Talk:Perichoresis

Context needed

Some context is needed for the use of this word. Has it been used by theologians since the 1728 reference? If so, please give some more modern references. If not, it should be relegated to its historical use. Also, please provide an English transliteration of the Greek word, so others can attempt a pronunciation of it. --Blainster 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's in the 1913 Webster's dictionary, and in the 1989 OED. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 21:43
  • Sorry, you missed my point. I wasn't asking for a dictionary listing. There are many words in the dictionary that are no longer in modern use. What we need are references indicating the term's use by modern theologians. --Blainster 22:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think Webster keeps old words; only the OED does. Google Books lists various new books using that term. See for example "The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism - Page 318" at that link. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 22:39
  • Thanks for adding the Greek transliteration. Google shows that the Greek term is by far the more commonly used version of the word. Here are two articles discussing them: [1]. [2]. --Blainster 22:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • They mean the same thing. I didn't know the Greek word until I found the transliteration; it's several centuries older than this term. I think your first link simply uses the term perichoresis because that's what Damascenus used. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 22:56
  • Would you agree in light of the more common Greek usage, to move the article title to perichoresis, and adjust appropriately? --Blainster 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but I clicked onto "mutual indwelling", and the first section tries to explain it with the phrase "mutual interpenetration and indwelling"...!! WTF?!? As a layman, I find this explanation of the term ever so slightly on the attrocious side...!85.158.137.195 (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

• Here's an example of a modern theologian using a form of the word: http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wesley_conferences/2007/Benefiel%20-%20Revisioning%20Holiness%20Lecture.pdf

Please forgive my clumsiness, as I've never before made a discussion post to wikipedia. The lecture/article, "Revisioning Holiness" in the above link seems relevant to me because its author, Ron Benefiel, is president of the Nazarene Theological Seminary, and he uses the word, perichoretic, in a Feb 2007 article or lecture. dnedwards (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

co-inherence nicely laid out...

s.a. Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, Nashville, Abingdon, 1996, pp.127-128 and his reference to G.L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, London, S.P.C.K., 1956.Martinericson 21:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Trinity

Just noticed that some things about the Holy Spirit and the Trinitarian role of salvation has found its way into this article, but it is supposed to be only about Perichoresis - the relationship of unity between God the Father and God the Son. Perhaps it could use a little cleanup to stay on topic. Kristamaranatha (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that Christians care about this topic is because of the interrelations of the "roles" of father and son and spirit in salvation. Without that, the topic would not exist because there is no good reason to discuss it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Confessional Differentia

Also, if I'm not incorrect, this term may have a difference sense of use or acceptance among 1) Roman Catholics 2) Greek Orthodox and 3) Protestant conservatives (some of whom seem to see it as too loose or too loosely applied, although I am not yet sure how they find it so. It might be useful, if anyone knows more about that, to put a short 2-3 liner in discussing why (having to do with the procession of the Spirit, between 1 and 2, I'm fairly sure that at least needs to be clarified since the two systems don't see that the same way.) Thanks--Dellaroux (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah--and I just noticed that the derivation from "peri" (about, on) and "choreisis" (having to do with dance) would be of interest, and is missing; the idea that this is a dynamic, ongoing interrelationship and not simply a static one, is conveyed by the use of "choresis" and deserves mention. Dellaroux (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, 5 years later there's still no mention of this...interesting. I believe there are those who object to the use of any translation that suggests "dance," although that would seem to be within reasonable useage, and the emphasis on "rotation," or "going around one place" neatly, ah...sidesteps...that, as it were. As one who writes on dance, dance history, and liturgical dance, I'm surprised to see no additions in all this time along those lines.38.122.127.226 (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't get to the idea at all to talk about it as dancing around — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Nicene creed

"The Nicene Creed establishes that the Triune God is one ousia (essence/nature) in three hypostases (instances or persons)." - this is not correct, the 325 creed talks only about Christ and God as being homoousious and does not mention 3 hypostases at all. The Holy Spirit is simply mentioned at the end in a different context. Thus the rest of the article is incorrect and biased. AFAIK none of those early creeds talk about Holy Spirit in this manner.

Nicene Creed#Comparison_between_Creed_of_325_and_Creed_of_381 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.52.5 (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple problems

The reasons for tagging this article should be reasonably obvious. Most of the "Etymology" section has nothing to do with etymology; the section which follows it is "off topic" or at best perichoresis is a minor theme in an essay-like and largely unreferenced article about the "human body as an icon of the communio personarum"; the Trinitarian section is inadequately referenced and badly explained.

Proposed solution:

1. Reduce "etymology" to its proper size and locate after lead section;
2. Move last part to new article so that those interested can edit it apart but leave some sort of linking comment (suggestions for title welcome!);
3. Put Trinitarian section into shape restricting it to perichoresis and adding link to main article on Trinity;
4. Add section on christological use.

– Jpacobb (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree but am happy to discuss a TOC structuring re: "etymology" as subhead (it is reduced and is its proper size under Perichoresis#Usage) and my addition of a new segment on "Usage" implications for a trinitarian theology of personhood. Agreed: links to a much longer article on Trinity (as an attribute of the Gohead). Who will author usage segment for the "Christological" (perhaps as distinct from an ecclesial understanding of Bridegroom/ Head of the Body of Christ references to Catholic trinitarian art already given?

