Talk:Philip the Arab and Christianity/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wandalstouring (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References needed:
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

First review

I almost finished these reviews but I can't remember reviewing this article.

The lead needs to be rewritten and I suggest you ask someone else to do the job. Afterwards you can discuss the result with him and create the final new lead together. This way you make sure the article is properly summarized. The current lead has problematic sentence structures. Its summary is difficult to read and not suitable for somebody who wants to quickly inform himself because of lots of non-essential details.

As I understand the structure and content of the article, the lead already does an adequate job of summarizing them. It first addresses the core issue, the Philip-as-Christian meme, its mode of propagation (Jerome and Origen), and its early popularity. Then it discusses the sources for the Philip-as-Christian meme, divides them into convenient groups, and briefly discusses their relationship with each other. Then it discusses prevailing opinions regarding the truth of the Philip-as-Christian meme. These are the contents of the article; this is what the lead covers. As to the subsequent issues—"problematic sentence structures" and "non-essential details"—I cannot address them because I cannot identify them. Could you list and explain them for me?
I will ping some people who have reviewed my articles in the past to see if they'd be willing to participate here.

The core problem for starting this article is a discussion about what is considered Christian in the third century. In every transitional period you have syncretism and differing opinions on that.

There is now a brief description of competing midcentury heresies, and a lengthier of the nature of religious obscurantism and apostasy in the army.

You are dealing with sources on a topic. These sources are biased and omit facts like every other source. That's why in every history article dealing with sources you present the communis opinio on them. This in turn gives the reader a clear picture of the problems of obtaining information. The section discussing the sources mustn't be a lengthy chapter because too much detail rather obscures the point.

There is now extended discussion of Eusebius, and some relevant notes on Chrysostom. I am still working up something for Jerome, but I do not have the fourth volume of Quasten, whose summaries of the communis opinio I had followed for the first two.

Philip the Arab became Roman emperor. This means he was a member of the nobility. From this we are lead straight to the discussion of Romanization (cultural). One theory is that we have a Romanized elite ruling over a less accultured population. So if we discuss his cultural position towards the Roman deities, we can't just argue by geography but must argue by cultural habits of the nobility in this region of the empire. I hope your sources cover that or have footnotes to works about that.

There is now further description of what the sources can describe for Christianization in the Hauran. There is less in my sources on the "cultural habits of the nobility in this region of the empire", but I do not believe that compromises the comprehensiveness of the article. Philip's "cultural position towards the Roman deities" is of very little importance. We are discussing Philip and Christianity; whether Philip preferred Jove to Selem or some Arabized Zeus is very nearly irrelevant, as far as I can see.

"Christianity during Philip's reign" is ill structured because you want to show that this time was different from the time before and presumably afterwards because the next ruler was no Christian. Now that we have worked out the scope of this chapter it's clear that you have to write a before, a during and an afterwards section and possible rename the whole thing.

"you want to show...": this is very much not what I want to show. I want to reflect the situation, which is that there is no major difference between Gordian and Philip, or between Philip and Severus Alexander. I have retitled the section "Christianity in the mid-third century", which better reflects the subject matter.

"Greek ecclesiatics and Philip's alleged Christianity" is a strike out of the blue. I have no idea why it suddenly appears and shoots timestamps at me at which minute Philip did what without giving me the year. As I pointed out above you are dealing with sources. Consider them poison because somebody can have made up all these stories just to make a point about Christianity. So in dealing with poison, you must first keep yourself safe. For this reason you have to discuss each source before citing it. That still doesn't solve the issue that this whole section comes out of the blue. You have to write a clever introduction that leads from the general circumstances to a discussion of the sources in detail and in this introduction you have to point out the purpose of this exercise. I have no idea what you want to show. While I generally recommend information in the internet, I feel a bit fooled if there's no obvious logic visible. This and that it's generally frowned upon citing large chunks of text convince me that this section could do well with a makeover.

I've now partially remade the introduction to the passage. (More substantial revision should follow.) It now begins with "The most significant author to discuss Philip the Arab and Christianity is Eusebius...", followed by a discussion of Eusebius' origins, work, and apologetic aims. I hope that addresses the lack of "obvious logic", the "strike out of the blue", and the need to "discuss each source before citing it". (I will do this for the other authors next.) I do not yet have anything substantial on Eusebius' historiographic weaknesses, but I should get to that soon. If you could tell me what content you'd like to see out of a source introduction like this, I could improve it further.

"Latin ecclesiastics and Philip's alleged Christianity" suddenly brings the message to me that the orthodox catholic faith was split. Well, that explains why you focused on Greeks first, but you have to structure this better. First you have to make an introduction that Christianity was split, when did it happen and what were the effects during Philips reign and what different traditions of perception rise from this fact. Afterwards you can present the differing POV.

Ah! Not quite! The split is merely for convenience, between the related groups of authors (Eusebius, Chrysostom, Leontius vs. Jerome, Origen, Vincent); it is not an attempt to represent a real split in the Church. There was no real institutional or doctrinal division between East and West (there were more intra-sectional and trans-sectional divisions (in the East: early Arianism, Nestorianism, Melitianism, &c.; in the West: Donatism, Pelagianism, &c.; in both East and West: later Arianism, Montanism, &c.) than inter-sectional divisions (can't think of any)). It is just meant to represent the divides in ancient literary culture and modern patristic study (since scholars tend to be more proficient or more specialized in one or the other language, and since ancient authors were usually much more proficient and specialized in their mother tongue). Can you suggest a better scheme of divisions, that wouldn't give you the impression that the Greek/Latin divide was important? Perhaps I could follow the three-part scheme of Shahid outlined in the lead (Eusebian, Antiochene, Latin)?

