher81sp (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hebrew

I don't have access to the cited source that is meant to support the statement that Augustine knew Hebrew, but there are tons of sources out there that state the opposite: "Augustine knew no Hebrew". M.Bitton (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

References