Talk:Laodicea on the Lycus

= Comments =

The name of this article?
Was previously Laodicea ad Lycum has been moved to Laodicea on the Lycus. I'm not sure what the convention is, but how should this article be named. 'Laodicea on the Lycus' is not what this city is called in English - it would simply be called 'Laodicea'. We obviously need some form of disambig, as there are other cities of this name mentioned at Laodicea. But how notable are they - should this article occupy that space and the disambig that is there be moved to Laodicea (disambiguation)? Alternatively should we rename this article Laodicea (Phrygia) - or something like? Any opinions? --Doc (?) 13:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the standard means of disambiguation among modern historians of the Hellenistic period, and is the English form: to translate the Greek epithet, not into Latin, but into English (where that can be done conveniently; Alexandria Eschate is sometimes an exception). Observe, for example, that Seleucia on the Tigris is so called in her article, and when the article requires disambiguation, as it eventually will, it should be moved to the full form.


 * As for links to this article, there are three; all now single redirects. Septentrionalis 13:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is possible that this article could stay at Laodicea, since the others all have modern names: Latakia, Beirut, Nihavend - but I would deprecate this, as an invitation to bad links. Of these, Laodicea in Syria was much the largest, as the port of Antioch. (The Loeb puncuates Strabo so as to make "Laodicea on the sea" a description, not a proper name; Pausanias calls them simply Laodiceans - I think if Laodicea is not the dab, the Syrian city should have it.) Septentrionalis 15:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, having heard your reasons, and accepting your info that this is a standard dab among historians (I guess that was my main question), I'm happy to leave it as it now stands. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. --Doc (?) 16:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"Neither cold nor hot"
I don't where this should go in the article, but the name "Laodicea" has a metaphorical usage which derives from Revelation 3:14-16. It is sometimes used to refer to Christians or congregations which are no longer zealous for the faith. Should there be a "cultural significance" section to mention this fact, and does it belong here or on a disambiguation page? --User:Mdbates


 * I think we have it covered at Laodicean Church. --Doc ask?  19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Further observations on 'Neither cold nor hot'

The message throughout Revelation is largely symbolic (Rev 1:1). However, when Jesus conveyed these prophecies to the Apostle John, he gave specific messages to seven of the congregations located in Asia Minor, namely, Ephesus, Sardis, Smyrna, Philadelphia, Pergamum, Thyatira and, of course, Laodicea. Without a doubt, these seven congregations understood Christ's messages to them. The message to Laodicea was especially caustic and biting to the congregation and they knew it's import.

Laodicea lay along one of the major trade routes of the Roman Empire. Imports from the east via the Black Sea to the Dardenelles, along with trade with the western provinces of Rome made Laodicea one of the wealthiest cities in the Roman Empire. Besides a great accumulation of wealth, the Laodiceans also prided themselves in a lucrative textile industry, along with being the leader of eye medications for the Empire.

Revelation 3: 14 - 18 shows Christ's disapproval of this congregation. The appearance of being 1) wealthy, 2) a leader in textile production and 3) a leader in ointments for the eyes was well known throughout Asia Minor. The 17th verse of Revelation, Chapter 3 reads, "Because you say, 'I am rich and have acquired riches and do not need anything at all', but you do not know that you are miserable and pitiable and poor and blind and naked". shows that the Laodicean congregation was in reality poor, naked and blind, despite it's worldly prominence. Verse 18 reads, "I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire that you may become rich, and white outer garments that you may become dressed and that the shame of your nakedness may not become manifested, and eyesalve to rub in your eyes that you may see."

So this was a message by Christ instructing the Laodiceans to correct their way of thinking in regard to their pursuit of material things vs their original purpose which, of course, was the pursuit of spiritual things. Their continued pursuits in materialism and wealth far exceeded the more important spiritual requirements, i.e., the spreading of the good news throughout the region which was supposed to be their main objective.

There is more meaning to the message to the Laodicean congregation in verses 15 and 16: "'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or else hot. So because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth.'" Anyone who lived in this region knew that the water brought to Laodicea via the aquaducts was not the best in the area. The water was not refreshing, it was lukewarm and full of minerals like iron and calcium. So fellow Christians from other congregations who associated with the Laodiceans could readily identify the problems that this congregation had. Christ had laid it bare for all to see. Bill

Titular see
(The following is moved from a personal talk page)

Hi. Your second version of your edit to Laodicea on the Lycus is better than your first one, but

(a) there was a reason why the first writer wrote "remains a titular see". Do you know how long Laodicea on the Lycus has been a titular see? When was it first a titular see, and, following that, was it ever not a titular see? That information will determine the best verb for the sentence; and

(b) there is no need to join the clauses with "and". Using "and" before "has been vacant" is slightly ambiguous because there are so many nouns before it. One must remember, or figure out, that the subject of "has been vacant" is all the way back at the beginning of the sentence. The semi-colon and new subject avoid that ambiguity. Also, when one uses "and" to connect two clauses, it makes the two clauses equal in value/emphasis. In this case, the second clause saying that the bishopric has been vacant is, I think, slightly less important than the first clause. Using a semi-colon avoids placing emphasis on that last clause.