Get some reputable books on church history and find out what splits there were during these times and how scientists group them. I suggest not to rely to heavily on Shahid. His view on Septimus Severus at least doesn't present a communis opinio and so other works might also be original and not widely accepted. It's good thing for a scientist to have new ideas, but it's a bad thing for us because we always have to figure out what most other scientists think about it. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe your injunction against Shahid represents current thinking on his work. I do not yet have the material to address what might either be a controversial point on S. Severus' origins or simply a misapprehension on Shahid's part, but your suggestion "not to rely heavily on Shahid" because his opinions on S. Severus suggest that "other works might also be original and not widely accepted" is not the impression I have taken from reviews of his work. I will quote from Glen Bowersock's review in The Classical Review of the first two books.
With these two volumes Irfan Shahid has delivered to the public the principal results, for the fourth century, of long years of intense study of what he calls Byzantino-Arabica. [snip] Throughout S. shows himself a master of the literary sources that survive in abundance in Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Arabic. He has ranged more widely across the classical and oriental sources for Byzantium than anyone before him with the possible exception of Theodor Noldeke, to whose memory he has dedicated the second volume. [snip] The issues raised in the foregoing paragraphs constitute a modest selection from the rich and invigorating fare that S. has provided in these two impressive volumes. The parallel that the author himself draws with Tarn's Alexander the Great is entirely just. Not only in format are the works similar. They share a comparable crusading zeal for the importance of their subjects, and they join deep reading with unflagging industry in a search for confirmation of a grand vision that controls every page. [fin]
This is hardly the review one would expect a major scholar to give in a major publication if he had serious objections to Shahid's groundwork or understanding of history. I will quote another review, by C. Bosworth and from 2003, of Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century 2.1.
Byzantium and the Arabs has been, and continues to be, one of the great one-man ventures of contemporary Late Antiquity-Early Islamic Near Eastern scholarship, comparable in scope and scale with such works of a generation or so ago in other orientalist fields such as Goitein's A Mediterranean Society or Doerfer's Turkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen. [snip] The author is indeed fulfilling handsomely his claim to bring the Ghassanids and their Christian culture into the full light of Near Eastern history after the pioneering study made by Noldeke nearly 120 years ago, one which has never been more significantly followed up until now. [snip] The whole book makes stimulating reading, not least because of Shahid's philological expertise applied trenchantly to historical problems... [snip] The complete picture will emerge when we have BASIC 11.2 on the social, economic and cultural history of the Ghassanids and he proceeds to consideration of the vents in Oriens of the early seventh century; these volumes will be eagerly awaited. [fin]
I thus cannot abide by your suggestion "not to rely heavily on Shahid". Geuiwogbil (Talk) 11:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, I do accept and have read works of Church history for this period, but cannot think of any division that would meaningfully elucidate the differences between the sources discussed here. Would it be acceptable to you to remove these headings "Greek ecclesiastics..." and "Latin ecclesiastics..." and simply discuss these works author by author? (Including, of course, as you have recommended, an explanation of the origin, context, and purpose of the authors.) Either that, or could I, as I have suggested above, follow Shahid's distinctions, given that, as I have outlined above, Shahid is not producing fringe scholarship? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 11:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still have my doubts about Shahid, but I won't object against his use as a source. The "review" you presented is a bit short and thus not detailed. For proper reviews used by scientists visit www.hsozkult.de. It's in German, but it should give you an idea what a proper review looks like. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presented brief excerpts from fuller (seven- and four-page, respectively) reviews. Hence the "[snip]". It would not be compliant with WP:NFCC (or, really, any sensible copyright law) to post the full reviews here, but I can email them to you if you'd like. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 14:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you don't have email enabled. If you have JSTOR access (I no longer have it), you can get Bowersock's review here. I don't know where I got Bosworth's review from. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 14:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot read German, and thus cannot understand the sort of work that the website you've linked to provides. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 14:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just give me a link where in JSTOR these reviews are. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already linked Bowersock's review above. Bosworth's review, which is in the Journal of Semitic Studies, does not appear to be in JSTOR, but you can get it here (I think) if you have access to Oxford Journals. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this work about the 6th century Ghassanids a source for this article? Wandalstouring (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a source for this article, but a source for the reputation of Shahid as a scholar and representative of the historiographic mainstream (which you had challenged), and for the reputation of his multi-volume series, Byzantium and the Arabs, to which Rome and the Arabs serves as prolegomena. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secular history needs an introduction that generally outlines the scope of such works and in what parts of the society they were circulated. It would be nice if you could also show this for the ecclesiastic works. If you have defined the target audience you get a much better idea of intentions.
"Zosimus and the Secular Games" is quite well written. However, Shahîd doesn't seem to be most proficient in history. Septimius Severus was from an old noble Roman family living in Africa for generations(they can be traced back by inscriptions in Leptis Magna). He spoke Latin with an accent(compare this with the many variants of English even in one country) and was fluent in Greek and Punic, but that seems rather normal for Romans out of Africa who considered themselves Africans.
"Aurelius Victor" is a section that hardly makes sense. Expand it.

I'm closer to killing it than expanding it. It's more than likely just a misreading by Warwick Ball: no one else (as the article notes) discusses the passage; Ball only identifies and cites the passage, without explaining or justifying it; and Ball's citation is contained in an endnote rather than as a cohesive part of the argument. I'll eliminate the passage for now, with no prejudice against re-creating it if further comment on Aurelius Victor turns up in my research.

I have no idea why you have this strange split in the historiography section. The current discussion seems intense, but the arguments are not entirely new. I suggest to expand the section on Early Medieval perception and give it an own section. The next step is 1,000 years later when modern discussion starts and accelerates. You can partition that in as many chapters as you want as long as you present the reasons why someone thinks these are different animals.

I've killed the division. The former section was based on the discussions of past scholarship that were in Pohlsander and Shahid's pieces; the latter section was based on the discussions of current scholarship in those same pieces. The distinction isn't so fine to need the bold division, though.
There is no secondary commentary with which the "Early Medieval perception" might be expanded. Nor, giving the nature of the sources, should we expect it; these are, by-and-large, universal chronologies, with little more than brief notes on the dated events. The few unique facts (Bede specifically indicates that Philip did not sacrifice, and Landolfus Sagax believes that the Pope baptized Philip) are already noted.

The article currently doesn't qualify for GA. There are some serious content issues as I tried to point out. However, you've invested lots of work into the article and I think you can solve them. Still, the best approach would be if you could invite at least another interested editor to assist you in the process. I would suggest somebody who works in the field of religion. When you have worked on the content we can arrange for an copyeditor to help you with the style. I hope that helps and take your time, Rome wasn't built in one day. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Wandalstouring. I will follow your advice and take my time in addressing them; you have given me much to chew on, which I did not consider when writing the article. I will take them on piece by piece, if that's all right with you, and lodge replies beneath your points as I come to them. Thanks again! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, could I move your comments and my responses to Talk:Philip the Arab and Christianity? It seems more appropriate to leave the record there, and it would make it so that I don't get a ping every time something changes. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 09:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead

I have to agree that the lead is a bit difficult to digest (and lengthy). Here are a few suggestions I have for improving it.

