Wikipedia:Peer review/Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation/archive1

Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation


I've listed this article for peer review because… This is a sub-page with a particular sociological POV, and since I have no actual formal background in sociology, I want to be very careful that I have represented everything correctly. I will be grateful for any and all input.

Thanks, Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello and thank you for your contribution. I'll be adding some comments as I review this.
 * 1. In the first Religion subsection, you say "During the imperial period, many Jews left Palestine". Did your source all this area Palestine? I know this is a controversial subject and I am not being intentionally provocative. If your source, and the Romans call it Judea then it would be best to refer to this area as Judea.
 * waiting on resource request Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is now ✅ I didn't like the Neill source, so I changed it. And yes, it says Palestine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a note, "Syria Palaestina" (Syria of the Philistines) is a term used in place of "Judaea/Judea" from roughly the second century onward—the actual timing is uncertain, possibly the reign of Hadrian, and whether there was an "official" name change also seems doubtful. Either term would be acceptable in the proper context, but preferably distinguished from modern Palestine.  P Aculeius (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2. Later, there is "church rolls of the first centuries indicate they were supported by the church community". Should this be "church roles"?
 * That's an interesting question. It is referring to the extant lists of members and their function etc. so which is it? I think roll is correct for a list of names, but I could be wrong! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely "rolls". P Aculeius (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Czarking0 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3. "Christianity was against infanticide" Was infanticide mainstream in Roman society? What about the benefits of infanticide?
 * Is common practice the same as mainstream? It was a common practice at all levels of society. Some exposed infants were imperfect males but the vast majority of them were just female. Only a very small percentage of Roman households raised more than one girl. I suppose the benefits were fewer girls - which they did see as a benefit.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this just needs to be rephrased—not sure there was a doctrinal statement to this effect, and "was against" seems vernacular. The exposure of infants was common in antiquity, but I think you may be overestimating the extent, particularly if you contend that only a small percentage of Roman households raised more than one girl (as opposed to the number that raised more than one boy).  I suspect if we actually had reliable figures (which I doubt exist) we would find similar numbers except among the very poor, where there might be more of a discrepancy.  Roman onomastic practices suggest that it was quite common for Roman families to include two or more daughters.  P Aculeius (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Mainstream is pretty casual word. Common practice is the better term here. The distinction of the Christians being against infanticide makes it seem like infanticide is common practice. If we have another source that shows infanticide was limiting Roman population growth then this may be worth including. It is hard for me to tell if this in an important point or more of a side note. Czarking0 (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @P Aculeius see above Czarking0 (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Common" is a vague term, to the extent that it leaves readers wondering it it means "one in five, one in ten, one out of fifty", etc. But I find it highly unlikely that infanticide was a significant factor limiting the growth of the Roman population.  Maybe the sources cited have a different view.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey guys! This is so great! Thank you both so much. So. Infanticide and girls. In Stark's 1996 book, beginning on page 97, he has a section on sex ratios in the empire. He says men greatly outnumbered women in the Graeco-Roman world. He references the Roman historian Dio Cassius who wrote that the declining population (around 200) was due to the shortage of females. J.C.Russell is an old source, (but it is considered classic), estimated 140 males per 100 females in Italy, Asia Minor and North Africa. Russell remarked that sex ratios this extreme can only happen when tampering with human life. Then he goes on to discuss exposure as "widely practiced by all social classes". A study of inscriptions at Delphi, he says, showed that out of 600 families, only 6 had raised more than one daughter. He references an extant letter from a guy named Hilarion to his pregnant wife Alis instructing her that if she delivers before he gets home, she is to keep the baby if it's a boy and discard it if it's a girl. On page 99, Stark says that "by prohibiting all forms of infanticide and abortion, Christians removed major causes of the gender imbalance. This plus a couple other factors meant Christianity had a surplus of women - which is factually documented and accurate. There's more of this, but I believe it is unquestioned that Christianity forbid these practices from its beginnings, that they were common practice before that, and that yes, both those things had an impact. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I still don't buy these figures. They don't even seem consistent: in order for men to have outnumbered women by 140:100, i.e. 7:5, you would have to have eliminated 2/7 of the girls who were born—meaning that most daughters were not gotten rid of, even in families with more than one.  In order to achieve the extreme figure Russell seems to indicate, subsequent daughters would have to have been exposed nearly all of the time.  Either there is something wrong with extrapolating a general trend throughout the Roman world from this study of inscriptions at Delphi—something perhaps attributed to the specific reason for the inscriptions—or the data has simply been misinterpreted.  We have so many instances of multiple daughters from Roman history—where women are typically mentioned only if they were remarkable, notorious, or necessary to explain the connections between Roman men—that it seems clear that the Romans did not regard a family with multiple daughters as at all unusual.  Roman onomastic practices include the giving of personal names to daughters, chiefly when they had older sisters; among the most common are ordinal praenomina/cognomina, which at least in the case of women appeared to refer to birth order.  Secunda, Tertia, and Quarta were all common names; Quinta and Sexta less so, presumably because with or without infanticide, families with more than four sisters were probably not common, although we have a rather famous example of Quinta Claudia.
