Talk:Timeline of religion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Religion or just burial of remains.

The first listing, - "300,000 (years ago) First evidence of intentional burial of the dead... " makes an unsubstantiated claim that this is religion. The reference provided does not support this. What evidence is there that this was religion in the sense we understand it today, rather than the removal of a decaying corpse from the community.--Dmol (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the Paleolithic section. It contained a lot of superstantial beliefs, excessive information, and irrelevant data. I, however, left the initial mention of burials as possible proof of religion. Many people consider important in the time-line of human religion and I don't consider it my place to challenge this.

As stated, the following has been removed because of being excessive and/or irrelevant. In depth information belongs in the relevant articles not in a time-line.

[deleted] Humans have evolved the traits associated with modern human behavior. Much of the evidence is from Late Stone Age sites in Africa. Modern human behavior includes abilities such as modern language, abstract thought, symbolism and religion...Venus figurines are thought to represent fertility goddesses. The cave paintings at chauvet and Lascaux are believed to represent religious thought...The Neolithic Revolution begins. Humans adopt a different lifestyle following the invention of agriculture. The foundations of organized religion are laid following the formation of the first chiefdoms, states and nations. [/deleted] -- EDG161 (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While it may seem that some of the content is tangential, from an anthropological perspective, these tangential traits are important because in the absence of writing they are the only evidence of religion, see the article on Venus of Hohle Fels for example. The Neolithic is very relevant to the timeline of religion because all the major religions of today emerged in the centers of the Neolithic transition to agriculture. Namely, the Near East and the Indus Valley.Wapondaponda (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems much better now. Thanks for edit.--Dmol (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Notibility of Catholic leaders' deaths

[deleted]2000's Pope John Paul II the most ecumenical Pope in history passes away.[/deleted]

I removed this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the ecumenicality of an individual is a matter of opinion and not a neutral fact that can be cited. Secondly, no other Roman Catholic pope's death has been recorded.

If Pope John Paul II's death is should be recorded, than what about the other 264 in his line of succession? And if the Roman Catholic popes are important enough, what about the patriarchs of the 36 Eastern Orthodox autocephalous and autonomous churches? What about the leaders the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church, the Anglican, the Protestant, Evangelical, Mormon, etc.

There are a lot of Christian leaders. However, all of this is only about the numerous branches of Christianity. How could Christianity be important enough to list hundreds of leader while mentioning none of the leaders of the other religions for the other two thirds of humanity?

The truth is, there are too many of them. In my opinion it should be limited to religious fathers and other Extremely important figures of their respective movements, which can have their pivotal contribution fully cited on this discussion page.

Anyone disagree? Please discuss here, with Civility. EDG161 (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A good start, but lots to be done

This is an interesting article, but so much is missing. It's very Christian-focussed. What about the key schism in Islam between Shia and Sunni? What about developments in other faiths? What about other significant sects in Christianity (from Quakers to Mormons)? Or even key moments in the development of secularism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.202.246 (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a timeline of religions, not a timeline of seperate moments in the development of one. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 01:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think think that has merit. We have references to at least three Christian schisms. Why not for the second largest religion.

Why wouldn't we list movements, the notible ones at least? What is the history of religion without it's movements. Also, ask 100 people what the are differences between religions, movements, cults, etc and you'll get 101 answers. They're basically all the same things, thus just as relevant. We just need to have the good sense to know what important and what's not.

-EDG161 (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. You don't need the good sense to compare the difference between religions and movements and which ones are important or not. You need to have a strong number of reliable sources and make sureit meets the notability criteria. warrior4321 21:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Perhaps, I wasn't clear. "Good sense" would be in consideration of Wikipedia's notibility criteria.

--EDG161 (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Carbon dating calibration

I'm not sure if all the dates are calibrated properly from BP years. Can someone can double check them or should we switch early events over to BP, instead of BCE? -- EDG161 (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Things before 10,000 BCE could be listed in an alternate dating because most loose any familar point-of-reference before that time period.

Things before 10,000 BCE probably should be in BP ("Before Present" -- "present" being 1950 CE) due to the complications of mapping carbon dating of things that old to an exact calender date.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous (talk • contribs) 08:31, 20 March 2010

Mormonism?

