Talk:Evagrius Ponticus

Untitled

I would love to see this article more fully fleshed out. I wrote most of the content on this as it stands, but it feels incomplete. I'm new at this wiki thing, so I don't know if it works as a encyclopedia article or not.

The article should mention some of his other theological teachings, specifically that which later caused him to be excommunicated from the church (eventually rescinded many years after his death). I await further discussion from interested parties to determine just how much more detail is necessary.

-- Davidfmurphy 07:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this isn't perfect, but I feel that it is a much more useful article. It's my first try at really writing a Wiki article. I tried conforming to the MoS, but I'm sure there are quite a few things that need to be prettied up.

-- Davidfmurphy 06:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagged Sentence

Hi, I've tagged the sentence "This decision was subsequently overturned", is there a reference that substantiates this assertion? Thanks, Addhoc 13:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it should be outright removed--Evagrius was condemned as a heretic at the same time as Origen, and I've never read any assertion that this was overturned. The Catholic Encyclopedia would probably mention that in their entry on him, but they mention only his condemnation. I'd be happy to look into this further, but it will be difficult to find something that clearly states "This decision has never been overturned" -- I would think that is implied from, y'know, being anathematized. -- Merope 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, I usually give 24 hours after tagging information before removal, unless the information is obviously hurtful or slanderous. In this context, would it be ok if we waited until tomorrow and then removed? Addhoc 13:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. I don't think this article is getting that much attention. That'll give me some time to look into it since, unfortunately, I do not keep my books on the Desert Fathers in my work office. ;) -- Merope 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Original Author's Comments

Seems like I should chime in -- I wrote the tagged sentence. Is it an error? Apparently. Admittedly, it's not a perfect article, and I had hope the comments I made on this page (see above) indicated that. No citation is needed for a statement like this under 99% of the circumstances.

How did the statement get there in the first place? I was simply under the impression that the condemnation of Evagrius was no longer in effect. Over the last several years, there has been a growing "re-appreciation" of Evagrian works in many circles, including the Orthodox church. How does a condemned heretic get such prominent placement in the first volume of the Philokalia? I realize this not a particularly powerful argument, but I just assusmed that if heretics weren't to be read, and he's being so widely read, then he must not be a heretic anymore. Apparently, I erroneously arrived at that conclusion through fallacious reasoning. Innocently done, yet wrong nonetheless. I again repeat my request for more qualified scholars to flesh out this article. I suggest the following correction:

Original sentences: Origen and his followers (including Evagrius) were declared heretical by several successive ecumenical councils, beginning with Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.). This decision was subsequently overturned.

Revised sentences: These speculative teachings were declared heretical by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D. When subsequent ecumenical councils sought to clarify these anathamas, Origen (along with Evagrius and a few others) were condemned as well.

Again, I humbly request a little help from those more qualified than I. If this isn't acceptable, then please do not assume I need to somehow find the arms of Christ and repent of my heresy. If you're an expert, then please humbly share your expertese. For the record, I don't care if my writing is edited mercilessly or redistributed by others! -- Davidfmurphy 23:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that I was not trying to denigrate your or this article (which, by the way, I think is an excellent improvement). What you say is true: Evagrius is now receiving a lot more attention from traditional Christian scholarship, and the same can be said of Origen. There may even be Catholic/Orthodox apologists on behalf of these thinkers, saying that their views did more to advance Christian theology than they did harm it. But I don't think that their heretic status has been (or will likely ever be) overturned--they just believed too many things that are not in line with the current paradigm of Catholic or Orthodox thought. I'm hardly an expert on the subject, though; I just had a beloved professor who in turn loved Evagrius and his works. However, I'm more than happy to do more research on the subject if need be.

Again, thank you for your hard work on this article, and please do not take our questioning the fact personally. I do not think that this needed to go to arbitration, but I think we can resolve this amicably enough.  :) -- Merope 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Section moved to history

The section that was here before has been blanked as a courtesy to one of the past editors. It should remain this way, respecting the user's m:Right to vanish. You can still see it by looking at the history revisions. Please contact me if you have questions. Dmcdevit·t 22:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Major Edit Proposal

At the moment I am writing my M.Div. thesis on Evagrius Ponticus - if it is ok with the Wiki community and the original author I could re-write this article on Evagrius so that it will hopefully upgraded. I have lot's of resources available to give proper references (on - and off - line) but English is my second language and my writing may need improvement qua style, grammar and all that. I will definitely need help with that.

Gregorios —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:29, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

Please, do so. You'll find plenty of folks around here willing to help with the grammar, style, neutrality, and so forth. Davidfmurphy 19:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC) .

A New Source

There is a massive analysis on Evagrius at

http://timiosprodromos.blogspot.com/2006/01/volume-i-table-of-contents.html

which I think must be cited at the wikipedia article.

88.235.175.52 (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)mehmet

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Evagrius Ponticus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs inline citations. Badbilltucker 20:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Evagricus' nationality

I was wondering whether this article could give Evagricus' nationality in the first sentence of the article.Vorbee (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)