 * But ultimately we don't need to prove how common infanticide was—I think we would agree that if it occurred with one in ten or one in fifty cases we could still call it "common"—certainly by modern standards. What is less clear is how prohibiting infanticide would have affected the overall Roman populus, which seems to have been losing its cohesion during the period of Christian ascendency during the fourth and fifth centuries.  Surely this has to do with a great many factors other than the adoption of Christianity—invasions, the settlement of large populations of foreigners within the boundaries of the empire, nearly endless internecine warfare between the rival claimants to the empire from the death of Constantine to the end of the Western Empire, plagues and earthquakes that disrupted the Roman economy, etc.  If a prohibition against infanticide brought about by widespread conversion to Christianity—which does not seem to have been the majority religion before the mid-fourth century—had had a significant beneficial effect on the Roman populus, then presumably the empire ought to have begun recovering by the early fifth century, instead of declining almost continuously.
 * I suppose there might be other ways to get around these problems—but absolute proof is not essential. What is essential is to take claims of extreme imbalances between the numbers of men and women—and even more extreme explanations therefor—along with the implication that ending infanticide cured those defects—with a grain of salt.  You can resolve the issue simply by stating that these are the analyses of certain scholars based on certain sources.  I do not mean that you need to say they are unreliable, or attempt to balance them with contrary opinions.  Merely that by describing something as a scholarly opinion rather than stating it as a fact, you can avoid the appearance of bias in the article itself. P Aculeius (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely, which is why I did not include any of Stark's arguments in this article. There is one lone statement under Game theory . It is what the source says that people believed about Christianity. On that basis, it doesn't necessarily have to be what actually was. I think I'm okay leaving it as one sentence. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @P Aculeius @Jenhawk777 I think we have sufficient evidence to say reduced infanticide may have aided the population growth of Christians. However, infanticide is not the only element in (effective) reproduction rate. Monogamous peoples who do not kill their children but also have less sex can have lower population growth than other peoples who are polygamous frequently kill their children, but expect the women to be pregnant 10 months out of the year. Other factors such as the maturity age change the size of the breeding population which could be a larger effect than infanticide. As a second example, one people could expect women to begin bearing children as soon as they have their first period while another people would expect the women to wait until a year after their period to begin intercourse. If we have sources claiming that Christians did not practice infanticide while pagans did then that may be a one sentence point. Separately, if our sources say that Christians had a higher (effective) reproductive rate, that may be another point. If we are claiming that differences in infanticide are the determining factor in Christian vs pagan reproductive rate then that is not a one sentence point. Czarking0 (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * [I composed this before Jenhawk's reply, but didn't want to delete it.] As I read Jenhawk's reply, the source doesn't come anywhere near demonstrating such an advantage—it's just one author discussing a popular belief at the time, not a statement of what really happened.  The transition from Christianity being a persecuted minority religion to the established state religion, and suppressing Pagan worship, occurred rapidly over the course of the fourth century.  Diocletian and his contemporaries felt that Christianity was subversive, and it is unclear whether Constantine actually converted before his death in 337.  Although his sons were Christians, his nephew Julian was a Pagan, and it seemed that paganism was still viable; yet by the time of Theodosius thirty years later the old Pagan aristocracy was complaining in vain about the suppression of their religion.
 * A disparity in reproductive rates cannot really account for this rapid shift among the general populace. Roman matrons were never expected to bear large families—the idea of "women pregnant ten months out of the year" does not reflect the reality of Roman families with or without Christianity.  A Roman matron might have had more than twenty-five years of fertility after her marriage, but families of more than ten children were probably uncommon, except perhaps in rural areas—the last to adopt new practices.  This was not the people of Pagan Rome being replaced by baby-mad Christians.  This was Pagan Rome converting into Christian Rome.  The Christian Romans of 390 were descended from the Pagan Romans of 310.  Pagan writers may have written about anecdotal causes that were not necessarily reflect the reality of the situation, but we can excuse them for recording what people believed at the time.  If there are modern sources that base their opinions on what fourth-century Pagan writers thought, they would not be especially credible—but that is not what Jenhawk is saying.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you follow through this article, you will find that what you have stated here:  is the old historiographical view. It is no longer the majority view. Christianity had already experienced critical mass and established itself as self-sustaining long before the fourth century. That is what led to the growth in real numbers in the third and the fourth centuries. It followed the normal and ordinary bell curve. The fourth century was the time of the late majority. Diffusion was 3/4 over by then. See charts and maps. Before computers, compiling the amount of evidence required to see this overview was simply not possible. Computers have changed everything.
 * The majority of scholars have seen Constantine's conversion as sincere since the 1930s.
 * Archaeology has thoroughly demonstrated that paganism was still viable all the way into the sixth century in the cities and beyond that in the rural districts. Paganism was not repressed into ending in the fourth century. Constantine was not singularly critical to the process of Christianization. The innovation had already become self-sustaining in the century between 150 and 250.
 * They complained about the loss of power that not being the state religion anymore carried with it, but that does not prove they were actively suppressed on any kind of a regular basis. Christianity was actively supported; sacrifice was actively forbidden; there were some clashes; but evidence indicates paganism was not actively suppressed before Justinian I in the sixth century.
 * The idea of Theodosius as the final arbiter of the triumph of Christianization over the end of paganism was a creation of the Christian apologists and preachers and writers of the late fourth century. It suited them to call themselves victorious, but they also genuinely believed that Constantine's conversion showed that the Christian God had vanquished the pagan gods in Heaven. They really did think of themselves as the victors. There was no need for repression. They'd won. Pagans were written out of the Christian histories thereafter because they were seen as irrelevant, not because they ceased to exist.