Any objections to adding at least a single reference to the founding of Mormonism? It is a world religion with many millions of adherents. While a relatively new sect, I noticed much, much smaller and more recent faiths listed. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No objections here.

Thanks for the reply. It looks to have been added. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

inconsistency in the timeline for Pentateuch compilation

the article states:

1250 The time of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt. The first books of the Torah are composed. ... 950 The first five books of the Bible, known as the Pentateuch are written.

the "first five books of the Bible - Pentateuch" and the "Torah" are one and the same but are dated 300 years apart...

the second date (950 BCE) is unclear to me since it seems to coincide neither with the traditional jewish view nor with the common view in academy (regarding all five books).

on wikipedia's article on the Torah:

"According to Moses Maimonides, the 12th Century rabbi and philosopher, Moses was the Torah's author, receiving it from God either as divine inspiration or as direct dictation in the Hebrew year 2449 AM (1313 BCE).[30][31]" (this is the traditional jewish data - although I believe the year is supposed to be 2448 and not 2449) which is sligtly earlier than 1250 BCE

the academic view ("biblical criticism") - again from the above article "The 19th century dating of the final form of Genesis and the Pentateuch to c. 500-450 BCE continues to be widely accepted irrespective of the model adopted,[35] although a minority of scholars known as biblical minimalists argue for a date largely or entirely within the last two centuries BCE."

--Sdanmarc (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So what should be your solution? I guess the reason they give two dates is because it is the dispute between the religious date 1313 BCE (1250BCE) or the schoolar view of 500 BCE (950BCE). (what is wrong with my computer that wount let me sign at the end? [Ceezmad]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceezmad (talk • contribs) 17:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Added the Flying Spaghetti Monster

It is one of the first major occurrences of parody religions. 93.138.157.29 (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonconformism

How about adding Nonconformism (Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, Methodists, Unitarians, and members of the Salvation Army) from the mid-17th century? This helped shape both the UK and US and is still relevant today in those countries. 81.130.80.94 (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Great article!

Apart from minor inconsistencies this is probably the best summary of history of religion ever compiled. Many thanks to all authors and contributors! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.41.30 (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed Creationism Reference

The article had a passage which stated that 4004bc marked the creation of Adam and Eve, which is irrelevant to the page, so I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.10.55.160 (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. It'd probably be OK to rephrase it and put it back in, since the article does include Krishna. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as it's clear you're talking about the Judeo-Christian Adam and Eve and not the Islamic Adam and Eve, since Muslims don't have any sort of specific timeline in their texts.69.29.155.98 (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Merged stuff in

Hello :) I recently created a page for "timeline of world religions" - and finally stumbled upon this page.

As such I've merged my page into yours - my wiki formatting skills need a bit of work. I think the mythology references I pasted at the end of the page would be nicer if they could fit into the horizontal rows of your category table - but I couldn't get that to work so I've left that bit a little ugly.

The page could obviously do with more work - but I'm not sure I have the skills to for instance get the animation nested in nicely next to the contents page.

It would be nice to get this article up to good article standard.

EdwardLane (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Constantine and other ToDo list things

Pretty significant event missing for Christianity (I've just snipped this from the Emperor constantine page)

In February 313, Emperor Constantine met with Licinius in Milan where they developed the Edict of Milan. The edict stated that Christians should be allowed to follow the faith of their choosing.

Also missing all the various mythological religious timeline items if there are any - things like 'last known worship of Mithras' or first known image of 'Thor' dated blah or whatever.

Got to shoot off, I'll see if I get a chance to go further on this in a couple of days EdwardLane (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Codex Gigas, Devil's Bible

The date and authorship of the Codex Gigas (aka The Devil's Bible) contradicts the information provided in the linked Wikipedia article as well as the National Library of Sweden's website where the manuscript is housed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.31.94 (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Appears someone switched the Rule of Saint Benedict with the Codex Gigas. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Objection to the Absence of the Old Testament by Itself

