Wikipedia:Peer review/Philip the Arab and Christianity/archive1

===Philip the Arab and Christianity=== This peer review discussion has been closed. Hey, thanks. This article took on some harsh criticism in its GA candidacy on its style. The main areas of concern are on the clarity and focus of the text.

Thanks, G.W. (Talk) 06:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Philip the Arab and Christianity/archive1.

Comment from MoreThings
My take on the readability, FWIW.

The prose strikes me as pretty dense. Subordinate and parenthetical clauses are common, sometimes a couple of levels deep, and often themselves contain links to other articles. I'd say it's a style that makes the reader work pretty hard.


 * "The ancient traditions regarding Philip's Christianity can be divided into three categories: the Eusebian, or Caesarean, in Eusebius of Caesarea's Historia Ecclesiastica; the Antiochene, in John Chrysostom's homily de S. Babyla and in Leontius, bishop of Antioch's record in the Chronicon Paschale; and the Latin, in Jerome's Liber de viris inlustribus and Chronicon, Orosius' Historiarum Adversum Paganos, and Vincent of Lérins' Commonitorum Primum."


 * This sentence has 9 links, a dollop of Latin, and the description of each category is quite a mouthful in itself. It packs quite a lot of info into a single introductory sentence. I'm just wondering if each title needs the whole nine yards right up front. Would it be possible to use shorter category titles at first--say, something like the Eusebian, the Antiochone, and the Latin, and then expand them later?


 * I've split the sentence in four parts: first, the "ancient traditions...three categories", followed by three sentences listing the sources included in each tradition. Does that sound sensible? G.W. (Talk) 05:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I definitely think it reads more easily now. I still feel that most readers will gloss over the long titles, but given that this is a work of reference, I guess they belong there. How do you feel about this for the last sentence? Most scholars hold that all of these accounts ultimately derive from Eusebius' Historia.--MoreThings (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. I have taken down the rest of the paragraph into the article body on Septentrionalis' advisement, leaving your sentence as the cap of the opening paragraph. G.W. (Talk) 06:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "With the growth of erudite criticism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and the increasing awareness of secular texts, which did not describe Philip as a Christian (and which, indeed, recorded him participating as pontifex maximus (chief priest) over the millennial Secular Games in 248), fewer historians held to the old narrative.".


 * The main clause is "With the growth of erudite criticism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and the increasing awareness of secular texts...fewer historians held to the old narrative", but by the time I'd read through subordinate clause and its embedded parenthetical clauses I was starting to lose the gist.


