Talk:Arius/Archive 3

Constantine "legalized" Christianity
I think it is incorrect to say that Constantine "legalized" or "formalized" (whatever that means) Christianity. Christianity was first legalized by the Emperor Gallienus in the mid 3rd century. It was made illegal once again by Diocletian in 303, and was formally legalized when the persecution was ended by the emperor Galerius in 311. See Barnes Constantine (2014) pg. 95; Frend, The Rise of Christianity pg. 480, or Henry Chadwick, The Early Church pg. 122. It was Galerius, not Constantine (or Licinius) who legalized Christianity and ended the so called "Great Persecution". Its also true that Constantine did not enforce any of the persecuting edicts in his territory after he took over in 306, and probably even already restored property to Christians in Britain and Gaul (but it isn't clear how he did this, whether extralegally or through some legal process--presumably as junior emperor he did not have the authority, legally speaking, to issue laws contradicting those of the senior Augustus--at any rate, however he did it, it only applied to those areas he controlled). At any rate, the article is inaccurate and needs to be changed. I have made the change twice, and my edits have been reverted. I hope this post gives a little time for debate, and I will change it back again in a few days unless there are enough objections or Barnes, Chadwick, and Frend are proved wrong.Ocyril (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This below is the bulk of what he and I wrote on my own personal talk page (since he began it there first) and not on here:

Arius edit reverted

Your changes seem to be for the worse. First, my main complaint against the article was that it implied that Constantine and Licinius "legalized" (and "formalized" whatever that means) Christianity. This is incorrect. Christianity was made illegal by Diocleatian in 303, and was legalized when the persecution was ended by Galerius in 311. You might be thinking of the so called "Edict of Milan" in 313...but this wasn't really an "edict", had no legal force, and anyhow Licinius and Constantine could not have legalized something that was already legal. So the current version of the article still contains the major error. Introducing Gallienus makes the paragraph worse, since he made Christianity legal a half century before the time period being spoken of...it would be better to have no reference made to him, especially since as it stands it seems to imply that he just acted, since Christianity is "newly" legalized. Anyhow I'm not sure where you are coming from. I have made clear my point...the current article implies that Constantine legalized Christianity...he did not. Are you arguing against this point?Ocyril (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * hello. I understand what you're saying in a sense, but the problem is that the current established and SOURCED view and position is that Constantine "legalized" the Christianity of the time. You can disagree with that view or conclusion all you want, but if you don't have sources for your own view, then it's just personal POV and SYNTHESIS. And then removing stuff you personally don't like or have problems with. You act as if this "Constantine formalized or legalized the Christianity of the time" is some concocted view of some past Wikipedia editor...when it's not. Your position is what needs to be sourced and proven. Wikipedia does NOT care what is "true", only if something is SOURCED. And the view that Constantine did in fact issue an "edict" in 313 A.D., etc etc, is the sourced and established view. So again, your constant removing and deleting of sentences you don't like or don't agree with is against WP policy if the sentences you are removing are established and sourced views and positions. You can have personal disagreements (and even be correct theoretically, though in this I do NOT think you really are correct), but your personal view on the "edict" (and even discounting it as even being an "edict") are NOT what are to guide your editing decisions, in true NPOV and referenced manner. Constantine legalized "Christianity" at the time, by DE-CRIMINALIZING it, and where it was NOT an arrestable offense to be a "Christian". What exactly is the big problem? Gabby Merger (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. I'm not sure how to include a source for something that I think needs to be removed.  But as it stands there doesn't seem to be a citation for the claim that Constantine "legalized" Christianity.  Here is a quote from Barnes, "...the Christians did not obtain legal toleration for the first time in 313, but had already obtained it in 311."  (Constantine, pg. 95, 2014).  Also, Frend, speaking of the "Edict of Toleration" (of Galerius, in 311), "The edict formally ended persecution, freed imprisoned Christians, and restored Christianity to the de facto situation which it had enjoyed for a generation prior to 303." (The Rise of Christianity, 480).  Or, again, see Henry Chadwick, "The intensity of Galerius' feeling is shown by the edict he issued on 30 April 311 when he was dying in great pain.  He explains that he had tried to persuade the Christians to return to the religion of the forefathers...and he now grants them toleration and the right of assembly..."  (The Early Church, pg. 122).  Also, i disagree with your suggestion that "Constantine did in fact issue an 'edict' in 313 A.D. etc etc, is the sourced and published view.".  I don't think any modern reputable historian would refer to the edict of Milan as an edict (although they very often refer to it as the "edict" of Milan, or the so-called "edict" of milan, to conform with the general consensus that it wasn't an edict), and even if it was an edict all historians would recognize that the Edict of Toleration in 311 was what ended the persecution and legalized Christianity, not the "edict" of Milan (whatever its legal character).  