Hello, dear editors! I object to the absence of the Old Testament that must have preceded all JCIB (also Judaism, the J). This is also considered the so-called "Early Monotheism" and I find the article is lacking as to when the Old Testament has been written (ALONE, and not with the New Testament, and commonly to a set of believers preceding all JCIB)! Can you investigate this, please, as I have little or no access to (the oldest) Bible research, although noting both the Septuagint and Vulgate. Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A bit more: Hebrewism is not Judaism, that the Hebrew Bible is not the Torah/Talmud! This is merely a reminder for avoiding some "traps". LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've now imported a part of what's written to the Wikipedia article on Dating the Bible. You may also want to consider the Development of the Hebrew Bible canon. The text has been splitted into 3 pieces and then placed on the timeline. The text imported is: "The oldest surviving Hebrew Bible manuscripts date to about the 2nd century BCE (fragmentary), the oldest record of the complete text survives in a Greek translation called the Septuagint, dating to the 4th century CE (Codex Sinaiticus) and the oldest extant manuscripts of the vocalized Masoretic text upon which modern editions are based date to the 9th century CE.". You can check the data yourself! Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There is also a logical question of "Early Monotheists", "People of the Hebrew Bible", and the Judaists/Jews themselves and how the relations between these groups may have been or developed thorugh ancient times. Interesting or what? Have a nice day! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

A few concerns and suggestions

1. "First Cankam" should be added in the same line as Neolithic Revolution, and period can be extended.
2. Göbekli is not really oldest, because there have been discoveries of numerous worship sites that are older. Botswana' for a name.[1], it can be "one of the oldest".
3. Estimates about Rama's traditional dating, are high. "5000" is disputed, it is an astrological estimate, see Talk:Rama#Datation, it can be replaced with Mehrgarh civilization or Mahabharat.
4. 3200 BCE is not the period of Krishna, see Talk:Krishna#Astrological_dating, it is also an astrological estimate, but scholars accept that 3102 BCE is start of new age among hindus. Can be added.
5. Zoroastrian's date is not 1700 BCE, but 1000 BCE. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The given date for Zoroastrianism, 440 BCE, is nonsense. That is the when Herodotus' Histories were published. His accounts of Zoroastrianism were referring to the Median and Achaemenid Persian Empires. Dating based on Herodotus should be at least as early as 600-900 BCE. There is even earlier dating of Zoroastrian texts based on linguistic comparisons with Vedic texts, so dates given with those texts should be consistent. Titus Lucretius Carus (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Especially the 2nd last one, the Krishna's dating was overloaded with too many references and explanations.

"Written history is only, approximately, 5000 years old (the age of formal writing)." Makes hardly any sense, it should be rephrased. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Is This a Timeline of Religion or of Traditional Dates for Mythical Events?

This timeline inconsistently mixes accurately recorded dates, archaeologically determined dates, linguistically/philologically inferred dates, traditional dates, and mythical events. For example, the traditional dates of non-historical figures are completely misleading in dating the development of their respective religions. Listing tradional dates in a timeline is fine, but they should be qualified as traditional and not mixed with dates derived from other means in such a misleading and inconsistent way.

This timeline needs A LOT more work if it is meant to be useful in dating of religions. Dates should be based on current archaeological, linguistic, and textual research and using consistent dating assumptions. Titus Lucretius Carus (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, although I don't have the time to work on it. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Need to eliminate references to events and characters that are not historic

The article contains references to non-historic, mythical events, such as the birth of Abraham and the Exodus. It's appropriate to state when the stories were written, and what they mean to adherents of a particular religion. But we should not treat story characters and mythical events as if they were historic, when this treatment is not given to religions that are not Judeo-Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanEman (talk • contribs) 05:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The supposed dates of mythical events and semi-legendary figures are misleading when trying to date the development of religions in history. Sections of this timeline needs more work. Titus Lucretius Carus (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Either that or it has to be made clear that those are mythical, non-historic events. I just removed the "Before Prehistoric" section for now as it isn't appropiate for this article. --Fixuture (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Timeline of religion/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.

Why does the timeline of religion seem to culminate in Scientology?!! Ok, if there were many details about modern complexities of religion, it might be appropriate to mention Scientology, but in this context, where it's practically the only thing mentioned in modern times, it just looks ridiculously partisan! I suggest cutting off the timeline 50 or 100 years ago where it starts to get too complicated and controversial. Ok? --137.222.227.82 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Traditional datings

I just removed "22nd Tirthankar in Jainism, Neminatha (Arishthanemi) was born."[2] On this page we have to add the chronology that is accepted on some basis that are more than just traditional dating, if you want to add traditional datings then attribute it that way, I am not sure about that but nearly all other entries seems to be based on some non-traditional source. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Religion timeline graph