 * Also, my personal preference would be scholarly rather than erudite.
 * I've separated the subclause from the main clause. On the second poit, was riffing on Arnaldo Momigliano's distinction between erudite and neoclassical historiography. But yeah, I've made it scholarly. (Don't think there's much sense lost.) G.W. (Talk) 05:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Definitely an improvement, for me. I feel that erudite is nowadays quite often used with an ironic edge, sometimes it conjures up pictures of elitism and pretentiousness in ivory towers.--MoreThings (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The only place I've ever heard it spoken was in Flight of the Conchords' "Ladies of the World", and even then I didn't catch it the first time around. Thought they were saying something like "aerodyte". G.W. (Talk) 06:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * By the end of the lead I find myself going back to check if the ancient traditions, the old narrative, the ecclesiastical narratives, and possibly the sources, all refer to the same thing.
 * Um. They are related, but not the same thing: the ancient traditions include more than one source (the Eusebian, one; the Antiochene, two; the Latin, three); the old narrative is not an original source, but is all narratives that call Philip a Christian without caution (it thus includes Bede and Tillemont as well as Eusebius and Leontius); the ecclesiastical narratives are all stories related by churchmen (so, all three traditions, all six sources). Bowersock reads the ecclesiastical sources alongside the secular, so the sources is likewise a separate category. This is a lot to keep straight! Um, any advice on how to make this clearer? G.W. (Talk) 05:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you've made pretty good job of making it clear in that paragraph above! If you could find a way to introduce something like that into the article, I think it would be a big help in understanding the lead. Perhaps you could make a very early reference to the complexity of the sources, and attach a note to that statement containing your above explanation.--MoreThings (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that a note on this is still necessary now that I've taken Septentrionalis' advice and removed the overcomplex list of original sources from the lede? G.W. (Talk)
 * I think it's a lot cleaner with PMA's suggestion. We now have only two sources listed but we're saying "...scholars hold that all of these accounts...". Perhaps this should now be "...scholars hold that these accounts, and others,..." or "...these and other [early] accounts..." or something along those lines. In the second para, what do you think about removing "(who is not named)"?--MoreThings (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken your "these and other early accounts" suggestion. G.W. (Talk) 06:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "(who is not named)" has been removed. I thought of it as a useful early indication of the patchy nature of the source-matter, but perhaps that is already implied by calling him only "the presiding bishop". G.W. (Talk) 06:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "...proclaiming a man named Pacatianus emperor."
 * Including "a man named" doesn't really add anything, and it almost sounds as though he was just a guy in the street. It prompts the question: who was he, and why was he chosen? Including a brief description would be helpful.
 * Removed the "a man named". Pacatianus is unknown; I've added a notice to this effect. G.W. (Talk) 05:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you think there is enough evidence to say proclaimed an officer named Pacatianus empereror?--MoreThings (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I must confess that I know very little about these men. The online biography cited at the end of the passage states: "According to Zonaras, Pacatianus was in the Roman army stationed on the Danube frontier. The term can define several military ranks: military tribune, centurio, legate of a legion. Most scholars assume that Pacatianus was of senatorial rank, and may have commanded troops of several provinces near the Danube. Yet Zonaras also writes that Pacatianus was not worthy of ruling. Bleckmann deduces from this passage that the usurper cannot have been a military commander; moreover, he notes, Zonaras uses the term for officers of low rank." So, it seems, we do have enough evidence to call him an officer, but not enough to do much more than that. It is now, as you suggest, "an officer named Pacatianus". G.W. (Talk) 06:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "In 249, to restore order among the rebellious troops, Philip gave Senator Decius command of the Danubian armies.".
 * This left me wondering why that particular appointment would restore order.
 * Because he was a native of the region. I've added a notice to this effect. G.W. (Talk) 05:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to check I'm following the last para: Philip put down 3 trans-Danubian rebellions between 245 and 248. There was then a fourth rebellion. Was this the armies that he had used to put down the first three now rebelling against him? How was this fourth rebellion put down? They'd proclaimed Decius emperor--did Philip then somehow managed to bring them back on-board by offering to give command to Decius? That placated them for a few months but in Spring they rose again, this time proclaiming Decius emperor and provoking a civil war. Is that it? (Glad I'm not an emperor!)--MoreThings (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! No! Sorry to give these false impressions! Re-checking the source, it appears that Sponsianus is fictitious, while Silbannicus rebelled on the Rhine, and Jotapianus rebelled in the East. So now it's "His tax collection methods provoked the revolt of Jotapianus in the Near East. At the same time, Silbannacus started a rebellion in the Rhenish provinces." The last rebellion was suppressed before Decius was appointed. It's now "In 249, to restore order after the defeat of Pacatianus". G.W. (Talk) 06:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This passage is still a little obscure, for me. I'll amplify a bit later.--MoreThings (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this accurate? And if so, what do you think of it in place of "From 245...named Pacatianus emperor"? "He faced a third rebellion in 248 when the legions he had used in successful campaigns against barbarians on the [Danube/Danubian frontier] revolted and proclaimed an officer named Pacatianus emperor." --MoreThings (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm chary of using "barbarians" anywhere it is not necessary; I don't want a certain audience to tune us out immediately. That's why I take on sometimes-circumlocutory phrasings like trans-Danubian). That said, I've taken your phrasing, though I've replaced "barbarian" with Carpi. G.W. (Talk) 06:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was uncomfortable with barbarians, too, I wondered about "Goths and other tribes" but wasn't sure if that was accurate, and it made a longish clause longer. It reads better with the single word Carpi. -- MoreThings (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, this was not a period in which you'd like to have been an emperor. Military men eventually got the message and began acting as powers behind the throne rather than ruling as emperors themselves (e.g., Ricimer, Aetius, and Stilicho). G.W. (Talk) 06:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Éminences grises in togas :)--MoreThings (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "(though it must have had one before the Council of Chalcedon in 451).".