 * Heresy was the real issue. The number of laws aimed at heretics compared to the number of laws aimed at pagans is revealing by itself, but when you look at which laws were actually enforced, it's even clearer that Christians of the fourth century didn't give a rip about pagans. No one died for violating a law against sacrifice before the end of the sixth century. Heretics were killed by Constantine's government and every government that followed. They were hunted, tortured, burned, their churches were destroyed, until some at least were genuinely wiped out. The Roman government did not all of a sudden become non-Roman just because Christianity was no longer forbidden. Romans had one method for dealing with what they saw as subversive. It's true that Christians had no reason to be especially well disposed toward their former persecutors. The time lapse between persecution and power was too short. Yet, all evidence shows no one hunted down pagans. No one tortured them. Pagans and Jews were not treated like heretics were. The Christians made laws, almost exclusively about sacrifice, that they didn't enforce. They wrote harsh rhetoric. That was pretty much it. As long as pagans didn't push their religion, Christians mostly ignored them. The number of actual occurrences of violence aimed at pagans, and all archaeologically verified destruction of temples, can be counted on your fingers. Christian literature makes all kinds of claims depicting their bishops in violent battles with temple demons, destroying them and the temples in the process. Out of 43 such claims, archaeology has verified the destruction of 4 temples. Now, before you ask, yes of course this is all sourced to major scholars from the best schools and publishers in both this and the parent article: Christianization of the Roman Empire. This is the current majority view, and diffusion of innovation is 'why', and it also defines the 'when' of each stage.
 * Absolutely true. No argument. However, it is appropriate in Wikipedia to report the differing views even if they are a minority view and even if they are challenged. This sentence and its topic are not part of the main theory represented here. Every detail can't be pursued to its full depth. It's a rabbit hole. It's out of scope. It's off topic, but it's what the source said. So the one sentence under game theory stays, imho, without additional embellishment or discussion. Let's all just agree to let this one go. Please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That one sentence isn't part of diffusion, it's game theory, and that's all the source says. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 4. I added in several locations.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 5. "Among a predominantly illiterate population ..." I am not convinced this statement should be restricted to illiterate populations. This source contends that the following statement holds true in the modern world.
 * It is applicable to modern day, you're right. IMHO that doesn't invalidate its use for ancient society. It is what the source claims at any rate. What would you like to see instead? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Transmission of information was almost ..." Just take the first the prepositional phrase out. I am not saying it is wrong but the distinction of "illiterate" gives the impression that the same is not true among the literate population. Czarking0 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 6. Demographer John D. Durand explains that Romans were "inveterate census takers," but few of their records remain. Many Roman records have had their understanding improved in the nearly 50 years since this was written. It may be worthwhile to see if the point you are trying to make here is still true. Further, going through the article and finding a more recent source to corroborate each time this source is used may be worthwhile.
 * I do have a newer source that does have some actual estimates, but I didn't use it because this is so controversial amongst the classicists. Every time I put in actual numbers, I get flack. I'll do it because you think I should, but at some point, hellfire is going to rain down upon my head from wikipedia on high, and it will all be because of this!
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you show me your source so I can look into this controversy? Do you have links to those discussions? Czarking0 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. I know Durand is an older source, but people still reference Gibbon and Frend where numbers are concerned. So, I used:


 * (Durand, John D. (1977). "Historical Estimates of World Population: An Evaluation". Population and Development Review. 3 (3): 253–296. doi:10.2307/1971891. JSTOR 1971891).
 * (Bagnall, Roger S. (1987). "Conversion and Onomastics: A Reply". Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. 69: 243–250. ISSN 0084-5388).
 * (Hopkins, Keith (1998). "Christian Number and Its Implications". Journal of Early Christian Studies. 6 (2): 185–226. doi:10.1353/earl.1998.0035. S2CID 170769034.)
 * (Schor, Adam M. (2009). "Conversion by the numbers: Benefits and pitfalls of quantitative modelling in the study of early Christian growth". Journal of Religious History. 33 (4): 472–498. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9809.2009.00826.x.)
 * (Stark, Rodney (1996). The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-02749-4.) and
 * (Runciman, W. G. (2004). "The Diffusion of Christianity in the Third Century AD as a Case-Study in the Theory of Cultural Selection". European Journal of Sociology. 45 (1): 3–21. doi:10.1017/S0003975604001365. S2CID 146353096.)
 * When I said I had a better source I was referring to Schor. He gives actual numbers that seem reasonable and logically based, but Bagnall did an actual empirical study and Stark's numbers line up with his, so who knows really? There is a section on numbers in the parent article, but I did not include it in this subpage because numbers don't really matter here - only distribution. So how much do you think this needs changing?
 * I went ahead and replaced Durand with Runciman. If that is sufficient, then this is ✅. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Roman history records that the census was supposed to be taken every five years from the time of the kings onward, and the totals (questioned by some historians) are reported in Livy and perhaps other writers. As far as I know, nothing even close to a significant portion of any census has been preserved, so the original statement would seem to be true.  This shouldn't be surprising, since the census would have been written on paper or linen, never carved in stone, and there would seemed to be no reason to copy or distribute census records—as a genealogist I can see the reason, but Roman families kept their own records for this—they didn't go down to the library and look at the microfilm of the 70 BC Census!  P Aculeius (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm yes, complete anecdote but my own family keeps records going back to the seventh century. However if a member did not go to church or raise their kids with the church then they would not be on the record. Czarking0 (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good Czarking0 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * YAY! ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 7. It may be worthwhile to have a whole section on the spread of Christian names.