I think that the idea that Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 is more like a common historical "myth", like Columbus being the only one who thought that the earth was a sphere in 1492, rather than anything like an "established view".  Anyhow it should be removed because it is wrong and doesn't make any sense.  I have provided three citations.  Is that sufficient?Ocyril (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Where in the paragraph do you see the word "313"?   It doesn't even actually say that.   So it could be "311" as you say, as "Emperor Gallienus" is mentioned there now too.   The point is that it's an established fact that "Christianity" was ILLEGAL for a while around the time of Constantine and around "311" and "313" ish.  So?    But the actual date "313" is not even in the paragraph.  So the argument here about that is somewhat moot anyway.     Gabby Merger (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't that is true. But it does say that Constantine legalized Christianity (I assumed that you thought that he had done so in 313--but you are right that is besides the point).  But the point is that it says that Constantine legalized it; he did not.  I think I have made myself clear...Christianity was legalized by the emperor Galerius in 311, not by Constantine.  Constantine did not "legalize" Christianity.  Any statement implying that he did needs to be removed. I would remove the entire first sentence.  It would be better if it could be replaced with something that gets at what you are trying to say (that it "was ILLEGAL for a while around the time of Constantine" etc.).  I invite you to make the edit since you keep reverting mine...just edit it so that it does not imply that Constantine (or Licinius) legalized Christianity.  Thanks.Ocyril (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * O one more thing...I suspect you are confusing Gallienus and Galerius. Gallienus made Christianity legal in the 260s, for the first time in Roman history.  Galerius ended the Great Persecution in 311.  That's why i object to your including Gallienus in the article.  You should also remove any reference to him.Ocyril (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I made the correction to make it Galerius.   And since HE is mentioned there then the "legalized" is fine, because it doesn't just say "legalized", but also "formalized", which Constantine definitely had a part in. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you that is an improvement. But I still don't think it is ok.  It reads, "After Galerius and later Emperor Licinius and Emperor Constantine legalized and formalized the Christianity of the time..."  To me this means that Galerius, Licinius, and Constantine legalized and formalized Christianity (the latter did so "later"...though how you can legalize something after it has already been legalized is not clear to me).  It still clearly states that Constantine legalized Christianity.  This is incorrect.  If you are suggesting that the sentence is saying that Galerius legalized Christianity, and, later, Licinius and Constantine "formalized" it, then that should be made more clear.  I still wouldn't like it very much, because I'm not really sure what "formalize" means in this context, but i suspect that it means something so vague and insubstantial that it can't really be untrue (because it doesn't really mean anything).  I think it would be preferable to say something meaningful, but would be satisfied if it merely was not false.  Why not just remove any reference to Constantine or Licinius and get rid of "formalize"?  Or how bout, "After Galerius legalized Christianity, and Constantine and Licinius continued a policy of toleration...etc." or something to that effect.Ocyril (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It does NOT "clearly" say that Constantine "legalized" it, NECESSARILY.   You're wrong for saying that it "clearly" says that, as there's at least (because the other fellows are mentioned there too) some AMBIGUITY, in that sense.    Because the "formalized" could theoretically be the only thing applied to Constantine, in the sentence, and the "legalized" more so to the "Galerius" character.   The point is there's NO big need to fuss THIS MUCH over THIS, bro.   Seriously.    Constantine DE-CRIMINALIZED it by saying "you're all Christians now".   It was NOT always "legal".   By your own admission, it went back and forth to some degree.  But again, the "formalized" word would be (per your protests etc) more with the Constantine, and the "legalized" more with the Galerius.   There's no super "clear" anything that the "legalized" is by Constantine, necessarily, in that sentence, the way it's worded.    Gabby Merger (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * First...just to be clear, I'm still unsure of where you stand on the main issue we are arguing about here: whether Constantine legalized Christianity or not. You say, "Constantine DE-CRIMINALIZED it by saying "you're all Christians now"."  This is incorrect.  Constantine did not "de-criminalize" Christianity...Galerius did.  I have provided several citations to the effect that it was Galerius, not Constantine, who legalized Christianity.  Can we agree on that point?  I concede that the sentence does not necessarily imply that it was Constantine who "legalized" it (although, at the least, it is badly written...its like saying that "Bill Clinton, and, later, George Bush ran for president on the Democratic ticket and went to Yale" ?! this doesn't "necessarily" imply that George Bush was a Democrat...but that would be the most natural interpretation of the sentence), but since you agree that it is ambiguous, it would obviously be preferable to resolve that ambiguity (assuming you concede that it is incorrect to assert that it was Constantine who legalized Christianity).  