"...encouraging late antique and medieval scholars to relate the datum as fact." I would either cut this part altogether or reword it.
"These parallelisms have been used to locate Eusebius' scene in Antioch." This should be rewritten, perhaps something like "These parallels suggest that Eusebius' scene took place in Antioch as well."
"Something of Eusebius' account of Philip in his Chronicon (the relevant parts of which survive only in Jerome's revision) and Origen's letters (which only survive as brief notices in Eusebius' Historia) may be reconstructed through conjecture." This sentence is too detailed for the lead. Perhaps you could remove the parenthetical clauses.
"Although Byzantinist and Arabist Irfan Shahîd argues...". I'm afraid I don't understand the "Byzantinist" and "Arabist" labels here. Are they necessary or can they be removed for the sake of brevity?

Kaldari (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus has already cut the first "...datum as fact" bit. Thanks, Malleus!
Given that the very event is contested, I didn't want to push the line too far into presumed fact. "as well" suggests that Chrysostom and Eusebius are referring to separate events, whereas Shahid and Pohlsander (from opposite sides of the debate) hold that they are either separate attestations of the same event (Shahid), or progressive accretions to the same legend (Pohlsander). Here is what I have written: "Given the parallels between the accounts, most scholars believe that Eusebius, Chrysostom, and Leontius are referring to the same event (or legend)."
I have removed the parenthetical clauses. Is this enough? I can still remove the sentence if you think it warranted.
I have replaced "Byzantinist and Arabist" with "scholar". We seem to be in the habit of qualifying everyone by their profession (Awadewit, I recall, began the trend). I didn't think "scholar" alone would much help the reader to understand Shahid's standpoint, so I qualified it a bit more with his regional and cultural specializations. They are a bit far removed from the sort of old-fashioned prosopographic, philological, epigraphic, religious or patristic specializations one might expect from a scholar weighing in on these matters, and (I had hoped) it outlines Shahid's major concerns: Looking forward to the emergent (Christian and Islamic) Arab and Byzantine worlds rather than backwards to the (pagan or Jewish) Principate and early Semitic cultures. Had the scholar in question been a "Semitic philologist" or a "scholar of religion", we might expect him to take the stance opposite to Shahid; had the scholar in question been a "French archaeologist" or a "Syriac Orthodox church historian", we might expect him to agree with Shahid. It seems it didn't help much, though, so I've gone back to "scholar".

Thank you for the helpful comments, Kaldari. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian influence

The crux to this article is defining what a Christian is. Was Constanine an actual Christian? There is evidence that he retained pagan rituals while Emperor, that he wore Purple and even murdered his own son out of jealousy. Were Justintian and Theodora Christian emperor and empress during their reign in the Eastern Roman Empire, Byzantine. There is evidence that they murdered and persecuted pagans, not to mention bribing Barbarians with gold to curb invasions. Theodora was also a sex addict. These persons adopted Christianity as a religion for political purposes, however, were they actually practicing Christians. The same can be asked about Philip being the first Christian Emperor. Were his actions as Emperor Christian in terms of loving neighbors and enemies as himself? Did he murder or bribe anyone? Was he sexually promiscuous? Did he confess Christ as his Savior in public? These are questions that should be answered in the Article.

I would recommend defining what a Christian is and then finding out if Philip fit into this definition. The title needs to be changed, Philip the Arab and Christian Influences. It is obvious that he was influenced by Christianity. This could bypass the whole argument and proofs that Philip was indeed a Christian. It is obvious that Christianity was growing and influencing all of Roman society, even Emperors. Instead of supposing that Philip was the first Christian Emperor, it can be argued that Christianity was breaking through all of the Roman world. Philip, in a sense, demonstrated the high water mark of Paganism in the Roman World. Emperors after Philip were defending paganism, fighting the inevitable tide of Christianity adopted as the central faith. Constantine was the official break of paganism in the Ancient world. The Christian influence on Philip is evidence how much Christianity had already taken over the Roman world. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

These considerations are beyond the concern of modern scholarship. The preconceptions that enter into any discussion of "actual Christian[ity]" should not detain us here. A Christian is anyone who calls himself Christian. At the period in question, the basic requirements were a confession that Jesus of Nazareth was Christ, the Messiah, and God, that he was crucified, died, and was resurrected, and will come to judge the living and dead at the end of times. This is the basic doctrine we give the name "Christianity". Our concern, as historians of Church and historians of State, is to ask: Did Philip believe himself a Christian? and Did Philip believe Jesus was Christ was God? In our period, a "Christian" does not need to subscribe to any specific canon of scripture, nor to any specific ethical code. It is not our place to put our own ethical or doctrinal tenets at the crux of our discussion, as you seem to suggest. We follow the literature on our subjects, and the literature discusses, first, concrete acts and beliefs; second, the opinion and judgment of his contemporaries; third, the impact of his acts and beliefs on his environment; and fourth, what a select group of persons and institutions believed of him in the ages after his death.

In any case, the material for a discussion of Philip's ethical conduct is lacking. "Did he murder or bribe anyone?" is a question with an obscure answer (and I do not believe that Christians of our period would have thought bribery a sin). His enemies accused him of murdering his predecessor, Gordian (this, some presume, is the sin he is confessing to Babylas), but Persian tradition holds that Gordian died in battle. I believe that this position is favored in modern histories. Nothing is known of his sex life. Whether or not he confessed Christ as Savior in public is also unknown. But these are, as I said, not "questions that should be answered in the Article".

The title should not be changed. "Philip the Arab and Christian Influences" conveys nothing more than "Philip the Arab and Christianity", and it is less parsimonious. Your interpretations—that "[i]t is obvious that [Philip] was influenced by Christianity"; "that Christianity was growing and influencing all of Roman society, even Emperors"; "that Christianity was breaking through all of the Roman world"; that "Philip, in a sense, demonstrated the high water mark of Paganism in the Roman World"; that there was any such thing as an "inevitable tide of Christianity"—will not be accepted by very many historians of the period. If they are material for an argument, it is an argument that must be made outside of Wikipedia.

