Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:35, 4 July 2020

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Christian history (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Neopaganism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Grammatical

I fixed a few grammatical errors, typos, and other minor mistakes of that sort that I found; I was careful to avoid altering the content, but I did change the wording in a few places where it was ungrammatical and/or awkward, or a word was used incorrectly. This article is a fine start, but it still could use some attention. I hope somebody else will add some commentary soon; it's lonely here. :) 174.111.242.35 (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A period of persecution is missing

I'm not an historian, but the sentence "From 361 till 375, Paganism was relatively tolerated" is untrue. Also, the entry shifts that persecution starts with the times of Constantine to another page, just to avoid speaking about the mass murder of pagans in the period where tolerance is claimed. This is also untrue. Here is a small chronography until 375 of the "tolerant" period:

314 Immediately after its full legalisation, the Christian Church attacks non-Christians. The Council of Ancyra denounces the worship of Goddess Artemis.

324 The emperor Constantine declares Christianity as the only official religion of the Roman Empire. In Dydima, Minor Asia, he sacks the Oracle of the god Apollo and tortures the pagan priests to death. He also evicts all non-Christian peoples from Mount Athos and destroys all the local Hellenic temples.

325 Nicene Council. The godman gets a promotion: 'Christ is Divine'

326 Constantine, following the instructions of his mother Helen, destroys the temple of the god Asclepius in Aigeai Cilicia and many temples of the goddess Aphrodite in Jerusalem, Aphaca, Mambre, Phoenicia, Baalbek, etc.

330 Constantine steals the treasures and statues of the pagan temples of Greece to decorate Constantinople, the new capital of his Empire.

335 Constantine sacks many pagan temples in Asia Minor and Palestine and orders the execution by crucifixion of “all magicians and soothsayers.” Martyrdom of the neoplatonist philosopher Sopatrus.

341 Constantius II (Flavius Julius Constantius) persecutes “all the soothsayers and the Hellenists.” Many gentile Hellenes are either imprisoned or executed.

346 New large scale persecutions against non-Christian peoples in Constantinople. Banishment of the famous orator Libanius accused as a “magician”.

353 An edict of Constantius orders the death penalty for all kind of worship through sacrifice and “idols”.

354 A new edict orders the closing of all the pagan temples. Some of them are profaned and turned into brothels or gambling rooms. Execution of pagan priests begins. A new edict of Constantius orders the destruction of the pagan temples and the execution of all “idolaters”. First burning of libraries in various cities of the empire. The first lime factories are organised next to the closed pagan temples. A major part of the holy architecture of the pagans is turned into lime.

357 Constantius outlaws all methods of divination (astrology not excluded).

359 In Skythopolis, Syria, the Christians organise the first death camps for the torture and executions of the arrested non-Christians from all around the empire.

361 to 363 Religious tolerance and restoration of the pagan cults is declared in Constantinople (11th December 361) by the pagan emperor Julian (Flavius Claudius Julianus).

363 Assassination of Julian (26th June).

364 Emperor Jovian orders the burning of the Library of Antioch. An Imperial edict (11th September) orders the death penalty for all those that worship their ancestral gods or practice divination (“sileat omnibus perpetuo divinandi curiositas”). Three different edicts (4th February, 9th September, 23rd December) order the confiscation of all properties of the pagan temples and the death penalty for participation in pagan rituals, even private ones. The Church Council of Laodicea (Phrygia – western Asia Minor) orders that religious observances are to be conducted on Sunday and not on Saturday. Sunday becomes the new Sabbath. The practice of staying at home and resting on Saturday declared sinful and anathema to Christ.

365 An imperial edict from Emperor Valens, a zealous Arian Christian (17th November), forbids pagan officers of the army to command Christian soldiers.

370 Valens orders a tremendous persecution of non-Christian peoples in all the Eastern Empire. In Antioch, among many other non-Christians, the ex-governor Fidustius and the priests Hilarius and Patricius are executed. The philosopher Simonides is burned alive and the philosopher Maximus is decapitated. All the friends of Julian are persecuted (Orebasius, Sallustius, Pegasius etc.). Tons of books are burnt in the squares of the cities of the Eastern Empire.

372 Valens orders the governor of Minor Asia to exterminate all the Hellenes and all documents of their wisdom.

373 New prohibition of all divination methods is issued. The term “pagan” (pagani, villagers, equivalent to the modern insult, “peasants”) is introduced by the Christians to demean non-believers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enric (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

All this is great but as we all know you need sources to back your claims.--Тежава (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Greatest Story Ever Forged (Curse of the Christ Myth) by David Hernandez would probably cover most or much of it. Gzuufy (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There's an interesting attempt to justify the over the top claim about the 'death camps at Skythopolis' here, which falls apart rather quickly when analysed. http://historum.com/ancient-history/39116-did-4th-century-christians-organise-death-camps-gentiles-skythopolis-c-359-ce.html If that's the quality of the claims being made... Note also that the 'Greatest Story ever forged' appears in NO libraries on WorldCat, which strongly suggests it's not to be taken seriously. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Julian_%28emperor%29#Death offers a good source that Julian died of wounds after battle, rather than 'assassinated'. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

References

1. "Demolish Them" by Vlasis Rassias (Βιβλιοκριτική στο Ες Έδαφος Φέρειν του Βλάση Γ. Ρασσιά. Περιοδικό Πολιτιστική Εβδομάδα), published in Greek, Athens 2000 (2nd edition), Anichti Poli Editions, ISBN: 960-7748-20-4.
2. Source: Michael von Albrecht, and Gareth L. Schmeling, A history of Roman literature (1997), page 1744.
3. Canon 29
4. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm

Neutrality

Presently this article does not describe persecutions. It is only a peculiar list, created by applying a filter to history to catch anything that was, or could be, hostile act against pagans. For example, yes a particular law was issued and this is backed by a primary source. What is left unknown: was it against the actual practice at the times? Was it opposed? Was it enforced? How effectively? On what social strata? When it was changed? etc. This article definitely lacks reliable secondary sources and is unbalanced. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This happens with all "persecution" themed articles on Misplaced Pages, it attracts people with a grievance, apparently even when it's about ancient history, and they start cherry-picking stuff to build up a rhetorically overloaded one-sided argument. I don't know why people do this, but apparently it's human nature. You pick a side and then you argue for it instead of trying to get the whole picture. Misplaced Pages as a project is actually designed to combat this attitude, but we are struggling.