Also, I think I have made it pretty clear why I think this is so important: there is widespread belief, DESPITE the academic consensus, that Constantine legalized Christianity.  I think, since you do not think its important, I can edit it in a way that you would be completely satisfied with.  Can I give it a try without you instantly reverting it?Ocyril (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree. I told you that.  Constantine legalized Christianity, by ending the persecution (legally) of Christians.  For some oddball reason you want to minimize or deny that fact.  But National Geographic says this:   "Emperor Constantine I is often credited with converting the Roman Empire to Christianity. In fact, though he ended the persecution of Christians and eventually converted, some historians debate the true nature of his faith."   Did you catch that?   It says clearly that Constantine ENDED (how so? BY LEGAL "EDICTS" OR "DECREES" OR WHATEVER THE HECK YOU WANNA CALL IT...but it was a LEGAL degree) the persecution of professed Christians.   Logically thereby LEGALIZING it.   Not sure why you have to be so super uptight nit-picky and fussy over THIS point in this article!!!!   Look what else it says in the National Geographic article on "Constantine the Great" article, farther down in its page:  "Constantine faced Western Roman Emperor Maxentius at the Tiber River's Mulvian Bridge in A.D. 312....The next year (meaning 313) Constantine, now the Western Roman Emperor, and Eastern Roman Emperor Licinius signed the Edict of Milan, which finally ensured religious tolerance for Christians. The agreement granted freedom of worship to all, regardless of deity, and brought an end to the Age of Martyrs, which had begun after Jesus' death. Christians were also given specific legal rights such as the return of confiscated property and the right to organize dedicated churches."    "Legal rights" were given.  Thereby "LEGALIZING" it. So as I said, no, I do NOT (and never did) actually "agree" with you on this.  Ok, so from this, it seems there are (reliable) sources that at least kind of sort of disagree with your view on this matter.   Let's LET IT GO already.  Because if you delete either the whole paragraph again, or even that part of the paragraph, you will be reverted.  Because in fact, I'm now putting this National Geographic ref IN the paragraph.   Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't want to minimize the fact for some "odd ball" reason. I want to deny the fact because it isn't true.  According to Wikipedia on 'reliable sources': "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."  The National Geographic Web Page does not trump the academic peer review sources that I have cited (3 to your 1).  The National Geographic web page is contributing to the problem.  You understand the historical sequence of events in the early 4th century correct?  Initially Christianity was legal, then Diocletian initiated the Great Persecution in 303, which lasted until it was ended by Galerius in 311.  After Galerius' edict Christianity was once again legal.  Constantine did have a policy of returning Christian property, so he did give them greater legal rights after 313 (and even before then in territories he ruled)...that is perfectly true.  Maybe you can add something to that effect...that Constantine gave greater legal rights to Christians (but he did not make Christianity legal--How could he? it was already legal.  How could he make something legal that was already legal?).  I will gather more sources...as I said, that Constantine did NOT legalize Christianity is the academic consensus, and peer reviewed articles from the academic community should trump a web page on National Geographic I would think.  Let me quote all of the Timothy Barnes (the leading scholar on Constantine) citation that I quoted earlier to try and convince you:  "'In the year 313 Constantine guaranteed legal toleration for the Christians in the Roman Empire through the Edict of Milan.'  So have we all learned at our school desks, and yet not a single word of that sentence is true.  For the Christians did not obtain legal toleration for the first time in 313, but had already obtained it in 311; the originator of this legal measure was not Constantine, but Galerius; and there never was an 'Edict of Milan' which concerned itself with the questions of the Christians.  Admittedly, a document which people are in the habit of calling bu this name is still preserved in its original wording.  But, first, this document is no edict; second, it was not issued in Milan; third, it was not issued by Constantine; and, fourth, it does not grant legal toleration, which the Christians had already possessed for some time, to the whole empire: its content has a much more restricted significance."  (Barnes, Constantine, 95).  Although I disagree with Barnes suggestion that the so called "Edict of Milan" has limited significance (I think it is extremely important and indicative of Constantine's continuing policy of general religious toleration), everything else he says is spot on, and you will have a hard time coming up with a modern academic historian to contradict him.  Thanks.Ocyril (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your own words "After Galerius' edict Christianity was once again legal. Constantine did have a policy of returning Christian property, so he did give them greater legal rights after 313 (and even before then in territories he ruled)".   So the point is that AT LEAST IN SOME SENSE Constantine (it could be said in some broad manner, given even admitted facts) "legalized" Christianity.   National Geographic IS a "reliable" source.  Just because you personally don't like it or don't like (or don't agree with) their article on Constantine.   