Regards, Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was only giving my opinion on the Article, however, I respect all your many valid arguements. You did mention the cornerstones of Christianity, "Jesus of Nazareth was Christ, the Messiah, and God, that he was crucified, died, and was resurrected, and will come to judge the living and dead at the end of times." These were known to Christians during this period. If there was any evidence that he followed these beliefs then you could claim him as the first Christian Emperor. Even if Philip did murder a previous Emperor, it still remains possible for conversion to Christianity. The Romans never really had their own religion, mostly being borrowed from Greek influences. The Romans had a state religion and all those were citizens had to abide by sacrificing to the Roman Gods. The first Christians were considered a Jewish sect, then gradually became a religion that competed with the Roman state religion. Diocletian response was persecution of Christians on February 23 AD 303, because they were begining to hold higher offices in the Roman State. From 260 onwards, prior to the Diocletian purge, Christians enjoyed widespread toleration. [[1]|Roman Religion] Philips acceptance of the Christian faith (if he did accept the Christian faith) might show that Christianity was tolerated in the Roman Empire as early as 244 B.C. when he became Emperor.{Cmguy777 (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

"as early as 244 BC". And even earlier! I mean, the Word has persisted from the beginning of time (John 1:1) and the religion of the Patriarchs was true Christianity (Eusebius, HE 1.3–4). (Just joshing. ;)) I can accept almost everything you say here. "These were known to Christians during this period." In the course of my reading, I am often pointed to a book by J. N. D. Kelly's Early Christian Creeds; it might be of use in setting down the basic doctrine Christians subscribed to in this period. I would dispute "The Romans never really had their own religion...". This is something everyone used to believe, but scholars of religion have not taken it seriously in a long time. The recent textbook by Mary Beard et al., Religions of Rome, should provide a more substantial account of the thing. The whole mid bit of your response—"The Romans had a state religion..." through "...Christians enjoyed widespread toleration"—is all true; I accept it, the scholars accept it, etc.

On your key point—"if there was any evidence he followed these beliefs..."—the literature has not found consensus. This article presents the evidence and attempts to parse it. It largely consists of notices from Patristic authors of the period and those following it (who, it should be said, had quite firm notions of correct doctrine and practice, and, if they applied their critical faculties aright, should have been able to say who is and is not Christian). Eusebius, Chrysostom, and Leontius say that he confessed and participated in the service (and presumably received the Eucharist). Some (Shahid) argue that, if true, these evidences indicate someone who has fully taken on Christian doctrine; the pagan crowd does not enter into foreign cults lightly, and would not have confessed and participated in Christian service. Jerome and Orosius say that Philip was a Christian. If they have no evidence independent of the first set of authors, that means that they read accounts of Philip's confession as prima facie evidence that he was, in fact, a Christian. Some moderns dispute this interpretation, as I have outlined in the text. Bowersock and Gwatkin, for instance, seem to believe that the account of his confession is near to true, but is not certain evidence for his Christianity. And even those who deny any truth to the event accept your last point, that "Philip's acceptance of the Christian faith...might show that Christianity was tolerated in the Roman Empire". Lane Fox, Chadwick, and Frend take this line. In their account, it was the persecution of Decius (249–51?) that gave occasion to the rumor that Philip was Christian. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found some interesting information on Roman paganism and on Philip's successor, Decius. According to Eusebius, Decius hated Philip and began a purge on the Churches. "Philip, after a reign of 7 [5] years, was succeeded by Decius. Through hatred of Philip he started a persecution against the churches, in which Fabian found fulfillment in martyrdom at Rome, where Cornelius succeeded him as bishop." This is evidence that Philip was indeed a Christian, since Decius's hatred was vented on Philip's association with the churches. As far as Roman paganism goes, it appears that the Romans did have their own faith, in a sense. It appears to have been a mixture of naturalism and polytheism. Under the persecution of Valerian, according to Eusebius, governor Aemilian, a Roman pagan, interviews Dionysius and others. The interview gives insight as to what the Roman state religion entailed. The whole conflict had to do with worshipping the natural gods versus worshipping the one true God presented by the Christians. The Romans viewed the Christian God as being unnatural. Their arguments have been recorded.

Aemilian:"...our masters...have given you a chance to go free...if you are prepared to turn to what is natural and worship the gods who preserve their throne, and to forget those who are unnatural."

Dionysius:"Not all men worship all gods; each worships some- those he believes in. We believe in the one God and Creator of all things, who entrusted the throne to his most beloved emperors, Valerian and Gallienus. Him we worship and adore, and to him we continually pray that their throne may remain unshaken."

Aemilian:"Who prevents you from worshiping him too, if he is a god, as well as the natural gods? You are ordered to worship gods, and gods known to all."

It is clear that the Roman authority state religion had to do with natural polytheism that forbade the worship of just one God. The Romans were tolerant of Christians as long as they worshipped the natural gods in addition to the Christian God. The Romans also had some doubt, according to Aemilian, that the Christian god was an actual god. There was a distinction between natural and unnatural gods. It is unclear what unnatural means. My view is that the term natural for the Romans goes back to Lucretius, "On the Nature of things". In addition to adopting the polytheism of the Greeks, the Romans adopted Lucretius's naturalism, derived from Epicurus's material philosophy. Lucretius wrote, "Nothing comes from nothing.", "that nature resolves each to its objects atoms.", and "matter is indestructible". It appears that Roman state religion incorporated Epicurean natural philosophy and polytheism.

{Cmguy777 (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Your example is briefly noted in the article: "At 6.39, Eusebius explains Decius' persecution as the result of that emperor's enmity toward Philip." On second glance, that sentence looked infelicitous, so I rewrote it. Now it is: "At 6.39, Eusebius writes that Decius persecuted Christians because he hated Philip." Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of your account is also true, and, yes, wherever Christians made sacrifice to the gods or to the state cult, they were free from harm. Many Christians found this, if reprehensible, a merely venial sin, whose ill effects might be alleviated through due penance. The Canons of St. Peter of Alexandria, written in the midst of the Great Persecution, treat of the matter. I quote from Theodore Balsamon's commentary (c. 12th cent.) first, because it is clearer to me.

The present canons treat of those who have in the persecution denied the faith, and are doing penance. And the first canon ordains, that upon those who after many torments have sacrificed to the gods, not being able by reason of frailty to persevere, and who have passed three years in penitence, other forty days should be enjoined, and that then they should be admitted into the Church. Observe these present canons which lay down various and useful rules in favour of those who have denied their God, and seek for repentance, and concerning those who have of their own accord sought martyrdom, and have lapsed, and then have again confessed the faith, and other things of the like nature.