 * You think? Really? It's a fascinating article. I'll see what I can do.
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. However we should keep the scope limited to how Christian names work as a proxy for tracking the growth of the technology. "The spread of Christian names" is far to vast a subject as each name could have its own page. Czarking0 (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that's what I thought too - easy path down the rabbit hole. I'll see if I can just write a succinct explanation of the process itself. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that I have thought about this more, I think how Christian names are counted is a separate topic. It is enough for the reader of this article to know that names are a way to count the population growth. Czarking0 (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Praise God, halelujah, amen!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess that means this is ✅ as well! Another YAY! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 8. In the paragraph where you talk about Paul founding churches I have a couple comments. First, can you give a more precise word than church here? Does the term module which you introduce in the previous paragraph fit? If there is not a more precise word than church can you give a specialized meaning of what constitutes a church at this time. You say that it was at this time that the word Christian was first used. What word, if any, was it replacing.
 * Congregation maybe? They would not have called themselves a module. They called themselves a church. Paul addressed letters to the church at Corinth, and the church at Philippi, etc. Revelation has the letters to the 7 churches. Christian was a new term for a new group. If it can be seen as replacing anything, which I don't think it did, it would be that Jewish believers still thought of themselves as Jews whereas the term Christian embraces the Gentile believers as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think for the article we can leave it as church. It may be best to add a note on how that term has taken on a different meaning since their time. Their use of the word church is certainly closer to our use of the word congregation (or maybe parish).
 * I am going to edit the article to provide more context around the new Christian word. Czarking0 (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Czarking0 (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 9. Should "Modular scale free networks" point to Scale-free network?
 * It does so in the section titled Early majority in a gravity guided scale free network - oops, not first mention though. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 10. In the Early Adopters section it would be worthwhile to tie the women mentioned back to the earlier hypothesis about how Christianity was better for women than paganism. Did these women say something along those lines? What was their marital status. We don't need too much detail about their lives since they have their own pages but a little more info can help support the earlier hypothesis. This section overall only talks about women as early adopters. Either the section should be renamed to "Women as Early Adopters" or some men should be added. Alternatively we could have two sections: one for women and one for men.
 * Ummmm... where does it say that? Maybe under game theory? That is almost a direct quote from that source, and it's already in the article there so I can't reuse it here, but the thing is, it's stated as a belief rather than a fact. If I understand correctly what you are looking for, it just isn't available. There are no sources written by women. There are no sources written by men giving any real detail of women's lives. There are no sources that do anything but compare generalities and make assumptions about why women converted. This section only talks about women as early adopters because they are the only sourced example of a socially established group of early adopters, and that's from the New Testament. Yes, you're right, there had to be men as well, but I have no source for them as filling that role. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok maybe better was a strong word. I was referring to "They add that middle class women had higher status and greater marital security within the Christian community because Christian norms required monogamy whereas Roman norms allowed men multiple mates even if they were married." Then later, "'a widow in Roman society who had lost her husband, and did not have money of her own, was at the very bottom of the social ladder'. The early church provided practical support to those who would, otherwise, have been in destitute circumstances. This "was in all likelihood an important factor in winning new female members." This section specifically mentions Lydia of Thyatira for which we have "a reputable businesswoman and possibly a widow... [who] was a righteous Gentile or 'God-fearer' attracted to Judaism". " Tying in the fact that the bible corroborates the idea that widows were particularly benefited by the early Christian technology may be value able for the reader. On the other hand, it seems like the Christian technology is not really the cause of Lydia's wealth. She appears to be quite wealthy before the apostles meet her. If she is a widow, this is not really in line with the idea "a widow in Roman society... was at the very bottom of the social ladder". Overall Acts 17 emphasizes "prominent Greeks", both men and women, converting whereas the technological diffusion hypothesis focuses on the destitute. I am not really sure what to make of all this. I do feel like it is important that we identify trends among the early adopters.  I could be that this quote about Roman society really applies more to the Italian peninsula and is not relevant to the Greek women. Overall, it feels like the widow point is maybe over emphasized and the monogamy is the more important aspect of the technology. I don't have a specific recommendation here, but it may be worth further discussion. Czarking0 (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I like discussion. So, yeah, Lydia was wealthy in her own right before being Christian. That's an important part of what qualifies her as an early adopter: she is established in her local society before adopting the innovation. The key about widows as a class is . Lydia did, so she would not have been classed as one of the "widows" on the church's dole. The women that this section discusses came from all levels of society from slaves up to the aristocracy, and before you ask, writing that would be a whole article. Perhaps we should do that one too! "Women in firsat century Christianity" or some such thing!
 * No, it doesn't. Only innovators are at the fringes of society, everyone else represents all aspects of society including the upper classes. First line of Third century section: Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are not trying to focus on the destitute then I think we need more detail on early adopters in the rich and how the rich in the early majority effected the technology as well. "David Bentley Hart writes that the emperor Julian, who was hostile to Christianity, is recorded as saying: 'It is [the Christians'] philanthropy towards strangers, the care they take of the graves of the dead, and the affected sanctity with which they conduct their lives that have done most to spread their atheism.'" Things like this make me feel like Christianity's early majority was mainly in the poor and that the wealthy were later. @Jenhawk777 Czarking0 (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Czarking0 That was in fact an early theory, but it has since been disproven. Inclusivity was an aspect of the innovation and the early church groups cut across all the social lines. There is evidence in literature and art - and some Roman records - that early Christianity included those from all classes from its beginnings.