National Geographic website is definitely considered a reliable source by Wikipedia.   I can maybe agree with you that there was some legal toleration in 311 A.D., but NOT 100% (arguably) as in 313 A.D.   In other words, it's NOT necessarily such a black and white issue, as you seem to be making it out.   Constantine definitely at least had something to DO with it all (on or before "313 A.D.")    Do you know that some theologians, by the way, who are basically what's called "anti-Catholics" (of Protestant ilk mainly) who believe that the Roman Catholic Church actually had its infancy in 313 A.D., and that it did NOT start with Christ and the Apostles in the first century.   (The argument being that there was no such thing as the "Vatican" or "College of Cardinals" or "pope" this or that, or fish hats and mitres and "nuns" or the usual Catholic nomenclatures such as "Mary Mother of God" and "Father Peter" etc etc, in the first century.  But that type of stuff actually was a corruption that began later, and really became more so in "313" (or maybe 311, depending on your view))  Side point.   Anyway, bro, again, the fact is that Constantine played a role, and had some parts in the matter, so you ARE minimizing a historical (and sourced) fact, that IS true (at least in some ways).  You ask in your comment "how could he make something legal that was already legal?"   Well in that in 311 it was NOT 100% legal in every aspect necessarily...as there was arguably a PROCESS.    311-313.     In other words, it could be said, that Constantine made it MORE "legal".   As (by your own concession it seems) the professed "Christians" did NOT have all the legal rights QUITE YET before 313.  Not everything.  That's all, man.   Please.    I appreciate you being careful and trying to keep things accurate, but let's not go overboard here.    You can't deny that at least some (reliable and used) sources do say that Constantine had a hand in the formalizing and legalizing (more so) of the Christianity of the time, in Rome etc.   Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Gabby you are really reaching. I agree that Constantine gave Christians the right to reaquire property in 313 that had been lost in the Persecution.  He did not make it legal.  It was 100 percent legal in 311, after Galerius's edict of toleration.  He certainly played a huge role, the major role,of any emperor in the process of the empire transitioning from a pagan to a (later) Christian state. He preferred Christians and gave them all kinds of legal benefits, preferences in appointments...he gave bishops legal jurisdiction of cases (and didnt allow even allow an appeal), he made laws obviously beneficial to Christians etc. etc.  Your suggestion that he made it "more legal" by allowing Christians access to property is...I dunno...a really silly argument (sorry to sound insulting).  I agree that Christians acquired more legal rights after 311...under Constantine, under Gratian, or Theodosius etc. (why not say that Theodosius legalized Christianity, since he made it "more legal" since Christians had more legal rights under Theodosius than under Constantine...you see the absurdity of your argument?).  I do admit, however, that you can find many sources that support your contention that he did make Christianity legal...even many more than I can...but this is only because it is a widespread misunderstanding which has even been taught in schools.  But it isn't true, and you cannot find academic, peer reviewed material that will support your contention; I can gather many citations.  It really is a very clear cut issue.  I guess we cannot come to an agreement but...since my argument, and my citations are superior to yours (in my opinion), I think we ought to go with my suggestion rather than yours yes (lol)?  We have to have this issue resolved by someone else.  I don't really know how it works but...I am pretty sure that objective non-interested observers are going to find my argument more persuasive than yours.  (But its not really MY argument, its the consensus of the academic community who specialize in this area of study).  At any rate I am willing to let someone else decide the issue.  There does not seem to be much interest on the talk page.  You clearly know much more about editing than I do.  How can we have this issue decided by some sort of arbitrator?  Thanks.Ocyril (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can post this entire discussion on the talk page? and some other contributors will chime in and establish a consensus? Just one more attempt to convince you...consider this thought experiment...Lets say marijuana was legalized in Colorado in January 2014...Lets say in January 2016, the state of Colorado decides that all of the property that it had confiscated in marijuana drug busts should be returned to the owners...now, when did Colorado legalize marijuana?  Clearly they did so in 2014 right?  They didn't make it "more legal" in 2016...you agree?  The same is true in the case of Constantine and Christianity.  It was illegal when being Christian was a criminal offense, and it was legalized when being Christian was no longer a criminal offense.  It was no longer illegal to be a Christian after Galerius and the edict of Toleration in 311, and Constantine had nothing to do with it.  Thanks.Ocyril (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I was gonna ask you that myself!  Why have you been writing all this stuff on my personal user talk page, instead of on the ARTICLE talk page?  Anyway, you do admit that there are sources supporting the view.   But you bringing up "Theodosius" does NOT necessarily negate my point that Constantine ADDED more legal rights to the professed Christians of the time, and in effect "made it more legal".  So what if maybe others did too?   Doesn't necessarily cancel out the factual point.   