The text of the canon itself reads:

But since the fourth passover of the persecution has arrived, it is sufficient, in the case of those who have been apprehended and thrown into prison, and who have sustained torments not to be borne, and stripes intolerable, and many other dreadful afflictions, and afterwards have been betrayed by the frailty of the flesh, even though they were not at the first received On account of their grievous fall that followed yet because they contended sorely and resisted long; for they did not come to this of their ownwill, but were betrayed by the frailty of the flesh for they show in their bodies the marks of Jesus, and some are now, for the third year, bewailing their fault: it is sufficient, I say, that from the time of their submissive approach, other forty days should be enjoined upon them, to keep them in remembrance of these things; those forty days during which, though our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had fasted, He was yet, after He had been baptized, tempted of the devil. And when they shall have, during these days, exercised themselves much, and constantly fasted, then let them watch in prayer, meditating upon what was spoken by the Lord to him who tempted Him to fall down and worship him: "Get behind me, Satan; for it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve." Matthew 4:10

– Peter of Alexandria, Canon 1, tr. James B. H. Hawkins at New Advent

The word "unnatural" is indeed curious, but I am out of my depth here. I had the distinct impression, however, that Epicureanism was only ever popular with a thin minority of the Roman classes, and that it had not survived the several turnovers of the Roman ruling class that had happened between the era of Lucretius and the era of Valerian. Stoicism, too, I have been told, was put under by an ever-rising current of Middle and Late Platonism. But, of course, Platonists had odd notions about the "natural". I am not sure we can get a finer sense of the philosophical meaning of the word without better grounding in Greek. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned Epicurean philosophy because the Romans loved entertainment and sports. There were the violent gladiator shows and circuses with their party factions, not to mention the pleasure palaces of Nero and Caligula. The Christian world view was temperance and modesty. This would result in some sort of clash between pagan and Christian values. Harold Mattingly wrote concerning private and social life that "It [The Roman Empire] honored the past, it safegaurded the present. Of the future it was incurious." The Christian world view was concerned about judgement, rapture, and Christ returning to earth. It is possible this is what was meant by "unatural". The Romans had to renounce their gods and serve only one God, the creator of all. The Pagan mind could not comprehend this or chose not to accept the Christian faith, since it would disrupt all of the past the Romans held sacred. {66.81.218.121 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Ah!? "Of the future it was incurious." This would have surprised Artemidorus (whose Oneirocritica was only concerned with predictive dreams, those which heralded success, failure, &c., never those which revealed secret desires or sublimated states (or any other such psychoanalytic tomfoolery)), the augurs, and oracles of this and all periods. What use was astrology to a man except to discover his destiny? Unless by "It [the Roman Empire]" we mean the State alone, and not its citizens. In that case, yes, the State is shortsighted, full of ambitious men but very few with any grand designs for the State itself. (Most States are.) The Roman Empire didn't have any "progressives", none who sought "reform" of the State to achieve some earthly Utopia. But as to the contrast with "judgment, rapture, and Christ returning to earth", yes, the Romans didn't have any notion of "end times" (I think). So yes, this yearning for a totally new order of affairs, a cosmic revolution, would have struck pagan Rome as odd; the Roman Empire had neither pre- nor post-millenials. As to "the pleasure palaces of Nero and Caligula", these were moralized against by pagan as much as Christian Romans. When Suetonius writes something like "Although at first his acts of wantonness, lust, extravagance, avarice and cruelty were gradual and secret, and might be condoned as follies of youth, yet even then their nature was such that no one doubted that they were defects of his character and not due to his time of life" (Nero 26.1), he displays as much contempt for the man as a good Christian might. Temperance was a pagan virtue too (cf. Aristotle), as was abstention from bodily pleasures (cf. the Cynics), and modesty (cf. the Stoics). So, as some dude once wrote, there was nothing new in Christianity except Christ (cf. "nothing new under the sun" Ecclesiastes 1:9). It was a new selection and recombination of different Jewish and pagan motifs, as boiled in the cauldron of pre-Nicene sectarianism, spread and reformed across the Mediterranean oikoumene, with a dash of odd habits (the Eucharist), beliefs (the Resurrection and the End Times), and themes (the Lamb of God, the Shepherd, the Holy Spirit, the Word Made Flesh) picked up through scriptural exegesis. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 08:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment. I believe the importance of this article is tremendous, in terms of shifting the potential conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity towards Philip. I use the term shifting for lack of a better word. Philip's conversion may have paved the way for Constantine. To me, a plausable arguement would be, Philip was a Christian, but did not attempt to make it a "state" religion, as opposed to Constantine. Philip's assasination should be developed, possibly had he lived longer Rome would have verged to a Christian state before Constantine. I believe there are many unanswered questions since Philip's reign was only five years. {Cmguy777 (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Final review

The issues from the second opinion have been fixed.

The lead is now clearer but is written like original research and is too long. This length issue is the result of the integration of lots of non-essential material.

The sole bit of the lede that you've tagged as OR has been removed. If there is anything else that is OR (and even the bit that you tagged, while misphrased, is not strictly OR), please do say.
Here is the entirety of WP:LEDE's guideline on length:

The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful:

< 15,000 characters around 32 kilobytes > 30,000 characters

one or two paragraphs two or three paragraphs three or four paragraphs
Lead sections that reflect or expand on sections in other articles are discussed at Summary style. Journalistic conventions for lead sections are discussed at News style.

This article has 53kb of readable prose. It has four lede paragraphs, of standard paragraph length. The lede is, therefore, entirely guideline-compliant. I can see no "non-essential material".

The lede goes into lots of non-essential details. Cut these sections and turn them into summaries, not theses.

Examples:

Although scholar Irfan Shahîd argues that these three traditions are largely independent of each other, most other scholars hold that all accounts derive from Eusebius' Historia.
The most important section of Eusebius' Historia on Philip's religious beliefs describes the emperor's visit to a church on Easter Eve when he was denied entry by the presiding bishop (who is not named) until he confessed his sins. The account parallels Chrysostom's homily, which celebrates Saint Babylas, Bishop of Antioch, for denying a sinful emperor entry to his church; and quotations of Leontius in the Chronicon Paschale which describe Philip seeking penitence from Babylas for the sin of murdering his predecessor. Given the parallels between the accounts, most scholars believe that Eusebius, Chrysostom, and Leontius are referring to the same event (or legend). Shahîd, among others, dates Philip's visit and confession to spring 244. Following the standard chronology of the emperor's itinerary, this places Philip in Antioch, on his way to Italy from the Eastern frontier
Some, like Hans Pohlsander and Ernst Stein, argue that the ecclesiastic narratives are ambiguous, based on oral rumor, and do not vouch for a Christian Philip; others, like John York, Shahîd, and Warwick Ball, argue that the ecclesiastic narratives are clear enough and dependable enough that Philip can be described as a Christian; still others, like Glen Bowersock, argue that the sources are strong enough to describe Philip as a man interested in and sympathetic to Christianity, but not strong enough to call him a Christian.