 * I can get more detail on the rich early adopters, but I have to say, I don't get why this matters. Can you explain a little more?
 * This article cannot possibly provide an exhaustive description of exactly who composed each level of adoption of the innovation with actual numbers and names and percentages. Someone would have to have been keeping track using our categories, and I don't think that's very likely. There are the church rolls, but those are not exhaustive. Oh wait. Maybe that's the problem! Maybe I need to say that! Maybe I need a disclaimer up front! Something like: "It isn't possible to provide an exhaustive description of who made up each of these categories; all that can be shown is that there were groups that did adopt the innovation, who fit the necessary criteria in the appropriate time frame, and that the social environment was affected". Is that even doable? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The early adopters section only talks about women. It specifically mentions widows and business women. If sources show that the early adopters are a diverse group of women and men from multiple social classes then we should list that. If the sources point towards specific groups as not being present among the early adopters then we should point that out as well. It has been a long while since I read the bible but I do believe there was a town that Paul visits that does not accept his teaching?
 * In the early majority, "Charity was, in effect, an institutionalized policy of Christianity from its beginning. ... While this situation was not the sole reason for the group's growth, it was a significant factor" furthers my (mis)understanding that the poor were mainly the members of the early majority. If this is a misunderstanding it should be clarified in the section on "The Poor" as it is easy to get that impression from the article as is. On the other hand, doesn't it have to be true that most of the early adopters of Christianity were poor since 90%+ of the population was poor? If you want to say "There is evidence in literature and art - and some Roman records - that early Christianity included those from all classes from its beginnings." in the section on the poor and provide the sources I think that would clarify the issue. Naively, I might come a way with the impression that the meat of the early Christian technology is alms giving, rather than wasteful public sacrifice, is more popular among the poor; the rich were then forced to convert due to the cost of keeping a religious minority in power. Czarking0 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Czarking0 I clearly have more work to do here!  Plus, I think there may be a misunderstanding going on here. The poor didn't adopt Christianity because they were 'cared for' - compensated, paid, supported - other people who wanted to help the poor joined. The meat of the early Christian technology was alms giving. That's documented. So how does that change anything if at all? And 90% poor is too high. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok just to be clear I have no expertise on this subject. All my understanding is from your article. I think we can state that the alms giving was mutually beneficial. Early adopters joined Christianity because they wanted to help to poor. I would say that explicitly in the early adopters section. Czarking0 (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 11. I feel like the concept of Heresy needs to be tied in with the diffusion model a little more. For example, heresy was a way in which laggards were forced to addopt the technology.
 * I have no source that says any such thing however, and I don't think there is one.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 12. "However, Alain Le Boulluec argues it is within this period that use of the term "heretic" in Christian thought and writings becomes a derogatory term" How was it used previously? Also this sentence is in the 155-157 section can we really narrow down the connotation change to a two year period? This section is presented as a bulleted list. I do not think it needs to be presented that way.
 * Alain is now gone. This section is bulleted because it has dates.I can remove the bullets if you think it would be better, but just so you know why the bullets are there, it was suggested by Mike Christie that I organize this article using a timeline, so it has one that sort of weaves through it, and wherever there are dates, they are bulleted. It probably wouldn't affect anything to remove them if you prefer. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just saying that because I often see suggestions on WP to unlist bulleted content. I think it is fine to leave it. ✅Czarking0 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 13.Similar to point 11, how does supressionism tie into technological diffusion? Do we see a similar pattern in other technologies?
 * It is the explanation of the sentence preceding: Should I maybe move that sentence? Heresy and supersessionism are two examples of exclusivity in practice: one of the two major aspects of what made the new idea successful. There is something comparable to other new technologies, but it doesn't matter, as this is just about this specific innovation. Paganism was not exclusive. Christianity was. I have a sourced statement that exclusivity is part of how it survived. That seemed sufficient. Perhaps I should remove the headings there? Let me try that and see if it makes more sense. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Paganism was not exclusive". I think this is the important part that you need to say in the first paragraph of this section. "There is something comparable to other new technologies, but it doesn't matter". I might disagree here, the article (in my understanding) is not about Christianity in general but is about using technological diffusion theory to explain the spread of Christianity. We should be able to draw clear, yet abstract, parallels between the spread of Christianity, popularization of the internet, and popularization of the iPhone. Not that needs to be included in the article, but my example would be how the iPhone's blue text disrupted normal texting because it is exclusive yet inclusive in that iPhone uses can still message everyone. My point is that for this to be a technological diffusion article then suppressionism needs to be specifically linked to the technological diffusion theory. Otherwise this is just an article on the spread of Christianity. I am probably going to have some more comments on this section but I want to hear your thoughts first. Czarking0 (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, keeping focused on the main point of this section, this is about, "what aspects of the ideology contributed to the success or failure of this innovation?" My source says exclusivity - which is, yes, both an idea and a practice - is part of what made this religious innovation successful. That's the premise. What follows are the 'proofs'. Supersessionism is an example of exclusivity - it was aimed at excluding the Jews - but it is exclusivity itself that is linked to diffusion theory, not supersessionism per sé. It's a two-step. Exclusivity was a big part of early Christianity, and it remained so all the way up into the Reformation (when Protestants began rejecting it and virtually created religious tolerance instead) that not mentioning it would create a huge imbalance in POV. Many think supersessionism contributed to the holocaust, though that's a minority view. Exclusivity needs to be mentioned as an aspect of the ideology. That's just true. And it is supported in the sources that it did contribute to the innovation's success.
