Talk:Metanoia (theology)

Meaning of "μετά"

Defining the word as meaning "beyond" or "outside of" is tacky and inaccurate as it is a) only partially true and b) has little to do with the meaning here implied, I feel. The radical sense of the term is something more akin to "following" or "after" as preserved in the English term "method" (Greek μέθοδος, meaning originally "following after, pursuit" according to Liddel and Scott) and also the inappriately referenced "metaphysics", so titled because it came after the work "Physics" in the Aristotelian corpus. My impression has always been that the term μετάνοια meant something, accordingly, more like "afterthought", i. e. a revisiting in the mind of what one has earlier done and accompanying reevaluation of those acts. I limit my rambling to this page because I don't have the sources on hand to edit the article and make it look anything other than hasty and ill thought-out. I also have zero Hebrew and if there's a Semitic corresponding term that can help, I don't know it. 173.79.58.11 (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Major cleanup needed on a one-sided and rather tangential page

I agree with the call for major rewrite of this page. As it stands, the page is argumentative, opinionated, one-sided, not focused on the subject itself, and not very helpful to someone wanting to know what Metanoia means. As currently written, I would not link to this page from any of my own articles.

It is true that there is a persistent school of thought within Christianity that rejects "repentance" as a translation of "metanoia." I see no problem with an inclusion of that school of thought in a subheading of the article regarding the translation of metanoia. However, as it stands now, the entire article is a one-sided presentation of that one school of thought. It focuses more on the charge that "repentance" is a mistranslation of the Greek word metanioa than it does on the meaning of Metanoia itself.

The statements on the meaning of "repentance" are themselves shallow and one-sided. My (somewhat dated) American Heritage dictionary defines "repent" as:

1. to feel remorse or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be contrite.
2. To feel such remorse or regret for past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it. Used with of: He repented of his severity.
3. To feel remorse or contrition for one's sins and to abjure sinful ways.

The article seems to focus entirely on definition 1, and ignores definitions 2 and 3, which do involve a change of mind and a change of ways, and thus more fully represent the meaning of the Greek word metanoia. In other words, "repentance" is not just about feeling sorry and ashamed for one's past actions. It is also about changing one's mind and behavior—which is the fundamental meaning of metanoia.

In short, though it has long had its vocal detractors, "repentance" is not such a bad translation of metanoia. That's why it is still used by so many Bible translators and scholars.

This article needs a knowledgeable scholar to rewrite it so that it focuses on the meaning of Metanoia itself, and so that it contains some balance on the related translation issues.

Oh, and the mention of metanoia as "the greatest word in the New Testament" sounds more like cheerleading than scholarship.

Leewoof (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments above. This article needs to be rewritten. To find out what these words meant and how they were used you need to look at the early Christian fathers' commentaries on the NT books in which these words appear. -tpkatsa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpkatsa (talk • contribs) 18:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be written. I came here, a Christian who has taken a good amount of Greek, but not from a "metanoia denomination," and have no idea after reading this article what the word means. So it means repentance, but some guy once disagreed, because to him, Repentance doesn't mean all this neat stuff implied by the foreign word. Now this isn't a dictionary, this is an encyclopedia--what we need to know is what the movement in Christianity that focuses on this word means by it. As it stands it's like an article on Socialism that merely says "wull it doesn't mean being social!"--Mrcolj (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Leave it alone!

It is true that there is a persistent school of thought within science that water is wet. The page is extraordinarily well written, scholarly, impartial, sourced, factual. That some insignificant modern dictionary has been fooled by popular opinion is unimportant; as is the fact that this is new and original research. I find it very helpful as to the highly important etymology of metanoia. Not a word should be altered. The page is a matter-of-fact and excellently sourced exposition (not opinionated, argumentative) of vital truth unobtainable anywhere else.125.237.122.52 (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Here you've illustrated the problem. Wikipedia is expressly not for "new and original research". Nor is it for "vital truth unobtainable anywhere else". That is the role of research publications. As an encyclopaedia it is supposed to give a neutral presentation of the current state of knowledge, depending entirely on external sources.

--Scottwh (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, my term was incorrect - what is new is merely the collection and summary of important and hard to find, already accomplished, study by leading authorities. I stand corrected. However, many authoritative sources have opined that the Greek word metanoia has been badly translated in the KJV Bible and susequently. If there are expressions to the contrary available from equally high calibre sources, let's have them by all means.125.237.122.52 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Step back and look at context

A very good and important article, much needed in the overall absence of reliable reference material on the subject.

However, the dictionary definition of repentance - regret and remorse - is often downplayed in the article without qualification, and the reader can be left with the idea (in the absence of anything to the contrary) that "negative" emotions in general are being downplayed. An absence of context leaves room for confusion about the relationship between metanoia as a mind-change and emotions that could be considered "negative". (Hence our co-commenter on this talk page takes issue with the author's conclusion in the article and defends something lacking.)

Specifically, when attempting to place metanoia in a larger context, the author can acknowledge the κατὰ Θεὸν λύπη "according to God grief" (2 Corinthians 7:10) that the apostle Paul wrote leads to metanoia. Not to say that λύπη (lupé) is the same as regret or remorse, and in fact the same paragraph specifically states that it is not:

"Because even though I grieved you by the letter, I do not regret it. Even though I was regretting it (for I see that that letter grieved you, even though for an hour), now I am rejoicing— not that you were grieved, but that you were grieved into repentance. For you were grieved in-accordance-with God, in order that you might suffer-loss in nothing by us. For the grief in accordance with God works unregretted repentance leading-to salvation. But the grief of the world produces death." –2 Corinthians 7:8-10 Disciples’ Literal New Testament (DLNT)

So while metanoia is not itself a negative emotion like regret or remorse, it appears in New Testament Biblical writings hand in hand with a kind of grief or "sorrow" (λύπη [lupé] - typically considered a negative emotion.

Since primary sources are best used by presenting them, not simply giving references, and since the entire focus of the article is the meaning of a Koine Greek word used by Christian Biblical authors, the author would be wise to add a full textual presentation of his references and a relationship-analysis of metanoia and lupé.

What would be gained? The reader would see the place of metanoia in a larger context and not automatically reject the author's point by thinking the article is pitting mind-change against sorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshidesu (talk • contribs) 18:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metanoia (theology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/699uJ1Zxq?url=http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bible_Translations.pdf to http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/bsls/bible_translations.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

New Testament/Urdu

I'm not sure how relevant the translation of this word into Urdu and the various flavors of the Urdu word are. Seems like this should just focus on the Greek. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Low-quality article

I agree entirely with Leewoof's comments in the section 'Major cleanup needed on a one-sided and rather tangential page'. No amount of tinkering or rewriting will make this article any good. It should be scrapped and a new article written by a competent mainstream theologian/biblical scholar. Joel B. Green would be ideal, as his book Conversion in Luke–Acts (ISBN 9780801097607) deals with repentance/conversion in depth. PhilG (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)