These details are necessary for a full summary of the contents of the article. None of these are non-essential. The first point, on the relation between the sources, is a subject that is developed throughout the article. The second point is developed through 4.1.1, which is, I believe, the second- or third- largest third-order section in the whole article. It deserves this full summary because it remains true that, as I have written in the opening to 4.1.1, "Most arguments regarding Philip's Christianity hinge on Eusebius' account of the emperor's visit to a church at 6.34." The third point is a summary of the current state of expert opinion. This sentence, with the second sentence of the opening lede paragraph, comprises a summary of 7, the single largest continuous section in the article. The lede would be incomplete as a summary of the article if these were not included.

He was born in the Roman empire, not the Arabian areas beyond. It's an empire with a mix of cultures. Please source that the place he was born was exclusively Arab(no Greeks, no Jews, no Romans).

There is no need to source this because it is nowhere stated.

You stated in the Arab world but you don't discuss the Arab world in this section. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly discuss Osroene, which was an Arab client state but not part of the Provincia Arabia.

You seem to misunderstand what you are writing here. There can be no "conclusion" in an encyclopedic article. Please, if you really try to write a paper send it to a university or an academic magazine. Wikipedia is no place to publish your original research.

I did not add that section title. Cmguy did. I saw no pressing reason to retitle the section then, but, since you object, I have removed it. I find the sentiments, beliefs, and suggestions expressed in your first, third, and last sentences frivolous, cruel, and unwarranted. I will say nothing further in this matter. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more will followWandalstouring (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion

Wandalstouring has requested that I look at this article in order to give a second opinion on possible GA status. In my opinion, the article is not currently at GA status, although it can of course be improved. Here are some specific concerns (and please note that I am by no means an expert in this content area):

The article is not readily accessible to the vast majority of readers. There is some jargon, but the main problem is a lack of clarity and fluency in the prose which makes comprehension difficult, especially for non-experts.

It would also be helpful for more of the potentially unfamiliar terms to be wikilinked to relevant articles, or to be briefly explained where necessary

I was under the impression that I had already done this. Can you list the terms that you find "potentially unfamiliar"?

From "Christianity, the Arab world, and Philip's youth": synodal, Madaba, Abgarid/Abgar, Edessa, "Arab zone" (potentially), Incarnation, client-state, Hauran, any of the author names, Gordian III, historical events like the "failed Persian expedition". These are examples, and I could continue pulling out terms from the rest of the article if necessary. While you may be familiar with these terms, a lay reader likely would not have the kind of background understanding of the topic required to accept them without explanation.

I've linked and clarified all of these examples. I'll go across the article now and see what else needs doing.
I think I've got just about everything. Tell me what else I'm missing.

That's much better. I would also suggest linking Numerian, Canossa (and/or Investiture Controversy), Fabius, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Saracen, and Licinius.

Also done. Fabius of Antioch does not have an article at present.

"a lack of clarity and fluency in the prose". This article has already been copyedited by Malleus Fatuorum. Can you list examples of this "lack of clarity and fluency"?

Copy-editing is not the problem; I find almost no grammatical errors, and the prose is technically correct. However, it should be accessible for more readers, and that requires cleaner and clearer writing. My usual suggestion for these types of problems are to read the article out loud, or better yet, find a non-expert or less educated person to read it out loud, and consider editing anything that causes either reader to stumble, as well as anything that confuses the non-expert reader. Two examples of potentially problematic passages:

"If a fragmentary inscription (Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae 1331) refers to Priscus, he would have moved through several equestrian offices during Gordian's reign." Average readers would likely interpret "equestrian" as referring to horses, which is obviously not the intended meaning; that term should be linked. Also, IMO the chronology/sequencing is unclear, especially without more context as to what inscription in ILS is being referred to or why scholars believe that it possibly refers to Priscus, or even why that inscription implies what it does (I assume it's attributed to someone of a particular office?)

I've clarified the meaning of "equestrian" here. As to the rest, ah! This page is already getting pretty long, and I'm not sure if this is a point of evidence that deserves extensive elaboration. Nor is it a point that has seen elaboration in the sources I've consulted. The inscription itself is now linked in the footnote (you can see it here. As you can see, yes, the inscription details the career of some dude. Unfortunately, as you can check against the photograph associated with the inscription, that dude's name should be right at the top of the stone, and the top is missing. So we got some dude who is praef. pra... something (praetorian prefect), and praef. mesop...something (prefect of Mesopotamia), etc., but we do not know quite who this dude is. The entry offers something of a reconstruction, based, I suppose, on the bottoms of the letter-marks which remain at the top. Their reconstruction: Ae[l]io Fir[mo? 3]. If the reconstruction correct, this is not our guy. But, hey, the dudes at DIR think that the inscription might well refer to our guy. So, uh. No consensus. Could those seeking further clarification pursue the matter themselves? This is all autopsy, and I'm not a qualified epigraphist/Latinist/what-have-you.

"If Philip had been a Christian at this period, he would have not been a particularly unusual part of the Roman army—though it did contravene the prohibitions of certain ecclesiastical writers" - unclear what "it" refers to

I've cleaned this bit up.

Section titles are rather unwieldy, inconsistent with MOS, and contain problematic words like "alleged", which should rarely occur anywhere in an article

I do not understand your application of the term "unwieldy" here, nor the objects its covers. Your phrasing—"Section titles are..."—suggests that you have concerns with section titles in all cases, but this cannot stand; Wikipedia uses section titles as a basic organizational tool. I cannot remove them entirely. Please clarify yourself.

I apologize, that was unclear. What I meant was that some of the section titles here are quite long and "wordy", for lack of a better term. Section titles should be descriptive, but need not be so verbose. For example, "Eusebius, Constantine, and the history of Christianity" could become "Eusebius and Constantine".