"Interpretation", I don't know why the article bothers to detail Gibbon's obviously flawed argument just to then tear it down. Surely this can just be of historical interest for people researching Gibbon? The reality of course, is that this isn't "Christianity" per se vs. "paganism" per se, it is about imperial politics. The powerful families of the empire install an imperial cult, and their power hinges on enforcing this cult throughout their domain. As long as this cult was pagan, they persecuted Christians for refusing to participate, and the minute the cult became Christian, they naturally persecuted pagans refusing to participate. This can and should still be documented in due detail, but it is simply flawed to depict this as somehow inherently hinging on aspects of monotheism vs. polytheism.

It was never "the Christians" vs. "the pagans", it was "the families" (the powerful in Rome) vs. "assorted trouble-making minority groups". First "the families" were pagan and persecuted the Christians, then they switched and became Christian and persecuted the pagans. Same difference. --dab (𒁳) 09:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Title name change

Why it was changed to "Anti-Paganism Policy of Late Roman Emperors"? This seems to be a heavily biased edit to me. Under the same logic, this ] article, too, should be renamed to "Anti-Christian Policy of Roman Emperors".

Because "persecution" is not a neutral POV. One Emperor's persecution is another Emperor's purification. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith here, despite the sweeping and broad changes, and re-titling you made to a number of pages. It seems that you went into the category of "Persecution by Early Christians" and simply removed every mention of the word persecution, and changed the names of all the relevant articles without consensus. Major moves and extensive edits like this should really never be carried out without discussion on the talk pages. The major reason for my objection to these edits, aside from the lack of consensus and that these pages were static for years, is per WP: COMMONNAME. This is what nearly all academic sources call it, and this is what people would search for; most of these titles are unwieldy and far afield of what people would search for. It doesn't fit in the context of some of the articles, either.

For the record though, I actually approve of some of the changes. I think that with the exception of Theodosius and the main content articles, it might be more apt to call them anti-pagan policies, especially when relating to individual Constantinian emperors (especially Constantine)... This doesn't mean, though, that every mention of the word "persecution" in the article be replaced with "anti-pagan policy", especially when contextually, persecution is what the sources say, or what's obviously meant. This is the classic "duck" argument, here. We wouldn't be allowed to call the Armenian Genocide the "Armenian Incident", and when the word "genocide" or "persecution" is used in the article, we can't change it to "incident", or "disagreement", because it offends the sensibilities of some people. These people were persecuted on the basis of the practise of their religion, even within their own homes, and the subject meets every academic and legal criterion for being called a "religious persecution". Granted, sometimes there was a political motivation for promoting Christianity as the official cult, but after the Theodosian Decrees, any practise of polytheism, in whatever context, is prohibited under pain of death. People were executed en masse for this.

Thus, this isn't a matter of POV. And it's certainly not OR, as you claimed. NPOV means we report what the sources say, not that we respect religious sensibilities. Every citation you gave me when you said "one emperor's persecution was another's purification" was either apologetic, or not a reliable source, save one. But I checked all of the citations, and "anti-paganism" policy is nowhere used. Most of the sources are religious publications which simply take an exclusively apologetic POV. The one academic source you gave doesn't mention the term, either. Additionally, Canon 29 refers to Judaizing, and has nothing to do with paganism. I'm not sure how the ruling of a religious council would be a reasonable counterargument to bias, anyway.

I'll be restoring the category of "Ancient Roman Religion" on these pages, but also keeping your addition of the Christian-oriented category, as it's a perfectly appropriate addition. I'm not sure why you deleted the prior category on these pages in the first place, as it's also appropriate, but simply a category referring to pagan religion. As I said, I see no problem with most of your rewording, but some of it is definitely not contextually appropriate, grammatically sound, or in line with NPOV and RS. Those are all relatively minor edits, though. I'm still assuming good faith, despite the scope of these changes across an entire category. As far as any *major* changes, we can discuss them in a civil manner here, if you're agreeable. This should have been done in the first place.

We report what reliable sources say, build consensus for changes, and improve content through collaboration. Let's try to do that as best we can. Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Name change 2

The previous discussion on this just snowed me so I abandoned it. I'm attempting it again because it is now spawning categories of the same name. This distasteful word must be stopped now. I don't think it matters how many articles use the word, it's still not nice. Who now uses the n word, even though there a multitude of sources for it. In many cases the Emperors themselves would not have viewed their actions as being persecutions but as enforcing adhesion to national policy. Nobody likes to pay taxes but its the government's duty to ensure tax compliance. Is it persecution what a tax inspector demands adhesion to national tax policy? The meaning can be conveyed without resorting to POV name calling. Pinging other interested editors @Marcocapelle: @Fayenatic london: @Quinto Simmaco: Anyway, I propose the following, but am open to similar options: 1 "Anti-paganism policies in the late Roman Empire" Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Procedurally, I think this requires a formal RM, especially in connection to the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree an RM is the best route to a consensus here. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Done Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Votes roughly split and some good arguments from both sides. Jenks24 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire → Anti-paganism policies in the late Roman Empire – The word "Persecution" is value-laden and not a neutral POV. The page is not about a general uprising against pagans by the people. It is about state opposition to paganism. The page is not so much about opposition to particular named pagans as to paganism as an organised religion. So the name should reflect the focus of the page - state opposition to the pagan religion in the Empire as effected by state officials (from Emperors to provincial governors) and state legislation (decrees and other laws promulgated). The fact that other opposition took place in local areas from time to time outside of official policy or sanction is not a material part of the page. The state would have viewed such policies as a normal part of its function of good government much as it did for other state policies like the collection of taxes. That is, they would not have viewed it as persecution per se as the , at times, unpleasant enforcement of laws. Much like the collection of taxes, which, while unpleasant, is legal and not characterised as persecution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. With a quick Google Books search it is clear that Persecution of pagans is far more common term than Anti-paganism policies. I would also add that term "persecution" is totally applicable for state policies, and does not necessarily require some kind of "general uprising" "by the people".--Staberinde (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply NPOV trumps Commonname. For example, most articles are named "Religious conversion from Foo" as opposed to "Apostacy from Foo". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really, policies don't trump each other like that, because it is never simple black-and-white situation. It is all about weighing different factors. If reputable historians widely use certain term, then wikipedians aren't qualified to simply overrule them and declare that "wikipedia experts" know best. In this case it is not even close, your proposed term has practically no usage, while current title is well established. Also I don't really understand the example you are trying to make, wikipedia has no "Religious conversion from ..." articles, while it has articles like Apostasy in Islam or Apostasy in Christianity.--Staberinde (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Examples Category:Conversion to Judaism and Category:Conversion to Christianity Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Categories are completely different things and tend to require more rounded titles to fit wide range of different articles.--Staberinde (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The debate at CFD may be instructive here. In this case, I was on the losing side of the argument. Nevertheless, it is now policy and probably precedent setting for the use of pejorative terms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

See also Anti-paganism policies in the early Byzantine Empire which has an identical outlook for a different time period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