 * Why must it?
 * Because they sent one to that Council (we have fairly complete lists of attendees, I believe). I don't know how to make this obvious. Would "though it must have had before 451, when they sent a bishop to the Council of Chalcedon" work? (I haven't made any changes to the text itself yet.) G.W. (Talk) 05:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think would work. Another alternative is something like...
 * "Philippopolis, which was a small village for most of this period, does not have a Christian inscription that can be dated earlier than 552. It is not known when the village established a prelateship, but it must have been sometime before 451, when it sent a bishop to the Council of Chalcedon." --MoreThings (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! I've taken your phrasing. G.W. (Talk) 06:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Beryllos is an early example of the heretical beliefs that Hellenic Christians imputed to the Arabs as a race:[14] because he denied the existence of Christ prior to the Incarnation, his views were condemned as heresy following debate at a local synod.[15]
 * This struck me as rather convoluted. It's not Beryllos who is an example, it's his beliefs. After I'd read the second part of the sentence, I went back to read the first part again.
 * It's now Beryllos "offers" an early example. Does this work? G.W. (Talk) 05:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this?
 * "Beryllos believed that Christ became flesh at the Incarnation, and that he did not exist prior to it. Hellenic Christians held this to be heresy, and they imputed similar heretical views to the entire Arab race. Bellyros's views were discussed and condemned as heresy at a debate at al local synod."--MoreThings (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most Christians believe (and believed) that Christ only became flesh at the Incarnation. The dispute here is on whether Christ existed in essence before becoming flesh at the Incarnation. (I am by instinct and habit a materialist and a nominalist, so I have no idea what sets of states that sequence of words represents, but no matter; the words and their objects are not important here, it's the syntax.) Here is what Eusebius writes on the matter, at HE 6.33 in the Williamson translation: Beryllus was "actually asserting that our Saviour and Lord did not pre-exist in His own form of being before He made His home among men, and had no divinity of His own but only the Father's dwelling in Him". So the Beryllian heresy condemned at the synod was that Jesus of Nazareth was only a vessel which God the Father gave a bit of his divinity to, and that the Christ was not a pre-existent, self-sufficient, eternal, and perfect essence of its own&mdash;a sort of Adoptionist Monarchianism, it seems.
 * Something like "Beryllos believed that Christ did not exist prior to his Incarnation", without the "that Christ became flesh at the Incarnation"; keeping the "became flesh" in implies that the synod also condemned this. I am also wary of "Hellenic Christians held this to be heresy"; most Christians held (and hold) this to be heresy, and our subjects would dispute our imputation of this belief to them. The unique thing here is that Hellenic Christians imputed the heretical views to the entire Arab race, not that they held this to be heresy. The trouble is that I can't think of a phrasing that gets at the politics, culture, and theology of this that does not also sound like a very thick soup... G.W. (Talk) 06:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right that there's ambiguity in my first suggested sentence. I was trying to de-jargonify Incarnation. As you say, we could go with "Beryllos believed that Christ did not exist prior to his Incarnation", another way would be something like  "Bellyros believed that Christ had no existence/did not exist before he was made flesh at the Incarnation.". The difficulty with the imputing beliefs part is that we give an example of one particular belief and we jump from there to imputing beliefs (plural) to the entire race. I think it would help if there were a word or a phrase that we could use to summarise the set of beliefs that were imputed. If it all centred on that one belief, then we need to make that clear. It would also help if we could indicate the significance of the debate and condemnation. Was it routine for such beliefs to be condemned in this way, or was this precedent setting? -- MoreThings (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken "Bellyros believed that Christ did not exist before he was made flesh at the Incarnation" here. Thanks for clarifying your issue here (viz., de-jargonifying "Incarnation"). The trouble with the imputation of beliefs is that the Greeks did not imply that Arabs had particular beliefs, but that they had a tendency to heresy that could be instantiated in specific cases (like Beryllus) but not proven for the group as a whole. The case of Beryllus gives Hellenes free reign to cast unfriendly aspersions on those they meet in debate; they don't have to say anything in particular, but they can convey their suspicion of "Arab" or "Arabizing" ideas by glances and physical cues. Some lower-caste Hellenes will be crude enough to give free voice to the prevailing suspicions, and will condemn the race outright. The upper-castes, however, keep their prejudice in close quarters, sharing it after drinks; when expressed in public, which is seldom, it is beneath a thick frieze of culture and law.
 * Which is a roundabout way of saying that it's important to say that Beryllos gives an example of heretical beliefs, not anything more specific. Could be Monarchianism, could be Gnosticism or Manicheism. Could be any variety of the post-Nicene heresies. The point being more "you can't trust Arabs" than "Arabs are crypto-Monarchianists". G.W. (Talk) 18:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're happy with the way it is now, that's fine. I do think splitting the sentence has helped. So, I think that's me done. Good luck with the GA! --MoreThings (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the help! G.W. (Talk) 02:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Christians had been condemning heretical beliefs in council since Apostolic times (v. Council of Jerusalem). I don't recall my sources describing any procedural innovation here. G.W. (Talk) 19:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "If Philip had been a Christian during his military service and emperorship, he would have not been a particularly unusual figure for his era&mdash;though membership in the army was prohibited by certain churchmen, like Tertullian in his later writings, and would have required participation in rites some Christians found sacrilegious, it was common enough among the Christian laity. ".