File:Religion timeline graph.jpg

We should not use a graph that gives one specific set of dates when the dates are contested. See File talk:Religion timeline graph.jpg. As I hope most people here know, the dates for various religions including Judaism are contested and those disputes are or should be in all relevant articles. We should not use a graph that takes sides on the issue of the oldest living religion. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That pretext for removing a reliably-sourced graph is pointless. This entire article, along with most religious history articles, includes aspects and sources which can be disputed. Claiming that a graph published by Merriam-Webster, now part of Encyclopædia Britannica, is in dispute and therefore invalid should be taken up elsewhere, as it implies that Encyclopædia Britannica is not a valid source in your opinion. --Light show (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Insulting me doesn't help. We do try to avoid tertiary sources. Even if we were to accept it as a reliable source, which itself could be disputed, that's not enough for inclusion. NPOV also applies. Doug Weller talk 06:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No insults are intended, but none of your rationales makes sense. Feel free, per NPOV, to add other charts, graphs or text details if you don't like or agree with this one. But you keep finding something to dispute: claiming a published chart is "taking sides," that biblical dates are disputed (obviously,) that Encyclopædia Britannica is not a reliable source, or they're not neutral and have a POV. Other religion charts, such as this one or this one are used in WP and acceptable since they're also based on reliable sources. --Light show (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Still enough evidence to call Judaism to be oldest. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

What then is the rationale for excluding the chart? Is it because it's an unreliable source or because "the dates are contested"? Or both? Unless this can be explained based on guidelines, which hasn't been done, I think other opinions should be invited. It should also be kept until other opinions besides yours are supported. Nor do I feel it is a simple consensus question, since clear guidelines cover the rationales. I already gave an explanation of why both of those rationales would not be reason enough to exclude it, so hope you can clarify. --Light show (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

9831 BCE

In 9831 BCE section content was added with proper references and notes if any objections please take to talk in stead of deleting. WP MANIKHANTA ^Talk 11:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No, your sources don't state 9831. Didn't it occur to you that it is nonsense to say that the Neolithic revolution started in 9831? Was there an official proclamation then or what? This article needs to reflect our Neolithic Revolution article, not redefine it. And our article Organised religion defines that as having "an official doctrine (or dogma), a hierarchical or bureaucratic leadership structure, and a codification of rules and practices." None of your sources suggest anything like 9831 and most are dodgy, see [[Talk:Hinduism#Sources for "called the oldest religion in the world". Doug Weller talk 13:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Maps

This timeline could use a series of maps showing which religions were dominant in which territories, and how that changed over time. -- Beland (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of religion. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oberonzell.com/OZAbout.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of religion. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20071227125232/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The oldest known version of the Tao Te Ching is written on bamboo tablets.

In 1993, the oldest known version of the text, written on bamboo tablets, was found in a tomb near the town of Guodian (郭店) in Jingmen, Hubei, and dated prior to 300 BC.[1]

It should be 300 BCE.

I corrected this.FourLights (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Moses in 1450 BC is a religious claim not supported by modern scholarship

Moses in 1450 BC is a religious claim that is not accepted by modern scholarship. Any reason not to remove it?Yaakovaryeh (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself says that Judaism "evolved from ancient Israelite religions around 500 BCE" and that scholars consider Moses a legendary rather than historical figure, so I concur that the 1450BCE claim should be removed. I guess I'll do so. JoAnne Tagonism (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Panini date is wrong

This article says Panini composed his Sanskrit grammar in 1st century BCE but it was in 5th to 6th century BCE according to Brittanica. Suggest updating his dates accordingly. Sooku (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Stonehenge "final form"

"Stonehenge began to take on its final form. The wooden posts were replaced with bluestone." People today still visit Stonehenge for religious experiences. We still have varying religious ideas and more powerful earth and stone moving tools than the Ancients. To imply that the current state of Stonehenge is a "final form" suggests that we are somehow at the end of history. I think some words other than "final form" would be less reverential and more accurate considering our human condition. This same article mentions bones being moved to accommodate new burials. Bones get moved, stones get moved...Outofthebox (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this wording is unnecessarily concrete. I suggest changing "Stonehenge began to take on its final form" to "Stonehenge began to take on its present-day form" or "Stonehenge began to take on its current form". RFZYNSPY (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)