Ah, okay. I feel like we might be compromising the clarity of the exposition a bit—it's not just Constantine we're talking about—but I get the point. That particular section title has already become "Views on Constantine", as per the MOS rules in re subheadings.

"inconsistent with MOS". Where, and under what rationale?

Per MOS:HEAD, "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer". While this is unavoidable in some cases, the two Eusebius subheadings could be revised to omit his name. Also, "The Vita Constantini" should be simply "Vita Constantini", as "The" is not part of the proper name and thus should be omitted.

Vita Constantini corrected. "Eusebius and"s corrected.

"alleged" is unavoidable here. Either I remove the entire tail-end of the section heads, leaving the headings as "Zosimus" or "Eusebius", which would make the subject unclear, or they must remain. To do otherwise would conflict with NPOV. If you can suggest a set of titles not unduly prejudicial towards the evidence, I will give them consideration. "Philip's Christianity" sets a target that the evidence cannot meet and that the sources cannot support; "Philip's alleged Christianity" has no such problems.

You could use something like "Greek ecclesiastical opinion", or "Philip's possible Christianity", or "Greek ecclesiastical discussion" or "writing" (although that might be less clear).

Cool. I've put it as "In Greek ecclesiastical writing", etc.

There are inconsistencies in the use of American versus British English

Where?

Depends on which variation you want. For example, "programme" is British, "skeptical" and "honor" are American

I'll just go with American, then. (I don't think there's any particular reason to favor Commonwealth usage here.) I've replaced "programme" with "policy". Any others?

No, the other instances I saw turned out to be in quotes. That's fine now.

Some sections do not adhere to NPOV. For example: "Unfortunately, Dexippus was as incompetent a historian as Zosimus." I don't know whether he was incompetent, but a) unfortunately=editorializing, and b) state that it's an opinion of someone, or even a widely held opinion, but don't state it as fact.

I have removed the offending words; "unfortunately" is now "however", and "incompetent" is now "poor". We are capable of presenting unchallenged and universal opinions without tags; this is a corollary of NPOV. To quote the policy, "By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."" Should you present evidence that Dexippus is not believed by all subject-matter experts to be a "poor" or "incompetent" historian, this sentence would need to be modified. As it is, it is unchallenged, and therefore, a fact.

For this specific example: "unfortunately" and "incompetent" are subjective, and the "unfortunately" part in particular cannot be considered a fact (whether the "incompetent" part is true or not - as I said, I don't know that). Speaking more generally: words like these introduce editorialization and bias, are representative of opinion, and should be revised.

Alright, understood. I apologize having used "unfortunately". Are there any remaining POV troubles?

"It was rumored that Philip had murdered him" - rumored by and according to who?

Identified.

"The position of an emperor, however, was even more explicitly pagan" - overemphasized, would suggest "The position of an emperor was more explicitly pagan"

Done.

"But, whatever the prohibitions, persons raised on the "more tolerant Christianity of the camp" would have been able to justify the acts to themselves" - suggest removing "but" in favour of another term

Uh, what, why? Is this an NPOV thing? Standard English usage has no problem with "but"s at the beginning of sentences. Are you inheriting some foolish prejudice from turn-of-the-century "usage experts"?

Generally speaking, I have no problem with the use of the word "but" as the beginning of sentences; however, in this case I feel the text would be better served by a different word, or even by simply beginning the sentence with "Whatever the prohibitions..."

Alright. I've taken your second suggestion, and removed the "But" entirely.

"Under Philip's successor Decius (r. 249–51), however, the first uncontested general persecution against the Church was called" - you mean that this is accepted as historical fact? The use of the word "uncontested" in this context that no one at the time argued against persecuting Christians, which is probably not true

Clarified

"Decius, having usurped the title of emperor, killed Philip, was anxious to secure himself in the imperial office" - what source says he was "anxious"? Emotions are quite difficult to prove, especially in the absence of a primary source. Also, this sentence has grammatical problems.

We are not concerned with "Decius the man"; we are concerned with "Decius the embodiment of imperial office". The latter figure was anxious, as are all office-holders in analogous positions. This is a function of their behaving as rational agents, and it is proven by his actions. At least, that is the implicit case behind the presentation of such figures as "anxious". This is how Lane Fox presents Decius' actions. I have fixed what I think you'd see as the "grammatical problems" by removing the opening clauses.

"Decius issued an edict demanding that all Romans, throughout the empire, make a show of sacrifice to the gods" - "requiring" should substitute for "demanding", and "make a show of sacrifice" is rather ambiguously worded; what exactly is meant by that phrase? Were they to sacrifice, were they to at least pretend to sacrifice, or were they to sacrifice at some public ceremony?

"requiring" would give the text an improper sense. This is not a modern civil-service state, where clerks "require" you to fill in this or that form to complete your tax work or to receive welfare and health services; this is a pre-modern authoritarian state, where armed agents demand that you comply. Where you do not comply, you face coercion and imprisonment. And this does not proceed at a leisurely pace, with room for arraignment, bail, and a succession of appeals (at least, not for religious dissidents, and not for the lower castes); it happened near-instantaneously. At least, it happened near-instantaneously once the official with the judicial authority was met. (As we might remember from the Gospels, only provincial governors/prefects had the right to execute criminals.) As the more reliable transcripts of court proceedings in hagiographic literature demonstrate, once before a judge, these affairs proceeded at the pace of a modern traffic court. "Are you a Christian? Where do you come from? Are you certain that you do not want to make good? Alright, then, execution."
I disagree that "make a show of sacrifice" is ambiguously worded. It covers all three cases you've listed; it means they must demonstrate ("make a show of") that they have sacrificed, either through documentary attestation (the libelli), in the presence of a public notary, judge, or qualified official, or through a grand public sacrifice (the latter were Decius' main aim, as I understand it; the former two were just exceptions for those too busy, like early voting).

Okay. While I'm not confident in that wording, your explanation makes sense, so I'll leave it as is.

"The pogroms against the Christians in Alexandria (attested at Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 6.41.1–9) also took place while Philip was still emperor, and there is no evidence that Philip punished the perpetrators.[31] (There is also no evidence that Philip participated in or assisted the pogrom.[32])" - would suggest removing the parentheses or merging the final phrase as "there is no evidence that Philip either assisted or punished the perpetrators of the pogrom"

Done.