The TOC as I expanded it is nested thusly:

1 Perichoresis#Usage

1.1 Perichoresis#Usage#Etymology

1.2 Perichoresis#Usage#The Trinity in Christian tradition

2 Perichoresis#Human body as icon of the communio personarum

2.1 Radiation of FatherhoodPerichoresis#Human body as icon of the communio personarum#Radiation of Fatherhood

3 Perichoresis#References

4 Perichoresis#Bibliography

5 Perichoresis#External links

You propose an alternate nesting? How would it preserve topic content without proliferating unnecessary new articles? There are linkages that can be made to perfectly acceptable existing material, ie "if it aint broken, don't fix it" (see agreement to Trinity article linkage, that's an article in need of tidying up)MrsKrishan (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The TOC is not the basic problem. The last part of the article is "off topic". In the first section "communio personarum" the word perichoresis does not appear. In the second it appears once an an unsourced affirmation. Inclusion of any of the material in the last part (#2 in the proposed revision) of this page can only be justified if properly sourced references to the works of academics and/or reliable sources which do not give undue prominence to an opinion expressed by a very small minority. Incidentally, the proposed changes in the TOC add to the confusion. Etymology should a section not a sub-section since it covers ground which is relevant to all the following sections. Jpacobb (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Added cross references to patristic sources and related trinitarian pages (opinion of a very small minority, granted, IMHO their historical primacy in apostolic perichoresis outranks any contemporary difficulties arising out of differences in opinions between thee and me) Will add citations from the theological journal Communio and Humanum as feasibleMrsKrishan (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Most of the concerns mentioned above remain unresolved by the recent changes that have been made. The last sections are "off topic" in that perichoresis is, at best, a minor aspect of the major themes developed there; the sources are totally inadequate to sustain the contents of the section; the principal statement in "Doctrinal differences" is unsourced. The reference to Barth covers only a small minority of protestantism and moreover comes from Caldecott not Riches and would certainly be questioned by some experts in Barthian thought; the recently added last paragraph of the lead section is also off topic (and unsourced). I think you should seriously consider moving the "off topic" materials to other articles or, if these do not exist, starting new ones. Jpacobb (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This article is confusing because it is dominated by off-topic material. Moreover the material is esoteric. Editors can't be sure that they know what it has to do with the topic, because familiarity with the topic does not help them to understand the strange content. @Jpacobb argued the case very well, a decade ago, but did not prevail. How discouraging. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Alternative etymology

Despite the fact that this is drawn from Wikidictionary I have my doubts about its correctness. My Greek is rusty, but I should expect the noun formed from choreuo to be choreusis and this in fact exists (see http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.82:2:174.LSJ Liddell and Scott) What I suspect is that someone has picked up a non-academic etymology from one of the early christian fathers who were unreliable in this area especially if Latin and opining on Greek. Can anyone find a truly reliable source? Jpacobb (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"Between"

"...the relationship between each person of the triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)" and what? What's the difference between a duck?

Taram made a right pig's ear of this article with his/her revision of the article (21:47, 13 February 2014), simplifying the vocabulary perhaps, but with abysmal grasp of style and sentence structure, making it harder to understand than it was before.

Koro Neil (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That is certainly a cute and quaint reply Koro Neil (talk. You are welcome to suggest changes to the article for the academy without insulting other members.Taram (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This article on WP:Civility may help you better understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility. (BTW: Sweet insertion of barnyard animal names in your post.)Taram (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Majors and minors

It's been about a decade since I looked at this article closely, and we can improve it.

By reading this article, would you know that the idea of "perichoresis" comes from the Bible? This idea, or something very like it, is much older than Nicea. Would a reader know that from reading this article? By reading the article, would you learn there is more here than a psychological or social idea of belonging or love?

The article mainly expounds on the etymology of the word, as though that's where the idea comes from. As is often the case, the etymology is misleading. As a result, there is a great deal in this article about dancing. The leading graphic communicates this idea of circular motion around a center, rotation, or circulation. The other pictures talk about "reflexive procession." But, if I understand this last idea, it's hard to connect to perichoresis except through this notion of reciprocal or circulating action. So the idea of rotational movement dominates, and this takes a remote implication or analogy, at best, and makes it the main idea.

The article can be more explicit and more specific. The ancient idea came before modern ideas. We can explain it that way, making the article more understandable. Even though the modern ideas are more abstract and complicated, they can be more accessible by understanding the original idea. For example, the modern “social trinity” (mentioned in the article) is very different from the classical doctrine, but understanding the original makes the newer notion much easier to grasp. I’m inviting a discussion of this before I make any significant changes. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

One of the links used to support this article explicitly criticizes the popular bent toward "rotation" and "dance", and rejects that trend with undisguised contempt. Metaphor: The Trinitarian Perichōrēsis and Dance:

One bizarre trend in contemporary Christian theology and spirituality over the past few decades has been to use a metaphor of dance to refer to the inner life of the Trinity, especially what is expressed by the concept of perichōrēsis. It is bizarre not only because there is no etymological ground for it (as some are quick to point out) but also because dance is the most explicitly physical and corporeal form of art (as well as spiritual), whereas the inner life of the Trinity is the least physical and least corporeal thing possible.

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The cited article also makes a correct statement about the etymological error that underlies the majority of this article:

the word perichōrēsis has both a static sense and a dynamic one: in the former sense, the word is translated as “coinherence” or “mutual indwelling,” and in the latter sense, it is translated as “interpenetration.”

The fact is, many people believe that perichoresis is a theological idea evoking movement, mutual participation, inclusivity, kissing, hugging, dancing, celebration, or sharing, but the static idea is the classical one. The article ought to show this, without trying to prove that anyone is incorrect. At least, the assumption that perichoresis implies movement should shrink, and explanation of the static idea should grow.

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)