 * This is another which made me double-take.


 * "If Philip had been a Christian during his military service and emperorship, he would have not been a particularly unusual figure for his era...". First thought is that an emperor is by definition an unusual figure. Second thought: this could be read as a)it wasn't unusual for a Christian to be emperor, b) it wasn't unusual for a Christian to be in the army, c)it wasn't unusual for a Christian emperor to be in the army. Some of those are clearly more likely than others, but the ambiguity stifles the flow.


 * The fundamental point of the sentence seems to be that Christians were not uncommon in the army, and so as a Christian Philip wouldn't have been out of place there. The mention of his emperorship, for me at least, makes it a bit harder to get to that basic fact.
 * I've removed the "and emperorship". G.W. (Talk) 05:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Whatever the prohibitions, persons raised on the "more tolerant Christianity of the camp" would have been able to justify the acts to themselves. We know that these people exist, and include like Christian army officers regularly guilty of idolatry and the military martyrs of the late third century. "


 * I see that you're saying that Christian soldiers would have had to participate in pagan rituals, and the camp had consequently developed a more liberal interpretation of scripture, particularly the 1st commandment, but it does take a bit of working out. The reference to "the acts" presumably refers to the pagan rituals the Christians were obliged to perform, but for me it took a second for the penny to drop. The second sentence is in the wrong tense and seems to have lost something before "like".
 * It's now "Whatever the prohibitions, people raised on the "more tolerant Christianity of the camp" would have been able to justify participation in pagan ritual to themselves. We know that these people exist: the historical record includes Christian army officers, who would have been regularly guilty of idolatry, and the military martyrs of the late third century." G.W. (Talk) 05:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of these examples are obviously clearer cut that others, and each reader will see them differently, but overall I feel that simplifying some of the sentence structures would improve the readability.

Hope some of this helps. If not feel free to bin it! --MoreThings (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments! I've started work on them, and have left my responses inline with your examples above. G.W. (Talk) 05:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I've got them all. G.W. (Talk) 05:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Septentrionalis
We could take the second paragraph down into the body of the text, and replacing by the point: Philip was called a Christian by several Christian writers, all ultimately deriving from Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote almost a century after Philip's death. and then the present third paragraph, would avoid presenting the reader with an indigestible nub, mostly not in English, early on.