Anyway, yeah, why did you even do this on my page in the first place, and not the article talk page?   But regardless, there are valid sources that support the GENERAL AND NOT-SO-BLACK-AND-WHITE POSITION THAT CONSTANTINE AT LEAST HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE "LEGALIZATION" OF THE PROFESSED CHRISTIANS IN THE EARLY FOURTH CENTURY A.D.  Gabby Merger (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I certainly would not deny that he had "at least something to do with the 'legalization' of the" etc...I think he had a lot to do with it (for various reasons)...its just incorrect to say that he legalized Christianity in the Roman empire. Similarly, to continue the analogy I had made in my previous post, I have no doubt that NORML (the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) had "at least something to do" with the legalization of marijuana in Colorado (through lobbying efforts etc.).  But saying that marijuana was legalized in Colorado by NORML would be obviously absurd.Ocyril (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The NORML analogy most closely parallels the action of Gallerius. This is similar to the IRS choosing to aggressively audit a group of people, and then after public outcry cuts back on the audits. Gallerius did not formally protect the Christians under the umbrella of the government the way that Constantine did. Prior to Constantine, was any Roman Emperor able to convince 300+ Christain leaders to come together in one place peacefully? The question is begged - what is your motive in trying to discredit the Edict of Milan and presented by Licinius and Constantine? 24.176.56.249 (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The NORML analogy was meant to counter the argument that "having something to do" with legalizing Christianity is equivalent to legalizing Christianity. The IRS analogy doesn't help...there is nothing in your IRS analogy where something is "legalized"...it is illegal not to pay your taxes and whether the IRS audits you is an administrative decision.  The IRS does not make not paying your taxes "legal" because they cut back on audits after a public outcry (and in THIS sense it it NOT at all like Galerius, since Galerius actually made Christianity legal). You say "Gallerius did not formally protect the Christians under the umbrella of the government in the way that Constantine did"--fair enough, but this is not what we are arguing about.  We are arguing about whether it is correct to say that Constantine "legalized" Christianity.  Christianity was "legalized" when the law was reformed such that being a Christian was no longer illegal.  Christianity was "legalized" in this sense, after Galerius Edict of Toleration in 311.  It was already legal, throughout the Roman Empire, to be Christian, by the time that Constantine and Licinius met in Milan in 313.  This is what the argument is really about.  I have made further arguments, with respect to the so called "Edict of Milan" (that it was not an edict, that it was not issued from Milan, or by Constantine) that are tangential, but besides the point of the main argument...we can discuss these issues if you like, but the main point is that the article suggests, incorrectly, that Constantine legalized Christianity.  My motive in suggesting this change is that it is incorrect, and is inconsistent with modern peer reviewed historical sources.  And, anyhow, can we please address my ARGUMENT, before we start questioning my motives.  Look...there seems to be some idea that any kind of suggestion that Galerius "legalized" Christianity, rather than Constantine somehow suggests that Galerius is the good guy in this story and Constantine's heroism has been undermined...this isn't true, and anyhow it is not my purpose in anyway to suggest that Galerius is a hero to Christians...he isn't...he made Christianity legal begrudgingly, and because he felt he had to because the persecution proved to be a gross failure.  All this is besides the point.  Again, the argument is about who made Christianity legal throughout the empire; the answer is, Galerius did.  To suggest that Constantine did is incorrect.  Does this mean that Galerius protected Christians "under the umbrella of the government in the way that Constantine did"?  No it does not.  Does this mean that Galerius was Christian, or sympathetic to Christians, or that he was interested enough in Christian doctrine to "convince 300+ Christian leaders [though I would favor a figure less than 300...but close enough) to come together"?  No, Galerius hated Christians, and would have preferred that the persecution had been successful.  But what does any of this have to do with it?  The question, again, is "Who legalized Christianity?", and the answer is that it was legalized by the Emperor Galerius, in 311, when the persecution was formally ended and it was no longer a criminal offense to be a Christian in the Roman Empire.Ocyril (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gallerius halting the persecution is like the IRS halting biased audits against the Tea Party groups. The IRS is not 'legalizing' the Tea Party by halting biased audits, no more than Gallerius 'legalized' Christianity by stopping persecuting the Christians. Did the last Roman soldier to bang his hammer into Jesus' nail go Christian simply because he stopped hammering? Your idea makes no sense unless you can demonstrate how Gallerius legally recognized the right of Christians officially to exist in the Empire. 24.176.56.249 (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did demonstrate that. I have quoted three peer reviewed academic sources, all to the effect that the persecution was ended by Galerius' Edict of Toleration in 311.  He passed a law, which made it no longer a criminal offense to be a Christian (that's what it is to "legalize" something--to change the law so that the thing is no longer prohibited).  