As I said, categories are completely different thing because they need to fit wide range of articles at once. Usage of common name even then they have neutrality issues is well established in policy (WP:POVNAME). Also that Byzantine example looks quite dubious and may be worth renaming itself.--Staberinde (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Mild support, although I would prefer to move to Anti-paganism in the late Roman Empire, as a simpler more WP:CONCISE title. On the debate above, WP:POVTITLE is our guide here. WP:NPOV does not always trump WP:COMMONNAME for article titles - in some cases, such as Boston Massacre, where the thing is almost exclusively called that, we use the title even if it's POV. However, as this ngram shows, "persecution of pagans" and "anti-paganism" are not wildly different in terms of usage in books - the former is somewhat ahead now, but they have been near identical at times. That means that we should probably prefer the more NPOV sounding anti-paganism title.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: per Laurel Lodged. The word "persecution" is clearly used in the academic literature about Christians and Pagans alike under the mid-late empire. I personally don't see it as some kind of pro-pagan pov... —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Pinginging all those who contributed to the above CFD debate: @Mike Selinker: @Johnpacklambert: @BrownHairedGirl: @Peterkingiron: @Epipelagic: @Good Olfactory: @Mangoe: @Carlossuarez46: @Johnbod: @The Bushranger:. I don't think that this amounts to canvassing as most of these editors are usually on the opposite side of the fence to me :-) Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• meh I can't figure out which discussion it was I participated in, but at any rate, the scope of the two titles would be different, with the proposed title limiting itself to state action, which "persecution" does not. Really I'm not attached to either however. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I think that Mangoe is correct in highlighting that really both articles are limited to state action. They contain hardly anything about the actions of individuals. Which is why i think that "policy" is more appropriate. Laurel Lodged (talk)

Comment I'm not necessarily convinced by the original rationale for movement. Laurel Lodged argues that "The word "Persecution" is value-laden and not a neutral POV"; I'm not sure that they have convincingly made the case that it is not NPOV, merely asserted it. We use many words in article titles that are value-laden; that doesn't necessarily mean that they are not NPOV. "Holocaust" is value-laden, yet we correctly use the term in articles. "Feminist" is value-laden. WP:DUE (part of our NPOV policy) says that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."; if "persecution" is a fair representation of the mainstream view, then "persecution" does not by my reading of the policy violate NPOV.

If we are to change the name of the article, I would prefer either "anti-paganism in the late Roman Empire" or "anti-pagan policies in the late Roman Empire", depending on whether people think the scope of the article should be restricted to policies or whether popular actions are part of the scope; "anti-paganism policies in the late Roman Empire" reads awkwardly to me.

• Hm, I'm going to go with oppose here. While it's true that neutral titles should be preferred, the fact is that Misplaced Pages does not make its own value judgements when the sources are not "Wiki-neutral" - we reflect what the sources indicate. Since, as mentioned above, the sources refer to it as "persecution", then Misplaced Pages needs to reflect that the sources describe it that way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Matching Anti-paganism policies in the early Byzantine Empire with Anti-paganism policies in the late Roman Empire. At some periods the policy was toleration; at others persecution. As a matter of principle, I believe conversion should always be by persuasion. Sadly at some times and in some places, it has been imposed by force. I do not like that, but it is what happened. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Keep it simple. A good title for a good topic. Andrewa (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Evaluation and legacy

This is a history article, not a dissertation. Does it need a section called "Evaluation and legacy"? Is it not just a vehicle for advancing a POV using synthesis and WP:OR? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The section is justified per se, but unfortunately the "agenda-driven" nature of the article is still visible. It can be fixed. The "neutral" version of this article is found at Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism. Now, it is perfectly undisputed that this centuries-long process of decline very much did include episodes of blatant persecution, as is duly elaborated in the "decline" page, but it appears that for considerable periods there was something of a fluctuating balance between the pagan and the Christian faction, with various amounts of mutual "persecution".

I do think that this page by conception qualifies as WP:CFORK of the Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism article. We do not need two sweeping overviews on the topic. --dab (𒁳) 12:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Constantine was not baptized by Pope Sylvester I

Referring specifically to the sentence "Constantine was baptised by Pope Sylvester I." This claim is at odds with every mention of Constantine's baptism that I can find on Misplaced Pages. For example, Constantine's own biographical article states that it was Eusebius of Nicomedia who baptized Constantine (this is also mentioned in the biographical article of the former). Indeed, the only mention at all of Constantine in the article for Pope Sylvester I refers to the Symmachian forgeries, the forged Donation of Constantine, and a collection of Sicilian fables in which a Jewish Constantine is baptized by Sylvester. So as far as I can tell, Eusebius of Nicomedia baptized Constantine (who was not in Rome, where Pope Sylverster was), and it seems that claims to the contrary are misunderstandings due to forgeries and legends. Also, see Constantine the Great and Christianity. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources

This article relies heavily in primary sources. Is there something we can do to change it? Can anyone suggest/share secondary sources? I 'd like to help on this issue. Cinadon36 18:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The Cambridge Ancient History volume 13 is a good start (see pp. 538-632). T8612 (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Another I can recommend is Catherine Nixey's The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It is a Popular history book heavily critised from most prominent historians for back to Gibbonian view. We can use it, but first of all we must use prominent historians of Universities. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Nixey's book is an absolutely acceptable secondary source, and is, itself, well-sourced. You're free to ignore it or to find other secondary sources. I was merely responding to the request for a suggestion of secondary sources. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is. I didn't said something different. I wrote: " We can use it". First of all i think we must use prominent historians of Oxford/Cambridge etc and not popular history books.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Nixey's book is great and awarded by many prestigious organisations. There have been positive reviews from other academia members as well.Cinadon36 17:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It has also received much criticism. Averil Cameron begins her review "Hearts will sink among historians of early Christianity and late antiquity..." There is too much out there that is better for us to rely much on Nixey. Alan Cameron's The Last Pagans of Rome and Edward Watts' The Final Pagan Generation, for example. Neither is currently cited in this article. Srnec (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Nixey's book is a perfectly valid secondary source. I don't agree with the statement that "there is too much out there that is better." That's a subjective judgement. I'm not even sure that any reviews necessarily reflect actual scholarly consensus. Maybe this would be different if we were discussing fringe beliefs in theoretical physics, or claims that are regarded as pseudoscience. In this case, Nixey simply describes well-documented events; anyone is free to cite relevant published work from those who disagree. I doubt that anyone will find a refutation of any factual statement that relies on her book as a source; my guess is that what some reviewers object to is her tone and framing. This is hardly surprising given current trends in some academic circles. But we're not writing editorials or publishing in scholarly journals, so I don't see why we should care about these debates; we're just relating facts from published sources. Nixey's book is full of relevant facts, so it's an excellent secondary source. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Nixey is a journalist, not a professional historian. She has no authority on this field and her book should not be cited, except in a "popular culture" section.T8612 (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

There are reviews and awards out there that validate her work. Cinadon36 17:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

These awards were given by newspapers. Citations all come from other journalists. T8612 (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

LOL, sorry, but there is no such guideline dictating discrimination against notable published works as valid secondary sources because of the author's background. I get that you and other editors here personally don't like Nixey. Tough. Her work is a valid secondary source, and material therein can absolutely be added and cited in this article. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Her work is WP:FRINGE, and there is precisely the guideline against this. No serious historian would use Gibbon to write on the Roman Empire. This is from her book:

Art lovers watched in horror as some of the greatest sculptures in the ancient world were smashed by people too stupid to appreciate them – and certainly too stupid to recreate them. The Christians could often not even destroy effectively: many statues on many temples were saved simply by virtue of being too high for them, with their primitive ladders and hammers, to reach.