"If the Christians were believed to be Philip's friends, however, it helps to explain the otherwise strange circumstances of Decius' edict on universal sacrifice" - unclear and slightly weaselly as worded

I think I've clarified this now.

These are examples of remaining passages that are not strictly neutral in tone or are ambiguous in meaning.

If I were the sole reviewer on this article, I would place the article on hold based on these concerns, leaning towards fail. I'll leave the final decision here to the primary reviewers. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Nikki. I have addressed the sole clear and precise objection, requested clarification on a number of others, and disputed the validity of some few. Regards, Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarifications, Nikki. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

The article has merit on Philip being a Christian. This gives added value to the Article. The introduction could be rewritten with clarity. I do not object to having Greek and Latin in the article. It adds to the intellectual value. I would personally put these in its own area. I consider myself and average reader and I respect the intelligence of those people who are on Wikipedia. I recommend a rewrite. The article tends to go in another direction or argument about historical accuracy and literal interpretations for Greek and Latin text and how the ancient historians disagreed over Philip. I would rewrite this article with the focus on Philip being a Christian, avoiding the other issues. I would also try to find other modern historians to find out what their opinions are on Philip. {Cmguy777 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Online resource: [2]Pagan and Christian Rome Rodolfo Lanciani, 1892.

I may be the only one who recommends this as a good article. It does have relevance and interest today. It really reveals that it is not so cut and dry that Constantine was the first Christian Emperor. There is much research and accuracy in the article. It is highly important historically. This article allows discussion and openess and lets the reader decide if Philip was actually a Christian Emperor. {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

With due respect to all parties involved, I have a B.A. degree in History. There is nothing in this article that warrants such scrutiny and/or critisism. It is not up to one person to decide whether the sources are valid. It is up to the reader. This is thourogh research and should be acknowledged. If concensus had to be reached by all historians, then no history book would ever have been written. The Article does not take any viewpoint, but rather expresses the viewpoints from other historians. I reccommend a GA for this article. {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

This article should either be passed as GA or quick failed. I am not sure what is taking so long with this decision. It is good as it is however, could be reorganized and trimmed down. {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Opening paragraph

I changed the opening paragraph to be more encyclopedic. {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Thank you for your efforts, Cmguy, but I must object to your proposed opening. First: articles should stay on topic. Your proposed opening paragraph introduces a host of evidences quite distant from Philip the Arab and Christianity, from the Apostolic times and the first century; moreover, this is not the context that scholarly discussion of the era details. Second: ledes should not introduce matters not present in the text. Third: the tabling of arguments for and against (because this matter is not uncontroversial) early adoption of Christianity in Rome is not appropriate here. The evidence adduced, moreover, is quite weak. Tiberius made no such petition (Tertullian was indulging a fantasy "not worthy of belief") and Paul's letters to Seneca are inept forgeries. (Or so I am told.) The presence of Christians in the imperial household, however, might warrant development in the text, as it offers near (rather than far) context. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 02:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree about Tertullian as fantasy. Tiberius, among his many crimes, never persecuted Christians during his reign. James Ussher[3] and Rodolfo Lancianiis [4]are reliable historians who hold this position. I would respectfully argue that the early "acceptance", not "adoption", is valid since it sets precedence for other Emperors during the Roman Empire. The Seneca relationship with the Apostle Paul is debatable [5][6], however, I would not dismiss it outright. Nero allowed Paul a trial and correspondence with Rome, even though he was imprisoned with priviledges. That, in my opinion is not debatable. As far as Encyclopedic, I believe it is best to put Philip the Arab and Christianity in bold rather then links or plain print. This incorporates the title and the article. You can do what you want, I was just trying to get your article passed.{Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

GAN Review

Several second opinions have been given. Might I suggest that the review be now concluded? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no objection, I will as a disinterested party go ahead and fail this article for now based on the feedback given above. It seems clear that the article has a lot of good content and good writing but it has not yet reached consensus level.

Anybody disagree? --Mcorazao (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would politely demur, Mcorazao. I have addressed all issues that have been brought to light. If Wandalstouring has continuing objections, he needs to state them. As it stands, concluding the review as a "fail" would be baseless. G.W. (Talk) 23:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I don't know where Wandalstouring stands at this point but it appears to me that s/he has checked out from this discussion. GANs cannot be left open indefinitely. I honestly don't have an opinion as to whether the article deserves to be passed because I haven't reviewed it. But obviously multiple people have reviewed and as yet nobody has expressed confidence that it meets the standards.

Anyway, it is not my place to override your objections without reviewing and I don't think adding another reviewer to the process would be constructive at this point. Good luck.

--Mcorazao (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In re: "nobody has expressed confidence that it meets the standards", I must wholly disagree. Cmguy expresses this confidence. All of Nikkimaria's concerns were addressed (I am not sure whether this amounts to a full support). Outside of this forum, Malleus Fatuorum has expressed his confidence, and Ealdgyth has stated that she found nothing "wrong" with the historiography of the article, but was too busy to make a more complete review (she referred me to Malleus). Thank you for dropping in, though! G.W. (Talk) 04:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have one of the commenters then (nikkimaria or whoever) close the GAN then or do a final run-through? This has been open long enough and has gotten far more comments than most GANs, and peer reviews for that matter. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing review

Following some discussion at WT:GAN#Philip the Arab and Christianity and much comment here I shall review this article with a view to closing.

The article is far too long and unfocussed, rambling over many events in preceding and succeeding periods which add little to understanding of the subject matter. Whole sections are about other emperors and time periods.
The article appears to merely rehash some very slender and apparently disputed commentary and reviews of books of commentary on some slender original sources. The title could just as well be Some speculations on the relationship between Philip the Arab and Christianity.
The writing is not clear. The grammar is fine, but the prose is convoluted and does not flow easily. It is not readily accessible to the general reader of an encyclopaedia.
After re-reading the article four times over three days, I am non the wiser about what Philip's relationship to Christianity was.
It appears to me that few of the concerns expressed by the initial reviewers and commentators have been addressed.
It is clear that much reading and research has gone into this but parts appears to be the nominator's own commentary on scholars commentating on earlier scholar's commentaries on some fragmentary original sources.

I am going to fail this as this article has not made any significant progress towards GA status during 3 months of review. Please read and familiarise yourself with the good article criteria before renominating. If you disagree with this assessment please take this to WP:GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought, might I suggest that you take this to Wikipedia:Peer review before re-nominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought the article to GAR. G.W. (Talk) 14:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]