 * Hmmm. Wait. I do have something else you might like better. It's something I put in Persecution of Christians in the RE. It would need to be modified, but it explains exclusivity pretty well:
 * What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Czarking0 and P Aculeius please help me resolve this issue concerning exclusivity. What needs to be included here? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 you are bit all over the place here. I am on board with the fact that supressionism is part of exclusivity. Now for the minor point: is exclusivity a core component of the general technological diffusion theory (TDT)? For the major point, you say exclusivity was aimed at the Jews. Well, your section on exclusivity talks about Donatists and Pagans, so something is not adding up here.
 * Is this Czarking0? Why is there no reply button? Exclusivity was not aimed at the Jews, only supersessionism was aimed at the Jews. Exclusivity was a core component of the innovation that contributed to its success. Yes, absolutely. Exclusivity was aimed at everyone not participating in the new technology. If you weren't on board, you were "out". You were not cool. This had varying levels of intensity, of course, but heretics caught the worst of it by far. Exclusivity is the major point; supersessionism is the minor one. (Supersessionism has never been a majority view in Christianity, and it has never been an official doctrine of the church, but it was not an uncommon view, and it does provide evidence of exclusivity.) It can easily be substituted by another example. (I may have a bias that bad attitudes toward the Jews should be mentioned.) Christianity's exclusivity was not primarily about supersessionism. It was about "right belief" and "right practice". Hence the offered alternate paragraph above. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 I am not asking if exclusivity was a core component of the Christian technology. You have provided ample evidence of that. I am asking if exclusivity is part of all technologies in TDF. I do think the attitudes towards the Jews should be mentioned. Czarking0 (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC). This part is really good "The Christian had exacting moral standards that included avoiding contact with those that still lay in bondage to 'the Evil One' (2 Corinthians 6:1-18; 1 John 2: 15-18; Revelation 18: 4; II Clement 6; Epistle of Barnabas, 1920).[5] ". @Jenhawk777
 * Awesome! I am doing this now. I dk the answer to exclusivity being part of all technologies, but I suspect it is! I will check Rogers. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 14. I fail to see how the first paragraph of the Social Environment of the idea ties into social diffusion.
 * It doesn't really. I've actually had that same thought, but I left it because this article includes that dang timeline, and these were major events that were part of the overall social environment. IDK - do you think it should be removed? There are other things like it scattered throughout. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Did the Jews feeling Jerusalem spur a rapid spread in Christianity? If so, this ties directly in. However if this just created a Jewish diaspora following traditional Judaism then I think we can remove it. Czarking0 (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I will have to look and see what I can find. Carrol talks about the diaspora as part of the diffusion, but she's been heavily criticized for some of her conclusions in that section of her book. But this particular statement is really just about the war in my mind. The war caused the Christians to diffuse on into Pella. I'll look. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 15. "An important cultural shift took place in the way Christians buried one another: they gathered unrelated Christians into a common burial space" Can you double check the validity of this? I do not think this comes from Christianity. Specifically, communal burial is part of the Jewish tradition and communal grievance is core to Shiva.
 * Okay, I am rereading the article by Yasin. On page 433 she's talking about mosaics and funerary churches that: and  and on page 439:  on page 441  page 442  skip to the end on page 451  My attempt at summarizing this may have failed. I am open to suggestion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I reworded this in the article. Let me know if you think it is ✅ Czarking0 (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I like it! Thank you.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 16. "the Jesus movement first formed" I don't think this is a good phrase.
 * Okay. What would be better do you think? It's used in two other places as well, so I should probably change those also. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that "the Jesus movement" seems rather casual/dismissive—certainly the Romans did not use this kind of terminology, and I doubt many classical scholars would even today, except perhaps humorously. P Aculeius (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Christian movement or Jesus' following Czarking0 (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 17."There are no ancient sources written from the point of view of the slave" this sentence is meaningless as it is impossible to say what ancient means. For a counter example see Enchiridion of Epictetus.
 * I don't think I understand. Should I say "source from the first through fifth centuries" instead? It means a source from that time written by someone who was a slave then. How would be better to say that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is fine, at least to the extent that the scope of classical antiquity is clear enough. There are of course Greek and Roman writings from the point of view of slaves—both works of literature featuring protagonists who are slaves, as well as countless writings by educated freedmen—although there may not be any known writings discussing Christianity from the viewpoint of slaves.  P Aculeius (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 18. This may be a whole topic by itself, but consider expanding on what "how the act of baptism frees them" means when it uses the word free. In fact, for this article is is worthwhile to examine the exact word John Chrysostom used. Assuming it was a Latin word, what does this word really mean? Is its context confined to emancipation or is it more closely aligned with liberty. I intend my question more in the modern sense of those words not in what Latin root he is actually using. Precisely I mean to say that his use of the word "free" is not imbued with the modern Lockeian sense of freedom, so what does he really mean by free?
 * So far I have carefully avoided any discussion of the meaning of conversion, which is a whole thing in itself. I would really like to not go there. Ever. At all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * 19. "may have lessened their sexual use and their reproductive value and impacted slavery directly" this is a pretty strong claim. Is this important to the overall point you are trying to make? If so, a second reference is worthwhile.