Yep, Christians were too stupid to make ladders! T8612 (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Good grief, her work is *not* WP:FRINGE. Now I know you're not posting in good faith. There's no secondary source that qualifies as WP:FRINGE that also has the reviews and awards of major outlets as linked by Cinadon above. The silly little comment you make about ladders makes it clear that YOU, personally, take issue with her views, and that's what motivates your argument here, not WP guidelines on secondary sources. Let me be clear: Any editor is free to cite Nixey as a valid secondary source, AND any published criticisms. If something attributed to a Nixey source gets posted, you're perfectly free to post relevant criticism and contradiction (I'm guessing a lot of this would be appropriate for the Evaluation and Legacy section), just not YOUR opinion as an editor. The bottom line is that there's no remotely plausible case that Nixey's book is NOT a valid secondary source. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

And for the record, if you think the factual statements made in Nixey's book are outside of consensus views among historians, then you'd be perfectly free to post that in the article...as long as you can attribute such a claim to a published source that actually says as much rather than your own conclusion based on whatever you think you know. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I indeed take issue with her views because she relies on completely outdated sources (Gibbon et al.) and uses name calling. I note that you do not comment on the text I took from her book. Do you really think that an author who calls ancient people "stupid" is a reliable source? I have never seen such a thing from a historian, and this sentence alone is enough to condemn the book. The fact that it was praised by other journalists has no value at all. Here are reviews (here and here) from people with proper qualifications. T8612 (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Clearly that 's the definition of WP:IDLI. We shouldn't be judging the specific book by its content, whether we agree or not with it. Describing the level of acceptance of a theory is one thing, fringe theories is another. Her book has been awarded and presented by many mainstream outlets, apart from The Tablet and National Review, here is New York Times and the Guardian (professor of Greek culture at the University of Cambridge Tim Whitmarsh) . Certainly H.A.Drake does not consider her book fringe. "Seemingly, Catherine Nixey's The Darkening Age is just another broadside in this ongoing battle" .Cinadon36 05:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"We shouldn't be judging the specific book by its content", and how can we judge a book then? by looking at its cover? Drake's review you cite is eloquent: "Nixey tempers this dismal story with disarming candor and wit, and her prose sparkles. But her point comes at a cost. Readers of this journal will frequently catch themselves saying, "Yes, but…," for Nixey's account is frequently one-sided, ignoring a broader context that, admittedly, would not excuse the destruction she narrates but would give readers a better perspective on the world in which it happened." "This deliberately one-sided account is by design, justified by what Nixey sees as the whitewashing that Christianity has gotten in modern scholarship (p. 107). Specialists will lament the missed opportunities to draw wider conclusions about causality".

You have an academic saying the book is "deliberately one-sided" (so it is not just me), which makes it unreliable. I'm all for including books with diverging views, but not those with such methodological flaws. T8612 (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Biased doesn't mean unreliable though. Biased sources are some times well informed. There is not even a hint of Nixey being unreliable. Cinadon36 19:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that Nixey is not a subject matter expert and her book is a polemic. Neither of these things disqualifies her (or is even a criticism), they just mean that she is not the best source for this article. Given that the article does not cite Cameron or Watts, it is silly that we are considering including Nixey.

If you want an extensive critique of Nixey, albeit self-published but by a trained historian see here. If you want to see a scholar who is an expert in this area (and was married to an expert in this area too) take issue with Nixey, go to the Cameron review I already quoted from. The Dame is not impressed. Srnec (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

This is an old school view about this topic. There is not a prominent Byzantologist who was such a view for 2-3 decades. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

If there are different "views," you're of course free to add cited statements. Though AFAIK, the facts have not changed regardless of your understanding about current views. I agree that the section you tagged seems to rely heavily on primary sources, but there are (by my count) 31 citations in the section. In this case, simple, straightforward restatements of the primary sources are given, and I don't see how this can be seen as problematic let alone not neutral. This is especially relevant since the primary sources are explicit law codes. I don't see how your neutrality claim applies here. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer dear friend Global Cerebral Ischemia. First of all i want to excuse for my use of bad English. I will try to write my View some time, but without any help i won't manage it, cause as you see my skills in English language is very poor. First of all there are not different views about this topic. Today, there is only one view, the view of the history sciense (ok there is also the view of Popular history about this topic). This view for the last decades (since 1970) had objected the previous scienistic view that was based on primary sources like this article of Misplaced Pages did, primary sources like Eusebius, Theodosian code etc. So please, have a look in these secondary uptodate sources 1, 2 from the most prominent historians of today (and not from 1920, or 1780 or...400). Please, check what i wrote if you wish, and if you find one Historian of Byzantine studies or late Roman Studies (at last since 1990) has still has the view of Edward Gibbon, please inform me cause i can't find anyone. Please check what historians like Peter Brown (historian), Alan Cameron (classical scholar), Marianne Sághy wrote. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The relevant law codes are perfectly acceptable primary sources, and my statement remains valid: since the fact of what the law codes themselves state hasn't changed, I see no reason why they can't be cited as obviously relevant and valid primary sources. As I said, I totally agree that the section you tagged nevertheless relies too heavily on primary sources, and that this is a problem. This calls for improvement by the addition of material from secondary sources. But the charge of a lack of neutrality makes absolutely no sense given that the section consists of nothing but restatements and summaries of legal codes. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Global Cerebral Ischemia If i bring prominent historians that say that primary sources are heavily biased will you change your mind? Please answer to me about this, orelse i would not contribute here at all.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I can not find evidence at the book you are pointing that is supporting the statement: "First of all there are not different views about this topic". Actually, page 2 of Rita, Lizzi, Testa et al, "the debate over the "death" of paganisms continues..." Cinadon36 15:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

What statement are you responding to? Please use proper indentation to indicate this...thanks! If you're responding to my statement, then it is very poor form (and extremely disingenuous) to falsely present a statement in quotation marks that was never actually made by the person you claim to be quoting. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

He is responding to me not you dear friend. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Global Cerebral Ischemia, I was answering to Αντικαθεστωτικός.Ι didnt used ind. properly. Cinadon36 17:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

We must change the title, it was not a persecution, it was a reform

1. I have to remember that Christian emperors up to Graciano were still the Popes (Pontifex Maximus) of the traditional Roman religion.