Your analogy is not helpful.  Its true that the IRS halting biased audits against Tea Party groups is not equivalent to "legalizing" the Tea Party.  The problem with your analogy is that the Tea Party is not illegal...in fact the irs audits are illegal.  The historical reality is that being a Christian WAS illegal 303, when Diocletian initiated the Persecution.  It was legalized when the Persecution was ended by Galerius in 311.  Take a look at the Edict of Toleration by Galerius--the Edict did not just stop the Persecution (in the sense of not enforcing the law as it stood), but changed the law, giving Christians the right to gather publicly and practice their religion; again, that's what it is to "legalize" something.  Ocyril (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Edict of Toleration by Galerius states the following: 1) The Christians are social deviants who fought the religion of antiquity in Rome and were hence punished, 2) Christians died and while some caved in under torture and threat of death, many did not 3) because we are kind and given to indulgences we will grant them the indulgence of stopping the torture. 4) While the Christians 'follow the order' they will not be persecuted. Clearly, there is a temporary hiatus in this letter with the threat of resumed persecution if the Christians were to rebel. This is not a 'legal recognition' so much as it is a 'legal hiatus'. 24.176.56.249 (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. It ends the persecution and allows them the right to assemble and worship.  It is legal recognition of those rights.  After this law, Christians could not be punished (for Christianity) under the law. Your insistence on calling it a "hiatus" when there is nothing in the law suggesting that the Persecutions would begin again at some time in the future is perverse.  Even where the change in a law actually is temporary, and in effect a hiatus, (this happens ALL THE TIME), it would still be perverse to suggest that a change in the law does not represent a change in the law just because it is temporary (which is not the case in this instance anyhow).  For instance if the state of Colorado decides that legalizing marijuana was a bad idea, and decides to prohibit it again, then that doesn't mean that they didn't legalize it in the first place.  It means they made several changes in the law...from legalizing it, to making it illegal once again.  Again...even if, as you suggest (and there is no reason to believe that this is true), the Edict of Toleration was meant to be a temporary measure (and you know this because you are evidently able to read the mind of Galerius...there is nothing in the law that suggests this is the case) it does not change the fact that the law legalizes Christianity (Galerius would just have 'meant' to legalize it 'temporarily' and things didn't work out as he intended...because it was never made "illegal" again).  The Edict of Toleration 311 legalized Christianity...after this date the Persecution was (officially...under the law) over, and it was no longer illegal for people to practice the Christian religion.  To suggest that this is anything other than "legalization" is absurd.
 * There are also situations where the ENFORCEMENT of the law can be set aside...and this might be described as a "legal hiatus". This happens all the time through abeyance (like the case of the various sodomy laws in the United States).  This seems to be the kind of thing you are thinking of as a "legal hiatus", and this was often the way the Earlier Emperors and Imperial officials dealt with their Christian subjects, since before the mid 3rd century, Christianity was technically illegal, but generally the law was not enforced, except under exceptional circumstances when a general persecution was instituted, like under Decius or Valerian, or under specific conditions in local areas.  Gallienius "legalized" Christianity in the mid third century by allowing Christians to practice religion publicly.  Diocletian made Christianity illegal once again with his Persecuting Edicts, and Galerius legalized it when he gave the Christians "legal recognition" by allowing them to practice there religion publicly once again with the Edict of Toleration in 311.  This is NOT, in other words, a case were the executive power is not enforcing the law as it stands (as in the case, generally with US sodomy laws, or with the treatment of Christians, generally, in the Earlier Empire), all of which might be described as a kind of "legal hiatus" in which the law IS NOT BEING ENFORCED, rather, this is a case where the law is CHANGED, so that the Christians are given the right to practice there religion UNDER THE LAW.  Your suggestion that a change in the law, allowing Christians to practice there religion, somehow does not give them "legal recognition" to do exactly what it explicitly DOES give them the right to do, does not make any sense.
 * Finally, your suggestion that the law contains a "threat of renewed persecution" is mistaken. The Edict says that the Christians "may again be Christians and may hold their conventicles, provided they do nothing contrary to good order."  In other words, there is no threat to renew the persecution of Christians AS CHRISTIANS...on the contrary, they are granted the legal protection of their religion, and they can no longer be prosecuted under the laws prohibiting Christianity, but they can presumably be prosecuted for violations of laws designed to protect "good order."  Or, alternatively, they could be prosecuted under new Persecuting Edicts (though the Edict of Toleration makes no such explicit threat), which would once again make Christianity "illegal"...but this would require a change in the law.Ocyril (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Rfc: Did Constantine and Licinius legalize Christianity?