 * It seems to me to be the entire point in a nut shell. The innovation diffused through society, changing it, and those changes, in turn, led to more diffusion. Kyle Harper has written what is undoubtedly the best study of slavery in the Roman world in probably the last 50 years - or ever. I am waiting on Resource Exchange to get me access to chapter two, so I can have the exact pages where he discusses how supply was maintained. I already have 5 page numbers for the sexual use of slaves and their reproductive value and Christianity's attempted impact, but these additional pages will support the "may have impacted slavery directly" claim. So right now, I am and waiting. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 20. "Chrysostom supported the obedience of slaves to their masters" I do not think the link to obedience is appropriate here. Slavery is not obedience.
 * You have my sympathies, but that is just personal feeling. Chrysostum preached what Paul had written: Colossians 3:22: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their ... eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence" and again in Ephesians 6:5. Paul advocated for acceptance of what could not be changed. And the system of slavery was most certainly unchangeable when Paul lived. Rome was a slave society top to bottom, and how to cope with that reality was neither simple nor easy. Chrysostum and Augustine and pretty much all Christian leadership took a hard line against the sexual use of slaves, and genuinely attempted to alter centuries old patterns, but they could not encourage disobedience. That put the slave's life on the line - and their own under Roman law. There was no such concept as government sanctioned civil disobedience as there is in our modern day. So they encouraged slaves to obey at the same time they raked the masters over the coals. They walked a fine line in a complex and difficult set of circumstances, but still, yes, they did encourage slaves to obey their masters. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough ✅ Czarking0 (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 21. "No actual numbers of slaves have been established." I find this hard to believe. Can you find another source?
 * Since the main purposes of a Roman census were to count the number of Roman citizens, determine their wealth, and assign them to various groups for taxation and voting purposes, we would not expect to find reliable numbers for slaves. And as I mentioned above, it is unlikely that significant portions of any Roman censuses have survived, since they would never have been carved in stone or duplicated.  After a few years only the totals would have seemed significant.  Any figures for slaves would necessarily be estimates based on a variety of assumptions, any one of which, guessed wrong, could significantly alter the result.  P Aculeius (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Scholars estimate about 10% (but possibly up to 20%) of the Roman empire's population were enslaved. This would mean, for an estimated Roman empire population of 50 million (in the first century AD) between five and ten million were enslaved. This number would have been unequally distributed across the empire, with a higher concentration of enslaved people in urban areas and in Italy." Czarking0 (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Rough estimates—with a margin of error of more than one hundred percent—might not be considered "actual numbers". The proportion of enslaved persons would have fluctuated not only with location but with time period within each region.  I don't know of any contemporary writings that attempted to quantify slavery throughout the Roman world at any point in time, or even just at Rome—but I can't be certain that there aren't any, either.  But the challenged statement is quite likely true, at least to the extent that any numbers that can be found would have to be  interpreted very carefully, and would only reflect conditions of a particular time or place, at best.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Harper establishes - through estimation and assumption as P Aculeius says - what he refers to as a "reasonable floor and ceiling": 2.33 million to 9.65 million slaves in the late Roman Empire. That number is so broad - and it is still just an estimate - that it is useless for an article like this. "No actual numbers of slaves have been established" is a true statement at this point in scholarship. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Czarking0 (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I only got up to the section on Early Majority in Scale Free Network. I will continue my review later. Czarking0 (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Czarking0 OMG! OMG! I am so excited! This is wonderful! I sometimes check the history of articles I've worked on and saw your changes there, but had no idea you had done all of this as well. This is just tremendous! Thank you!  I am now  my way through all of this. OMG this is so great! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am very glad you are excited! I am quite excited as well (I'm not as expressive). Thanks again for your effort and I will give you my best effort on review. Czarking0 (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Second arbitrary break

 * 22. Social Environment in the third century. The transition here is odd and abrupt. Are we past the early adopters now? The two short sentences at the beginning are note great. Further, the actual contents of this section mention events that occurred in the second fourth and fifth century.
 * It is always a question, when writing about history using a timeline, whether or not to put a trend at its beginning, middle or end. For this argument - that the social environment (the effects of the innovation's practices, the environment it created), influenced people to accept the innovation, made it seem necessary to put these practices at their beginning dates, and just mention that they did indeed last for centuries. I do not mind removing these paragraphs however. I can see your point that they are more of a distraction rather than providing anything of substance for the main point here. What if I just bullet these with timeline dates, and remove the discussion? That leaves the important event of the war as part of the social context, but makes it clear it is not part of the argument about diffusion - as such. Would that work?


 * So, I also divided the introductory/explanatory sentence on 'new idea' and 'social environment' so - I hope - maybe that is clearer? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Is this ✅? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 23. I don't really see how the Donatist Schism fits into argument. If anything I would include in section on counter-evidence to your argument as technological diffusion does not usually have purists preventing others from joining in on the tech.