2. At no time is a persecution of pagan beliefs appreciated, only reforms, it is not as during the High Empire that if there was a great contrast between pagan and Christian beliefs, in the Lower Empire, especially thanks to Neoplatonism, both positions they are syncretizing until they reach the extreme of using the same formula: the Trinity,

- for traditional pagans: Caelus, the First God/Motor; Saturn, the Soul; Jupiter, the son of the Intelligible;

- orientalized pagans such as Julian II: Zeus Ormuz; the Bull; Mithras;

- christians: Father/Creator; Holy Spirit; Son/Christ.

3. If this is classified as persecution, then the reforms of previous Pontifex Maximus (pagans) that banned or reformulated different precepts should also be considered persecution of the original forms. 84.78.17.134 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages must be neutral, and only Christian fanatics would say this was a reform rather than a persecution. --92.35.237.251 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This is getting a little crazy now. We "must" change the title? Good grief. Did you even bother to read the article?? The article is *about* persecutions of pagans in the late Roman Empire. That's the subject matter of the article! "At no time is a persecution of pagan beliefs..." Jesus Christ...again did you even read the article? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Global Cerebral Ischemia: I agree no title change, however, the article as it stands does not give a full representation of current scholarship. See this at: . Quoting and including references

There are multiple contemporary views of Christian thought on paganism in Antiquity. The traditional view is: "From Gibbon and Burckhardt to the present day, it has been assumed that the end of paganism was inevitable once confronted by the resolute intolerance of Christianity; that the intervention of the Christian emperors in its suppression were decisive ... that, once they possessed such formidable power, Christians used it to convert as many non-Christians as possible — by threats and disabilities, if not by the direct use of force." However, a contemporary consensus has formed in support of Peter Brown's view which says this long held traditional view is mostly myth "constructed by a brilliant generation of Christian writers, polemicists and preachers in the last decade of period." Brown says Christian thought in Antiquity did not revolve around conversion but instead revolved around a narrative Christians had invented and imposed claiming that a "mighty conflict had taken place, and the Christian church had emerged as the victor." Though Christians remained a minority in the empire, once Constantine converted they saw this victory as having already taken place in Heaven, therefore, Brown says, the focus of Christian thought in Antiquity was not on converting the remaining pagans. Salzman indicates heresy was a higher priority than the conversion of pagans in the fourth and fifth centuries.

Christians wrote that their triumph was visible in the ending of civil war, the triumphs over barbarians, and in law such as the Theodosian decrees (389–391). With these laws, the old pagan religions were suppressed; temples were destroyed, monetary support withdrawn, and various other repressive legal measures were taken. "In a manner entirely characteristic of the period, the laws were frankly intended to terrorize the emperor's subjects... Their language was uniformly vehement. The penalties they proposed were frequently horrifying." Yet they were rarely enforced. The local authorities, who were still mostly pagan, were lax in imposing them, and Christian bishops frequently obstructed their application. Christian writers gave the narrative of victory high visibility, but archaeologist Luke Lavan says that does not necessarily correlate to actual conversion rates, and there are many signs that a healthy paganism continued into the fifth century.

Contemporary archaeology indicates there is no single narrative of the end of paganism. Temple destructions are attested. However, in some regions, the end of paganism was both gradual and untraumatic. Previous views advanced by scholars who saw a rapid demise of paganism in the fourth century and its eradication in the fifth are no longer supported. Instead, there was fluidity in the boundaries between the communities and "coexistence with a competitive spirit." Christians objected to anything that called the triumphal narrative into question including the mistreatment of non-Christians. In 423, an edict was issued at Constantinople to the effect that a bishop, who had confiscated a Jewish synagogue, should compensate the local Jewish community as a way of making amends for his illegal recourse to violence. The edict was not well received, but not because the Christians objected to repayment. Instead, the Syrian Christians show "an intense local sense of honor, an insistence that the church should not be shamed by such breaches in the fixity of Christian order."

The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity says that "Torture and murder were not the inevitable result of the rise of Christianity." Brown says the unstated understanding was that, if pagans kept their paganism to themselves, they would be left alone. Theodosian Decree 16.10.24, promulgated June 8, 423, states: "But above all we demand this to Christian people, whether they’re really Christian or just call themselves so: that they don’t dare, abusing religious authority, lift their hand to Jews or Pagans that live in peace, and don’t attempt anything for insurrection or against the laws." (In fact, if they are violent against the quiet ones or damage their possessions, they will return what they took not once, but three or four times. Provincial governors and officials too must be aware that, if they allowed what happened, they too will be punished.) There was periodic mob violence involving both Christian and pagan. "Rather than illuminating a deep current of intolerance within pagan and Christian communities, these events primarily reveal the intolerance of fanatics." Brown says that "In most areas, polytheists were not molested, and, apart from a few ugly incidents of local violence, Jewish communities also enjoyed a century of stable, even privileged, existence." Having, in 423, been declared by the emperor Theodosius II not to exist, large bodies of polytheists all over the Roman empire were not murdered or converted under duress so much as they were simply left out of the histories the Christians wrote of themselves as victorious.

References

1. ^ Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition, and Coexistence in the Fourth Century. United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
2. ^ Brown, Peter. "Christianization and religious conflict." The Cambridge Ancient History 13 (1998): 337-425.
3. ^ Boin, Douglas. A Social and Cultural History of Late Antiquity. United Kingdom, Wiley, 2018.
4. Cameron, Alan, and Cameron, Professor of Latin Language and Literature Alan. The Last Pagans of Rome. Spain, Oxford University Press, USA, 2011.
5. Kippenberg, Hans G.; Kuiper, Yme B.; Sanders, Andy F., eds. (1990). Concepts of Person in Religion and Thought. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-012159-X.
6. Salzman, Michele Renee. “The Evidence for the Conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity in Book 16 of the ‘Theodosian Code.’” Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte, vol. 42, no. 3, 1993, pp. 362–378. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4436297. Accessed 2 June 2020.
7. ^ The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2015.
8. Coffey 2000: 23
9. Cite error: The named reference Testa was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. ^ Lavan, Luke. The Archaeology of Late Antique "paganism". Netherlands, Brill, 2011.
11. Irmscher, Johannes (1988). "Non-christians and sectarians under Justinian: the fate of the inculpated". Collection de l'Institut des Sciences et Techniques de l'Antiquité. 367. PARCOURIR LES COLLECTIONS: 165–167.
12. ^ The Archaeology of Late Antique 'Paganism'. Netherlands, Brill, 2011.
13. Washburn, Daniel (2006). "The Thessalonian Affair in the Fifth Century Histories". In Drake, Harold Allen; Albu, Emily; Elm, Susanna; Maas, Michael; Rapp, Claudia; Salzman, Michael (eds.). Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices. University of California, Santa Barbara.
14. Salzman, Michele Renee. “The Evidence for the Conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity in Book 16 of the ‘Theodosian Code.’” Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte, vol. 42, no. 3, 1993, pp. 362–378. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4436297. Accessed 2 June 2020.
15. ^ O'Donnell, J. (1979). "The Demise of Paganism". Traditio. 35: 45–88. doi:10.1017/S0362152900015002.
16. The Journal of Jewish Studies. United Kingdom, Jewish Chronicle Publications, 2003.