Was Christianity legalized throughout the Roman Empire by Constantine or Galerius?Ocyril (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Possible it was legalized by Constantine (See  here). — CutestPenguinHangout 07:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting. The source for the Edict of Toleration, Lactantius (cited in the wiki article you mention), attributes the Edict to Galerius...there is no mention of Licinius or Constantine.  The wiki article says, "The Edict of Toleration by Galerius was issued in 311 in Nicomedia by the Roman Tetrarchy of Galerius, Constantine and Licinius, officially ending the Diocletian persecution of Christianity" but I have no clue why they would attribute it to Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius (it doesn't say this in Lactantius).  On the other hand i wouldn't be surprised if it was actually issued in the name of the Tetrarchy (which would include Maximinus also, not just Licinius, Constantine, and Galerius) and Lactantius just left that fact out.  But this would just be because a law would be promulgated in the name of all four emperors (as was usually the custom in the tetrarchy).  In actual fact the law was issued by Galerius, on his own initiative.  I appreciate you pointing out the article on the Edict of Toleration; the fact that the article makes no sense is discouraging me however...Wikipedia is riddled with errors.Ocyril (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure it was legalized by Constantine. -- Biblio worm 03:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you elaborate, especially in the light of the discussion of on this talk page. HOW did he "legalize" it, for instance...what law did he pass, that changed the legal status of Christianity in the Empire?Ocyril (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Invalid RFC: Per WP:V and WP:NOR policies, this does not appear to be a valid WP:RFC. The question is a matter for source research, not something for the WP editing community to make up it's own consensus about.  If someone's just curious, this question belongs at the WP:REFDESK; RFCs are for editorial not content-factual matters.  Good examples of RfC topics are article focus, reliability issues surrounding a source, whether original research is happening, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)   I wrote imprecisely (RFCs can address content: "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines, article content, or user conduct...").   RFCs are not for Wikipedians to engage in their own process of consensus ; that's original research.  When RFCs are about content they're about whether the content is relevant, whether it accurately reports what the reliable sources say, whether it is citing actually reliable sources, etc.  What you have at this article appears to be sources disagreeing, and the solution to that is to note in the article that sources disagree, and how, not try to come to some kind of wiki-tribunal decision as to what the facts are.  Only external sources can tell us what the facts are.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I understand and agree with what you are saying about the purpose of an RFC.  I think the article should reflect what the sources say, and the relative value of those sources.  How is the RFC "invalid"?  The article currently does not reflect disagreement in the sources and I am citing sources that cannot be left out of the article.  Please look at the edits and discussion if you have a chance, thanks.Ocyril (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC) comment moved here from User talk:SMcCandlish by same.
 * The RFC doesn't pose a question about what sources are being used, but a question about the facts of who legalized Christianity throughout the Roman Empire, ergo invalid RFC. I would suggest closing it and re-opening a properly formulated question about the apparent dispute over what sources are being used.  Or maybe just open a regular talk page discussion about that; it need not be an RFC unless resolution here among the article's everyday editors proves intractable.  I'm not trying to berate you for opening an RFC or anything; it's just that this particular RFC doesn't ask the right kind of question. If you believe that valid sources are being excluded for PoV-pushing or OR-pushing reasons, there are WP:NOTICEBOARDS available for dispute resolution. The article should certainly be based on the available, reliably-published sources, and appropriate, not WP:UNDUE, weight given to the hypotheses presented in them, based on their relative reliability.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Where to put Thalia quotes and extracts
Hi, I just did a rearrangement of sections without deleting any content. The extended quotes of translations of the Thalia were under "Arius' Doctrine," which should instead be reserved for summaries of what Arius believed. Then there was another section called "Extant writings," and there was a paragraph on the Thalia, but the quotes from the Thalia were not there. So I moved the whole section on the Thalia to "Extant Writings," putting the old paragraph from Extant Writings on the Thalia at the top of this new section. There may now be some duplication requiring style editing. This should create the appropriate space for further quotes and translations from the Thalia.Jroo222 (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added a long quote from the Thalia in ancient Greek, copied from Hans-Georg Opitz' edition, which is now available online. I inserted the translation by Aaron West, currently online. Since the quotes that were already on the page were also directly from West's translation, I deleted these to avoid duplication, but I retained the previous editor's comments on the content of the Thalia in a fused sentence. The only information I deleted was the previous editor's introduction to the quotes, which stated that the citations came from the Discourses Against Arians; the quotes in fact come from De Synodis. I also fused the introductions into one and eliminated duplicate statements, for example folding all glosses of the word Thalia into one parenthesis.