 * They were part of the innovation - they were Christians. Catholics called them heretics, but they didn't prevent anyone from joining in. It isn't that Donatists resisted or didn't use the innovation - they were part of it. Donatists and the Catholics competed - maybe an analogy would be like the competition between macOs and microsoft windows. They both offered versions of the innovation. That competition is partly why the innovation diffused across North Africa with such fervor. Donatists are part of the late majority. If that isn't clear, it needs reworking. Suggestions? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm that is a really good point? Can we put the Mac analogy in? I think that is illuminating for the lay person. Czarking0 (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Won't I get accused of anachronism? I have wanted to include some modern explanations of how memes spread, but have so far avoided it out of that concern. I will if you don't think it would be a problem. I have a source with a good modern example about Justin Bieber's hair! It's funny how much we think alike about this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 24. "312 Vision of Constantine: Eusebius records that while gazing into the sun, Constantine the Great saw a cross with the words 'by this sign conquer'" this does not need to be in a bulleted list
 * Time line again. And it has to be there before discussion of its effects, which immediately follows. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Czarking0 (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 25."Hostility toward animal sacrifice" what does this section have to do with your premise?
 * 26. "Greed, gold and possibly corruption" does this section possibly relate to how the majority plays into technological diffusion? It is not clear how they relate.
 * These are historiographical arguments that have been made in an attempt to prove Constantine was the primary source and cause of Christianization. It seems like they need to be addressed - somehow, somewhere. They are in a "Previous models" section in the parent article, and are in chronological order in this one. They are counterarguments that don't hold water. If I ignore them, someone will bring them up. What should I do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok on further reading I think this is ✅ Czarking0 (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 27. "Intolerance of heresy grows" in this section, it seems like Arianism and Manichaeism can be read as new technologies which failed to develop an early majority. That is just my own idea but it would be interesting if there are sources to corroborate that. The Nicene council acts as a stabilizing force in the Catholic meme. I am not familiar with exclusions to new technologies (like the heresy mechanism) being a mainstream part of technological diffusion models. In any case, the link between heresy and technological diffusion needs to be made explicit.
 * I guess heresy was seen as competition, and competition was squashed as much as possible, but I have no source for this. I can begin looking. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 28. "Laggards of the fifth to seventh centuries" This is pretty devoid of content. The point that needs to be made here should be weaved into the other sections
 * 29. "Social environment of the last centuries of empire" Here we are getting into the hard question of when should this article end temporally. Technology is always diffusing in society. The Christianity of the 17th Century has had many rounds of technological diffusion but that would be beyond the scope of this article. I am tempted to say this article should end with the Nicean Council. I struggle to believe that discussions around the Sack of Roman and the events there after are really relevant. We could have multiple other pages on different technological movements that led to the fall of Roman. A reader visiting this page is probably not looking for that. One may also be taking the long view and being thinking of Christianity as a technological diffusion globally. This process accelerates with the crusades and completes with the Christian colonization of much of the world. To this end the article is titled "Christianization of the Roman Empire ..." therefore, the global impact would be out of scope. Is there already a page that takes this analytical approach on a global scale? We can consider writing that page next. Now I am beating a dead horse but another example of why I think this article should end temporally in the 4th century is that the papacy begins to form in the 5th century as a form of government. This is a markedly different technology than the Christian religion and has its own set of early adopters. I am going to stop reading the article here as I don't want to waste time commenting on the remaining sections that I think should be deleted (or moved since clearly you put in effort there). Czarking0 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Czarking0 I absolutely have to go to bed, it's past one here, but I had to say this last comment is proof to me that you are completely brilliant! I never wanted to have these last centuries and didn't originally! It was "strongly suggested" that I add them by other editors who really hate this sociological approach to this topic. I totally agree with you! Anyway, I will be back again tomorrow, but for now - sleep for me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 30. Starting a new point here but I think we could use a bit more discussion on how the technology spread to rural areas. @P Aculeius makes a great point that rural areas generally adopted the technology later. We touch on gravity guiding the technology through the population hubs, but another sentence on what is happening out side the hubs may be warranted.
 * Will do! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Added a few comments based on the points raised above. Hope they help!  P Aculeius (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * P Aculeius Your comments have been cogent, intelligent and immensely helpful. I will see if I can tie things up better and eliminate that last section we agree should not be there. I am either working on or have already incorporated every idea here! Thank you, thank you! Czarking0 I got the best reviewer on Wikipedia! Thank you both. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Czarking0 I have gone through everything on this page a couple more times, and it looks like I have more work to do on #3, #6, and numbers 28, 29 and 30. That will add the importance of alms to the poor, a broader overview of the demographic of those that converted early - if I can find it - and a removal/reduction of the section on laggards. If there is anything else you think of, at any time, please say so, or just add it yourself, or whatever you feel like doing! I am confident in your ability and understanding. I can't tell you how grateful I am for all of this. You really have done a marvelous job. This is by far the best peer review I have ever had. Thank you. I am now on all of this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I forgot - also #23. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Jeez - and 14? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Czarking0 and P Aculeius I have spent most of my Saturday working on incorporating every bit of advice you gave in this truly exceptional review. If I have missed anything, it was not intentional, so if you find anything, feel free to fix it yourself!! I have no right to ask for more, but if you get a chance, you might give the problem points at least a look over to see if they are improved in your view. May it please the gods of Wikipedia that this article is now good enough for GAN thanx to you both. I am more grateful than I can say. I hope to interact again some time. You are truly great Wikipedians. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Czarking0 it looks as though we are not as done as I thought. If you are willing to indulge a bit more time and effort, I would like to do a bit more. Are you still interested? I am out of town at a birthday celebration right now but should be back this coming weekend. Let me know if you are still on board. Thank you so much for what you have already done.