This does seem like a rather large and overlooked problem in this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Symmachi–Nicomachi diptych

It turns out that the current caption for File:Symmachi-Nicomachi_diptych_2.JPG is incorrect. It reads "Ivory diptych of a priestess of Ceres, still in fully classical style, ca 400, which was defaced and thrown in a well at Montier-en-Der.." The cited source doesn't corroborate this, nor does the actual article on this piece. The article makes it clear that it was intact, and only later "heavily damaged by fire" during the French Revolution. It was found in a well, but only after remaining fully intact and incorporated into a Christian reliquary. There is no mention whatsoever that it was "defaced," which is especially relevant given that the other panel of diptych is less damaged, and the face of its figure has entirely survived. There's more corroboration on this here. Note that this is also the case at Anti-paganism policies of the early Byzantine Empire, where the same image appears with the same caption (mistakenly restored by me after an anonymous edit sparked my investigation). In light of this, I will be removing both images from both articles. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Hans Kung, "The Catholic Church", Ch3 The Imperial Catholic Church", p45, 2001, Weidenfiled & Nicolson, ISBN 0-297-64638-9

I didn't know about Anti-paganism policies of the early Byzantine Empire, but it looks like a duplicate of the present article. Imo a merger is required. T8612 (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Definitely agree. I don't see the need for two separate articles, especially with all the overlap and redundancy. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I proposed a deletion. T8612 (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good to me. Not even sure there's anything worth retaining from that article and transferring here... Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree to deletion / selective manual merge. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The experiences and practices between East and West were actually quite different. They each need their own pages which will be apparent once modern scholarship is added to this page. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Contemporary scholarship needs to be added

History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance section on anti-paganism

This material should be included in this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss a separate article here, but that paragraph is far too long and relies too heavily on a single source. I don't think we want to emulate that section here. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Holy crap, that article is terrible. The tone is totally off, it doesn't conform to WP:NPOV and WP:MOS. It reads like a scholarly argument, not an encyclopedia article. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Global Cerebral Ischemia: I have answered you there and hope you will participate in fixing what you think is wrong-- with some calm and mutual respect. But that doesn't address the issue that much contemporary scholarship is absent from this article. There are 19 sources in just that one section, and more I didn't use, that indicate contemporary scholarship is forming a consensus that the traditional views have been based more on assumption than fact. They are now discovering the facts. If this article is going to claim a NPOV, shouldn't that be here somewhere? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Global Cerebral Ischemia: I think I have something you will like in the Talk on the other page, but I will wait on your input there before doing anything. In this article I was genuinely surprised to find no mention of Peter Brown who is credited with starting the field of Late Antiquity as a field of study in its own right, and who did that back in the 1960s. He has permanently altered the hegemony of the entire field. He should be in this article, as should all those that have come after him. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

To everyone who has ever contributed here: this article needs consensus on a change or a tag

I would like to get consensus on including contemporary scholarship in this article. If we can't accomplish that, I will feel compelled to tag this as biased. Some of the content I am posting below must be added for this article to claim a NPOV. I am quoting from History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance, so please forgive that it is primarily a discussion of Christian thought, but that's the focus of that article and not this one. This one merely needs to include all the possible information available on what scholars say about Antiquity, and it currently omits the majority of modern scholarship. It deserves to be tagged for that, but a consensus on how to fix it is better. Please review and respond--with good support and sources please--on what of this you think should be included:

According to the Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, (OHLA), scholars of Late Antiquity fall into two categories in the debate on how and when Antiquity ended: "catastrophist" or "long." The traditional "catastrophic" view argues for a rapid demise of paganism in the fourth century and its violent end sometime in the fifth. This was first embraced by Gibbon and has been the established view for 200 years. "From Gibbon and Burckhardt to the present day, it has been assumed that the end of paganism was inevitable once confronted by the resolute intolerance of Christianity; that the intervention of the Christian emperors in its suppression were decisive ... that, once they possessed such formidable power, Christians used it to convert as many non-Christians as possible – by threats and disabilities, if not by the direct use of force." The "long" view was first stated by Peter Brown whom OHLA calls the "pioneer" who began the study of Late Antiquity as a field in itself, and whose work remains seminal. Brown used anthropological models, rather than political or economic ones, to study the cultural history of the period. Brown says Christian thought after Constantine revolved around the narrative that Christians had invented and imposed claiming that a "mighty conflict had taken place, and the Christian church had emerged as the victor" in Heaven; conversion of pagans was therefore not a primary concern of Christians in antiquity. The gradual conversion taking place in society resulted in the "long slow" demise of polytheism.

Archaeologists Luke Lavan and Michael Mulryan point out that the traditional catastrophic view is largely based on literary sources, many of which are Christian, and are known to exaggerate and invent the "iconoclastic achievements of radical monks in the service of polemical panygeric." Lavan and Mulryan indicate that archaeological evidence of religious conflict exists, just not to the degree or intensity previously thought, which puts the "Christian triumphalism" in doubt. According to Fowden (1978) pagan temples across the entire Mediterranean world were destroyed by determined Christian iconoclasm in the late fourth and early fifth centuries; Deichmann (1939) said that in the same period, pagan temples were being converted to churches throughout the empire. Subsequent scholarship such as that of archaeologist Richard Bayliss (2004) has tended to refute some aspects of this picture in terms of chronology and intensity. According to Bayliss' study, 120 pagan temples were converted to churches in the whole empire, out of the thousands of temples that existed, and only a third are dated before the end of the fifth century. Desacralization and destruction were attested to in 43 cases but only 4 were confirmed by archaeological evidence.