I am carefully copyediting my Ancient Greek and making sure the English glosses are beneath the correct corresponding lines. Apologies for any errors that may have crept in, I will attempt to double-check from time to time and try to be as accurate as possible. Original sources (Opitz, West) are online. Jroo222 (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good job! 97.95.125.122 (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Appreciate the encouragement. Jroo222 (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

ΟΚ. Ι just finished copyediting the ancient Greek, taken from the Opitz edition available at present through the Internet Archive. The first time I typed it in I was a bit hasty and there were errors on every line, mixed up lines, mismatched Greek and English lines, missing lines, every error imaginable. I think it is fixed up now; as far as I can tell the Ancient Greek of the extract of the Thalia from Athanasius' De Synodis is exactly as it is in Opitz' edition down to the accents.Jroo222 (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You did a good job in this article :)--Anẓar (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Arius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110819215807/http://www.fourthcentury.com:80/index.php/urkunde-33 to http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-33
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080304012953/http://www.fourthcentury.com:80/Arius/ariusintro.htm to http://www.fourthcentury.com/arius/ariusintro.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925170957/http://www.fourthcentury.com:80/index.php/arius-chart to http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/arius-chart

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

English language change in "The First Council of Nicaea"
I did 1 change in section "The First Council of Nicaea", 3rd paragraph: "But Athanasius is seen as doing the legwork and concluded [...] that the Son was of the same essence (homoousios) THAN the Father" to "But Athanasius is seen as doing the legwork and concluded [...] that the Son was of the same essence (homoousios) AS the Father", as "of the same essence than" was a strange English formulation. That strange formula containing "of the same essence than" also appears in the referenced work: Matt Perry - Athanasius and his Influence at the Council of Nicaea - QUODLIBET JOURNAL.

Now English is not my first language, so I am not aware of all the implications of the formula "of the same essence than", as compared to "of the same essence as". Maybe the former one has some meaning. Maybe someone who is proficient and knowledgeable in the English language may give more information here. Ferred (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I changed it again to "that the Son was of the same essence (homoousios) WITH the Father". This is motivated by the fact that the formula "with the Father" seems to be preferred in many texts; firstly in the Nicene Creed, also in the article on Homoousion, but also in Athanasius, Discourse 1 Against the Arians, part 9, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm : "Very Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His essence, Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father's essence. Wherefore He is very God, existing one in essence with the very Father". This formula may carry a significant meaning.

A quote from the original source would be better. Does the Athanasian Trinitarian defense refer to Athanasius' "De Decretis"? This is not clear. Ferred (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Further quotes from Athanasius, De Decretis, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2809.htm :

part 19: "For neither are other things as the Son, nor is the Word one among others, for He is Lord and Framer of all; and on this account did the Holy Council declare expressly that He was of the essence of the Father, that we might believe the Word to be other than the nature of things originate, being alone truly from God"

part 20: "But the Bishops [...] were again compelled on their part to collect the sense of the Scriptures, and to re-say and re-write what they had said before, more distinctly still, namely, that the Son is 'one in essence ' with the Father: by way of signifying, that the Son was from the Father, and not merely like, but the same in likeness, and of showing that the Son's likeness and unalterableness was different from such copy of the same as is ascribed to us, which we acquire from virtue on the ground of observance of the commandments. For bodies which are like each other may be separated and become at distances from each other, as are human sons relatively to their parents (as it is written concerning Adam and Seth, who was begotten of him that he was like him after his own pattern Genesis 5:3); but since the generation of the Son from the Father is not according to the nature of men, and not only like, but also inseparable from the essence of the Father, and He and the Father are one, as He has said Himself, and the Word is ever in the Father and the Father in the Word, as the radiance stands towards the light (for this the phrase itself indicates), therefore the Council, as understanding this, suitably wrote 'one in essence,' that they might both defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and show that the Word was other than originated things. "

part 30: "the Word is the Father's Image, and one in essence with Him" Ferred (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

In the phrase "[the Son was of the same essence (homoousios) with the Father, and] was eternally generated from that essence of the Father" the meaning of the word "eternally" is not very clear. Ferred (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Relationship with related articles
For a discussion of this subject please see the page Talk:Arian controversy — Jpacobb (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Arius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-33
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301105222/http://www.libertypages.com/clark/10695.html to http://www.libertypages.com/clark/10695.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120428043554/http://fourthcentury.com/index.php/arius-thalia-intro to http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/arius-thalia-intro/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120428043554/http://fourthcentury.com/index.php/arius-thalia-intro to http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/arius-thalia-intro/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080304012953/http://www.fourthcentury.com/Arius/ariusintro.htm to http://www.fourthcentury.com/arius/ariusintro.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/arius-chart

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)