Also, using "bishopric" at the beginning of the sentence is confusing. Which is it, a bishopric or a titular see? If they are synonyms, then they ought to be placed next to each other, as appositives, with one given as a synonym for the other. CorinneSD (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * a) The see became a titular see when it ceased to be a residential one. It didn't remain a titular one.  It hadn't been a titular see before.  Titular sees are real episcopal sees that no longer have a residential bishop.  Originally, conquest by non-Christians was the reason for the absence of a bishop in such sees, which is why such sees used to be referred to as bishoprics in partibus infidelium (in the areas of the infidels, i.e. of the non-Christians).  Ever since the Catholic Church decided in the 1960s to cease appointing Westerners as titular bishops of Eastern sees, it has used as titular sees also those in countries that have not been militarily taken over by non-Christian armies.  (But of course a genuine titular see can only be one that has actually been a bishopric.)
 * b) I disagree with your grammatical analysis of the use of "and" in the sentence, "The bishopric has become a titular see of the Catholic Church, called Laodicensis in Phrygia, and has been vacant since 1968". The only nominative-case noun in the not over-long sentence is "the bishopric". But I have no objection to rephrasing the sentence.  It has much greater need of other retouches.  The bishopric has become a titular see available also for the Eastern Orthodox Church, not for the Catholic Church alone.  And the post-Vatican-II vacancy concerns only the Catholic Church's use of it as a titular see.  As a residential see, it has been vacant much longer.  These faults persist in the present wording because you objected to my changing it.
 * c) Bishopric and (episcopal) see are synonyms. Whether it is still residential or reduced to titular status, a bishopric is still a bishopric/see.  Esoglou (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess my confusion yesterday had to do with the word "bishopric". Not only did I not know what a bishopric was, I had not seen that word used in the article before that. I still don't see it used before that in the section "Christian Laodicea". (I also read the article Episcopal see, following the link at see (at the beg. of the section) and did not see the word "bishopric" once.) To me, I was still reading an article about a town or city. I did not realize that the topic had changed to an institution within the city (unless the entire city is the bishopric, in which case I think that should be mentioned somewhere for the average reader like me). Obviously, I am not as knowledgeable about the topic as you are. I am interested in the topic and happy to learn more (and thank you for the explanation you gave). I think your plan to work on the sentence so that it makes the entire situation clear and includes more details is excellent. I look forward to reading the changes.
 * I wanted to ask you about another statement in the same section. It appears at the beginning of the second paragraph:


 * "The first bishops attributed to the See of Laodicea are very uncertain..." The text goes on to name quite a few bishops and even says that 24 (or 25?) others are also known. If so many are known and can be named, why are they "very uncertain"? Am I missing something?


 * The reason I read this article in the first place, a few weeks ago, is because I was trying to figure out which Laodicea (there are three, I believe) is the one where Marcus Aurelius and his troops stopped on their way to Cappadocia (see the article on Marcus Aurelius). I think it is probably this one because it is the largest of the three, but I cannot be certain. I was trying to find something definitive that would support disambiguating "Laocidea" in the Marcus Aurelius article. Perhaps you could help with that.CorinneSD (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Of the several Laodiceas that have Wikipedia articles, the one that Lucius wintered at was certainly Laodicea in Syria. He was sent to the Antioch area with a view to a campaign against Parthia (east of Syria) and because "a rebellion was brewing in Syria".  For a luxury lover the nearby seaside town of Laodicea in Syria was the place to winter, certainly not the Laodicea in mountainous Phrygia far away in western Asia Minor.  I leave it to you to disambiguate the word in the Marcus Aurelius article.
 * With your consent I will revise the paragraph in this article. The statement, "The first bishops attributed to the See of Laodicea are very uncertain", suggests that someone may simply have taken two names mentioned in the Letter to the Colossians and one mentioned in the Third Letter of John and turned them into the first three bishops of Laodicea!  That's what makes very uncertain their attribution to the see or bishopric of Laodicea.  Esoglou (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I seem to have mixed up details of the article; it has been a few months since I worked on the Marcus Aurelius article and I was going by memory. It was not Marcus Aurelius but rather Lucius Verus who "wintered at Laodicea" on his way to Syria to fight in the Parthian war. So, as you said, a Laodicea in Syria makes more sense than a Laodicea in Turkey. But I notice that there are two Laodiceas in Syria on the disambiguation page. I guess it is the one by the sea, "...Mare". If you will confirm that it is that Laodicea I will make the edit in Marcus Aurelius.CorinneSD (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I just read your revision of the section "Christianity in Laodicea". It is definitely an improvement. Most of it is quite clear now. There is just one sentence, however, that I find both too long and unclear (perhaps if it were clearer, the length would not be as much of a problem). Perhaps it is clear to you because you are so familiar with the topic, but it seems wordy and confusing to me. Here is the sentence:


 * "The Epistle to the Colossians mentions Laodicea in passing,[16] sends greetings also from a certain Epaphras from Colossae, who worked hard for the Christians of the three Phrygian cities of Colossae, Laodicea and Hierapolis,[17] asks that greetings be sent to the Christians in Laodicea[18] and asks that the letter itself be read publicly also at Laodicea and that a letter addressed to the Laodiceans be read publicly at Colossae.[19]"


 * I would like to propose a few changes, but first I have to ask you whether it would be correct to say that the Apostle Paul wrote the Epistle to the Colossians. I would like to change the subject from the Epistle to the Apostle Paul, or just Paul. Then all the verbs will be the actions of a person rather than a letter. I would also like to break this up into two sentences:


 * "In the Epistle to the Colossians, Paul mentions Laodicea in passing and sends greetings also from a certain Epaphras from Colossae, who had worked hard for the Christians of the three Phrygian cities of Colossae, Laodicea and Hierapolis. Paul also asks that greetings be sent to the Christians in Laodicea, that the letter itself be read publicly also at Laodicea, and further that a different letter addressed to the Laodiceans be read publicly at Colossae."


 * If Paul is not used as the subject of the sentence then I would recommend using passive voice for the phrase following the subject (the Epistle):


 * "The Epistle to the Colossians, in which Laodicea is mentioned only in passing, sends greetings also from a certain Epaphras from Colossae, who......Hierapolis. The letter asks that greetings be sent to the Christians in Laodicea, that the letter itself be read publicly also at Laodicea, and further that a different letter addressed to Laodiceans be read publicly at Colossae."


 * Both alternatives avoid using the verb "asks" twice. The question is which subject makes more sense.CorinneSD (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is disputed whether the letter really is by the Apostle Paul. The letter has a passing mention of Laodicea at one point but does not mention Laodicea "only" in passing.  I've divided the sentence into three.
 * Since you have not disambiguated the mention of a Laodicea in the Marcus Aurelius article, I have done so. Esoglou (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've made a few small edits to make the sentences clearer and more concise. I have two questions:


 * 1) I don't think the second sentence in the first paragraph is really necessary (even though there is a reference from the Bible there). The sentence is: "The Epistle to the Colossians mentions Laodicea as one of the communities of concern for the writer." It is clear from what follows that Laodicea is mentioned in the letter and that it is of concern to the writer. This is already a rather long and wordy section. I think all of the sentence but the name of the Epistle to the Colossians can be left out.
 * 2) Later in the section, I think in the second paragraph, there is an "open-parenthesis" without its corresponding "close-parenthesis". It starts with a link to Colossians. Since I'm not sure where the end of the parenthetical information is, perhaps you could fix that.CorinneSD (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (As you see, I have closed the parenthesis.)
 * So, would you simply ignore the mention of Laodicea in Col 2:1 ("I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face") and say nothing of it? Esoglou (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Does "how great a struggle I have for you" mean "how hard I have been working on your behalf" or "how great my concern for you is"? Also, is this quite early in the Epistle? If it is, I will use the adverb "first" in a revision of that sentence.CorinneSD (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at how translators understand the phrase (here is a selection) and follow at least some of them. Or look up some published commentary on it. Don't depend on a fellow editor of Wikipedia.  The citation "Col 2:1" indicates that the phrase comes at the beginning of the second of the four chapters of the letter, in other words, at the beginning of the second quarter.  Would you call that "quite early in the Epistle"?  A serious editor like you surely wants to read the whole letter, so as to understand the context of anything said about it.  Go ahead.  It won't take long.  Esoglou (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laodicea on the Lycus. 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/20060602084633/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/gazetteer/0198.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/gazetteer/0198.html

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) 21:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The Other cities in it's Conventus?
Would they have included Hieraopolis and Colosse? KuudereKun 18:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:TR Pamukkale_Laodicea_asv2020-02_img11.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 4, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-12-04. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)