Rita Lizzi Testa, Michele Renee Salzman, and Marianne Sághy quote Alan Cameron as saying the idea of religious conflict as the cause of a swift demise of paganism is pure historiographical construction, whereas Stephanie Ratti says it still provides the best explanation of events. Laws such as the Theodosian decrees attest to Christian thought of the period, giving a "dramatic view of radical Christian ambition." Brown says the language is uniformly vehement and the penalties are harsh and frequently horrifying. Salzman says the law was used as a means of conversion through the "carrot and the stick", but that it is necessary to look beyond the law to see what people actually did. The local authorities, who were still mostly pagan, were lax in imposing them, and Christian bishops frequently obstructed their application. Generally, Christians objected to anything that called the triumphal narrative into question including the mistreatment of non-Christians. Lavan says Christian writers gave the narrative of victory high visibility, but that does not necessarily correlate to actual conversion rates, and there are many signs that a healthy paganism continued into the fifth century. Testa et al. add that scholars concur that the once dominant notion of overt religious conflict cannot explain all the varied realities of late Antique Rome.

Contemporary scholarship indicates there is no single narrative of the end of paganism. Temple destructions and conversions are attested, but in very small numbers. In most regions away from the imperial court, the end of paganism was both gradual and untraumatic. The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity says that "Torture and murder were not the inevitable result of the rise of Christianity." Instead, there was fluidity in the boundaries between the communities and "coexistence with a competitive spirit." Brown says that "In most areas, polytheists were not molested, and, apart from a few ugly incidents of local violence, Jewish communities also enjoyed a century of stable, even privileged, existence." Having, in 423, been declared by the emperor Theodosius II not to exist, large bodies of polytheists all over the Roman empire were not murdered or converted under duress so much as they were simply left out of the histories the Christians wrote of themselves as victorious.

There was periodic mob violence involving both Christian and pagan. OHLA says that, "Rather than illuminating a deep current of intolerance within pagan and Christian communities, these events primarily reveal the intolerance of fanatics." Salzman indicates heresy was a higher priority for Christian thought than the conversion of pagans in the fourth and fifth centuries. Examples of intolerance are found in Christian dealings with those they termed heretic. Brown concludes that "any attempt to draw a scale of violence in this period must place the violence of Christians toward each other at the top..

References

1. ^ The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2015.
2. ^ Brown, Peter. "Christianization and religious conflict." The Cambridge Ancient History 13 (1998): 337–425.
3. ^ Lavan, Luke. The Archaeology of Late Antique "paganism". Netherlands, Brill, 2011.
4. ^ Mulryan, Michael. "'Paganism' In Late Antiquity: Regional Studies And Material Culture". Brill: 41–86.
5. ^ Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition, and Coexistence in the Fourth Century. United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
6. ^ Salzman, Michele Renee. "The Evidence for the Conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity in Book 16 of the 'Theodosian Code.'" Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte, vol. 42, no. 3, 1993, pp. 362–378. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4436297. Accessed 2 June 2020.
7. Boin, Douglas. A Social and Cultural History of Late Antiquity. United Kingdom, Wiley, 2018.
8. Cameron, Alan, and Cameron, Professor of Latin Language and Literature Alan. The Last Pagans of Rome. Spain, Oxford University Press, US, 2011.
9. Irmscher, Johannes (1988). "Non-christians and sectarians under Justinian: the fate of the inculpated". Collection de l'Institut des Sciences et Techniques de l'Antiquité. 367. PARCOURIR LES COLLECTIONS: 165–167.
10. O'Donnell, J. (1979). "The Demise of Paganism". Traditio. 35: 45–88. doi:10.1017/S0362152900015002.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that contribution. You make a compelling case for its inclusion that I would support. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding Laurel Lodged, I hope we hear from others in as reasonable a manner. I recognize this is a big shift in thinking for some, but that is not a compelling reason for excluding it from the encyclopedia. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Αντικαθεστωτικός: @84.78.17.134: @T8612: @92.35.237.251: @Mike Selinker: @Johnpacklambert: @BrownHairedGirl: @Peterkingiron: @Epipelagic: @Good Olfactory: @Mangoe: @Carlossuarez46: @Johnbod: @The Bushranger: @Andrewa: @Srnec: @Dbachmann: @Cinadon36: Please come and comment. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk, you don't need to "get consensus on including contemporary scholarship". Just have a go yourself at updating the article in a balanced way in alignment with the Misplaced Pages policies on verification and using reliable sources. Dramatic productions, complete with a threat that if you don't get what you want you might be "compelled to tag" the article, are not really necessary if you just want to update the article. Or are you asking us to update it for you? — Epipelagic (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: Thank you for responding and I apologize if this sounded like a threat to you. Following WP guidelines and attempting to be considerate of others didn't look that way from my end, and I'm sorry it did from yours. My limited experience on WP has taught me that whenever something is controversial, it is always the best approach to let others know about it before putting it into the article. Coming along and making big changes without telling anyone can be a shock to others. People should have a chance to weigh in without feeling as though their toes have already been stepped on. That was my goal in asking before acting. I won't put anything into this article if there is consensus not to do so, but then surely you can agree that a tag is the appropriate response. No threat for heaven's sakes, people put up tags on things all the time. Global Cerebral Ischemia recently came and put two on the page I was working on and what I did in response was rewrite two entire sections and make other minor changes to address his concerns. A tag is just an invitation to improvement, that's all. I will be happy to do the work to make the changes needed here, if that's what you prefer, but first, I would like your opinion on whether or not you are in agreement that it needs doing. Your opinion matters. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an unusual way of proceding but I think it is a good one, and perfectly in line with our policy of consensus.

Based on the case above I support this material and its sources being added to the article. Andrewa (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Andrewa for weighing in. I've been gone from WP for awhile and it's nice to hear from you after all this time. Hope you and yours are well.Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

