Talk:The Myth of Persecution

NPOV/Promotional Sounding
When did Wikipedia become a 'fan page?" Because this is what this entry reads like. Either that or a free marketing tool for her book. Either way it's inappropriate.
 * You are supposed to sign your posts on talk pages, however I do see why, if you are going to make remarks like that, you would prefer to remain anonymous.Smeat75 (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the anonymous contributor's sentiments. And what's up with the random lion-in-the-coliseum painting? I'm tagging this article. 204.65.210.166 (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's new for the masses. Scholars knew this stuff for centuries. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Cynwolfe's questions, comments and tags
Cynwolfe left various tags and edits and questions on this article which will take me a while to respond to / try to correct. In the meantime I have made a main heading "Content", with sub-headings to try to make it clear that the sections "Duration" and "Rewards for martyrs" are summaries of the book's contents. Is it better if I quote passages directly from the book with page numbers than try to summarise? There is a tag "[why]?" at the end of the sentence Moss "finds that even (the oldest and generally agreed to be most authentic martyrdom accounts) cannot be relied on as accurate historical accounts as they have been altered and re-written by subsequent generations of Christians." Does "[why]?" mean "why did the Christians alter them" or "why does Moss say they altered them"? By the way, Cynwolfe, sometimes you seem to think I am annoyed by your comments or questions, I am not at all, your input is appreciated.Smeat75 (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, Smeat, I think just the opposite: you have responded with complete graciousness and helpfulness at times when I later feel that I was unintentionally snippy. My comments on the various articles have all been made with the awareness that these topics can be difficult and in the hope of heading off later problems. So if there have been issues of tone, I'm sure they're all mine!
 * The "why" means: why isn't this the same problem with all ancient sources? If Livy, Tacitus, Ammianus and Orosius present different versions of the same event, or include/exclude certain specifics, we don't assume that the event is fabricated. I'm somewhat unclear on how Moss is evaluating the historicity of martyr narratives. Some, obviously, are full of miracles. Some martyr narratives, as I understand it, were literally fiction: tales of danger and redemption with protagonists for Christians to identify with, the Christian equivalent of prose fiction for other people like the Greek romance novels and The Golden Ass. Setting aside the fictional and miraculous, why does Moss think it's necessarily the case that as the accounts got passed along they became untethered from reality? Or to put it another way, we don't assume that a biography of George Washington written in 2010 is automatically less reliable than one written in 1890, even though the 2010 biographer is at a greater remove from the subject matter. What is it about the Christian accounts that makes Moss view them as less reliable as they move farther in time from the original event? Assuming there was an original event. Let me know if I still haven't explained my question clearly, and thank you for your patience. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So I have re-done a lot of the article, added references and page numbers from the book,and added two sub sections on the Martyrdom of Polycarp and the Persecution in Lyons as examples of Moss' reasons and methodology for finding even the most generally accepted as authentic martyrdom accounts unreliable as historically accurate. If there are still problems or questions, let me know Cynwolfe (or anybody else who reads this).Smeat75 (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your commitment impresses me. I have one more little thing. The caption for the top image isn't really suitable. I would like to rewrite it, but I don't feel the body text supports it. The intro says that throwing Christians to the lions is largely a myth; what exactly does Moss say to debunk the persistent belief that Christians were regularly tossed to the lions at the Colosseum? If we had a bit somewhere about that specific debunking, I could reframe the caption for you. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Moss does not discuss the Colosseum specifically in this book, but she does say "The Sunday school narrative of a church of martyrs, of Christians huddled in catacombs out of fear, meeting in secret to avoid arrest, and mercilessly thrown to lions for their religious beliefs is a macabre fairy tale" (page 186). If you want to change the picture or the caption, that is fine with me.Smeat75 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Translated to Greek
The article has been translated to Greek. . Thanks guys! Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You are awarded a halal souvlaki.--Skylax30 (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Tone and Hidden Primary Source Attributions
I initially read this article as the wikipedia article on the persecution of the Christian church due the tone of the intro information. The introduction needs to describe the book's brief background, purpose, and/or authenticity on historical information which appears to be persuasive in nature, not strictly informational. I took the info as fact until checking the sources (later checked reception) in which almost all of them are articles written by Candida Moss... This gives the information the appearance historically credible in itself. This wouldn't be a problem if we could confirm the truth through sources, but as stated previously the sources are Candida Moss. This also is not an issue if made apparent to the reader. My apologies if you disagree that this article could misread as the subject of "Myth of Persecution", as my only evidence is anecdotal. However, I hope we can agree in the importance of not spreading potentially false information (there's too much already). I have not read the book, so I don't feel comfortable in editing the page's contents too much. I just flagged it for now in hopes of telling readers "take this grain of salt". NFdeku
 * Hello brand new editor who has made a total of six edits, all to this article and welcome to WP. You say:
 * I initially read this article as the wikipedia article on the persecution of the Christian church due the tone of the intro information.
 * Really? Did you miss the first words of the first sentence "The Myth of Persecution...is a 2013 book "?
 * The introduction needs to describe the book's brief background, purpose, and/or authenticity on historical information which appears to be persuasive in nature, not strictly informational.
 * I don't know what you mean it ''appears to be persuasive in nature, not informational


 * I took the info as fact until checking the sources (later checked reception) in which almost all of them are articles written by Candida Moss.
 * You have linked to three articles there. The first one, an article from the National Catholic Review,[written] is not an article by Candida Moss. You can tell this because it says "by Maureen Daly". The second one [by] is from the Kirkus Review. It is a review of the book, as might be gathered from the name of the site. It is not by Candida Moss either. It is an anonymous review. When it says "The Myth of Persecution by Candida Moss" that does not mean she wrote the review, it is name of the book under review and the name of the author who wrote it. The third one [Candida Moss] is a link to a very negative review of the book from the Christian website First Things. It isn't by Candida Moss either. We can tell this because it says "by Ephraim Radner". Once again, when it says "The Myth of Persecution by Candida Moss", that doesn't mean she wrote the review, it is the name of the book under review and the name of the person who wrote it. So when you say "almost all of them are articles by Candida Moss" and give three examples, you are completely wrong, exactly none of them are.


 * This gives the information the appearance historically credible in itself. This wouldn't be a problem if we could confirm the truth through sources, but as stated previously the sources are Candida Moss.
 * Yes you did state that previously but as I have shown you are completely wrong, none of them are. Not a single thing you say carries a bit of validity. We don't need that tag on the article and I am removing it.Smeat75 (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * To cut the craps: it is a run-of-the-mill book, speaking of books written by mainstream Bible professors. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)