No one else has weighed in for awhile, so I guess that means everyone is copacetic with it. I am absorbed in another project right now, so it might be awhile, but I am coming back. Promise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I appologize in andvance for not being able to read all the text in the post above at the moment, but being aware of how controversial this subject is, I am concerned that any change would be biased, and hope this would not be the case with your suggestion. This title is inline with the title Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. They should be in line with each other, everyting thing else would be biased and break Misplaced Pages's policy of neutrality. The title of the article is fine as it is, unless you change "Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire" as well. This is an extremenly controversial subject, very likely to be interfered with and bias should be prevented constantly, so the title should be left as it is and inline with the article "Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire". I oppose to any change which is not equal and inline with "Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire". If my assumption is incorrect (as I have not been able to read everything through), you may disregard my post.--Aciram (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Can you explain what you want to do exactly without writing a huge wall of text? T8612 (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Aciram and T8612! I am so glad to hear from you. Thank you for responding. It is a huge wall of text isn't it? I have no problems with the title. As I explained to Epipelagic above, I share your concerns about bias. This article does not include the contemporary views which differ from the older views, and so it is defacto biased already. It is my desire to insert those into the existing article and thereby present a more representative selection of what all sources say in hopes of creating a more neutral POV. Since I do understand this topic is controversial, I posted some of it here, with references, so people can see what I'm talking about before I do anything. I am hoping to establish consensus before acting in order to avoid conflict. This huge wall only uses one archaeological reference, but there are multiples to be added. None of the sources are Christian if that concerns you. Please do read the huge wall, and check out the sources, and what they say, for yourself. I have no agenda beyond making WP a better encyclopedia. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk, you seem at least as clued on this matter as anyone else currently editing Misplaced Pages is likely to be. Might I suggest fortifying yourself by reading WP:BOLD, and then firmly storming the battlements that seem to be presenting a barrier to you. You can achieve this by just changing the article as you see fit. If you follow Misplaced Pages policies for verification, balance and courtesy, as you seems to be doing anyway, then the barriers are not really there. If there is subsequent pushback from other editors, that it is grist for the mill which probably needs to happen anyway and may further improve the article. If you want discussion, confine it to one issue at a time, preferably an issue that can be expressed concisely. — Epipelagic (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Epipelagic! I am glad to hear back from you. I will follow your advice. I am actually waiting to finish going through all the references and the prep for another article to hopefully go GA, so all the time I have for WP is being spent there right now, but it won't be much longer, I am almost done, and as soon as I am, I will be back here to be as BOLD as you please! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

EpipelagicAciramT8612AndrewaLaurel Lodged and all those who have been following along with great patience, I think I am finally done. Please feel free to critique away! The article looks a lot different now, I know, but I hope you will all like it and agree it is more balanced, more representative of all current views, and better sourced--no more OR. It is certainly more detailed! :-) All tags have been dealt with and removed--though I think there is still a source request in one place that I could not verify. I'm hoping someone else can. At any rate, I am glad to see contemporary scholarship in this article now, since it began asserting its views back in the 1980s and a consensus of support on it since then has grown steadily. Thank you for the opportunity to work with such open-minded people. It's been my pleasure.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, that goodbye was apparently premature. As a last minute check, I ran the copy-vio detector and found six whole paragraphs in the material I left from the previous author that is copied word for word. So, it seems this article was mostly written through original research and copying. I find this deeply distressing. I will be back and fix it later, but I am done for today. Unless someone else wants to jump in. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Never a dull moment! Hang in there. Andrewa (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding insult to injury Andrewa, it's apparently plagiarized from a blogspot! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

You know you're a Wikipedian when these things really annoy you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Ha ha! I'm finally in! :-) Cuz this really ticked me off! I've got one small section left that is entirely referenced to primary sources alone, indicating OR, and then I think I am finally genuinely done. I have ended up, completely unintentionally, rewriting this entire article--and no one has gotten offended or upset. Quite remarkable people who have contributed here I am thinking. I hope they are checking what I am putting in and checking my sources as well. I do make mistakes at times! I tried to leave all the original material and just supplement it, but when I went to checking copy vio and sources it all went to Hell in a handbasket. Damn that handbasket! Anyway, glad to hear from you! Christian thought is relisted for GA, with no takers yet, and I'm thinking of listing this one as well now that I've done all this work on it! Opinion? Hope you and yours are staying well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Epipelagic Aciram T8612 Andrewa Laurel Lodged Global Cerebral Ischemia@Αντικαθεστωτικός: @84.78.17.134: @T8612: @92.35.237.251: @Mike Selinker: @Johnpacklambert: @BrownHairedGirl: @Peterkingiron: @Good Olfactory: @Mangoe: @Carlossuarez46: @Johnbod: @The Bushranger: @Srnec: @Dbachmann: @Cinadon36: You have all demonstrated care about this article, so I want you to know about the terrific amount of copy-violations and OR that was in this article--I'd say about 80% of it. I think I've redone all the OR, but I am not 100% finished replacing the copy-vios. I am getting close and I haven't given up. Apparently this person, whom I will not name, did their research on blogspots with a pronounced POV, copied from them, then went to jstor and other scholarly publications to items that are not accessible to most of us as they have to be purchased--and cited those items instead of the blogs as the sources of the copied material. I think everyone should know this is what's gone on here. No name calling, but this is clearly the basis of much of the conflict this page has generated. Epically bad research. Don't think this doesn't always eventually get caught out people! Someone like me always eventually comes along. If there is one thing about Misplaced Pages I have learned, it is that the wheels of justice turn exceedingly slowly here--but they always do eventually turn. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This should be removed

This section should be removed as it argues a position rather than describes what different sources say. All persecution arises from someone being "other". That's kind of the definition of it in Durkheims deviance theory. It should be remembered, however, that early persecution of Christians did not follow the same prerogatives commonly ascribed to religious persecution in the modern sense, but rather arose from a feeling of "otherness" that Christians aroused in the society of the time, being adverse as they were to participating in the religious life of the Roman empire at large. Private religion, or the sacra privita, was not regulated by the state until the Christianization of the Empire, when paganism was proscribed even within the home. Private religion was the purview of the family and the individual, and varied between various ethnic groups. As such, many pagans were not opposed to Christian theology per se, but rather to the motivations of early Christians, who seemed rather "unpatriotic" in their isolation and aggressiveness towards other faiths. Christians were also seen as being a public embodiment of superstitio; what might be described today as religious zeal, but which also had connotations of magical thinking. While this was usually regarded as a private vice, one which was commonly thought to cause mental instability, it could also been seen as dangerous to the order of society. Romans had previously ascribed superstitio to excessive practice of magic, as well as other religious groups, among them Judaism, which was seen as opposed to the interpretatio romana, under which their public observances would be syncretised and brought into line with Roman practices. Unlike Christianity, however, these groups were not generally seen as threats to traditional Roman religious observance itself, but as obstacles to civic order and Romanization.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I shortened and left it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

can anyone find and validate this?

The example of Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian, who were seen as "godly emperors (...) serving the church and crushing its enemies," has been cited repeatedly by Christian authors who endorsed an idea of religious persecution.

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

1. John Coffey (2000), Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1558-1689, Studies in Modern History, Pearson Education, p. 31; O. O'Donovan (1996), The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology, esp. ch. 6.

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class history articles
• Mid-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Christian History articles
• Mid-importance Christian History articles
• Christian History articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Rome articles
• Mid-importance Rome articles
• All WikiProject Rome pages
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
• Mid-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
• All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class ethics articles
• Mid-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• B-Class Discrimination articles
• Mid-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• B-Class Neopaganism articles
• Mid-importance Neopaganism articles