This appears to have consulted a wide range of sources, including the obvious ones. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. The final bit of your sentence, "who wrote almost a century after Philip's death", is not, I think, merited&mdash;the rumor was current in Philip's own time, as the excerpted and summarized letters of Dionysius and Origen demonstrate, and the first edition of the HE was complete before 300. I have, however, removed the remainder of the indigestible paragraph to the body. G.W. (Talk) 06:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The modern arguments in favor of Philip's Christianity appear to be entirely Irfan Shahid's. Are there any other voices in favor? Has his book been kindly reviewed? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are indeed other voices in favor, though I do not have access to all of them. Henri Crouzel wrote an article titled "Le christianisme de l'empereur Philippe l'Arabe" in 1975, which I have not read (I would like to get my hands of Crouzel's article, if only to develop the notion of an independent Antiochene tradition, but it is in the 1975 volume of Gregorianum and has not been digitized); Henri Gregoire supported the notion in his 1964 Les persecutions dans l'empire romain; Jean Danielou and Henri Marrou call the notion probable or possible in their The Christian Centuries I: The First Six Hundred Years, a 1964 English translation of their French history of the early Church; John York accepts the notion without much argument in his 1972 article "The Image of Philip the Arab". It was against these moderns that Hans Pohlsander wrote his 1980 article "Philip the Arab and Christianity". It is my understanding that the modern arguments in favor of the idea are only given full voice in Shahid's 1984 book Rome and the Arabs, where other moderns take or dismiss the notion without much in the way of analysis.
 * Shahid's book has indeed been kindly reviewed. Glen Bowersock, who gave it a seven-page review in the Classical Review, wrote the following by way of conclusion:
 * "The issues raised in the foregoing paragraphs constitute a modest selection from the rich and invigorating fare that S. has provided in these two impressive volumes [Rome and the Arabs and Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century, both published in 1984]. The parallel that the author himself draws with Tarn's Alexander the Great is entirely just. Not only in format are the works similar. They share a comparable crusading zeal for the importance of their subjects, and they join deep reading with unflagging industry in a search for confirmation of a grand vision that controls every page."
 * I have not found any other review of this volume, but Bowersock is esteemed and the other volumes in Shahid's series have been well-received. G.W. (Talk) 20:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tarn's Alexander the Great? Now, that's praising with faint damns; Tarn was a great scholar and a notorious eccentric; Alexander the Great is the source of the idea that Alexander was an apostle of world peace. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And some of Shahid's theses are eccentric as well. The comparison, though, is Shahid's own. The preface to Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century ends with the following note: "W. W. Tarn's work on Alexander the Great in two parts has partly inspired the format of this book, which was to have been published in two volumes: volume one containing the synthesis and exposition; volume two devoted to the sources, to analyses, to topical studies, and to the extraction of the data from the various sources." (BAFOC, xix) I do not imagine that Shahid is unaware of Tarn's reputation; he, along with his friend Bowersock (who was the first to review the drafts of RA and BAFOC, and to whom Shahid dedicates the former in hopes of inspiring him to write his own book on the subject), no doubt have their tongues in their cheeks. G.W. (Talk) 22:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bowersock anyway; I must remember unflagging industry in a search for confirmation of a grand vision that controls every page, as the WP:CIVIL for POV-pusher. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do as you will, but I don't believe on-Wiki notions of "neutrality" and "consensus" will have much traction in communities that accept and promote diversity of opinion. Enjoy the phrase. G.W. (Talk) 03:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure Bowersock had quite different intentions, somewhere in a spectrum from kindness to enjoyment of cranks; he is a late antique specialist, after all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * [rolls eyes] As you were, Sept. G.W. (Talk) 05:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Geometry guy
I promised you some comments after the GAR, so here I am. I'm going to concentrate on clarity and avoiding the appearance of OR.
 * Biography. "refounded and renamed in his honor"; the online source (DIR) has "Philip renamed the community Philippopolis and embarked on a major building campaign" which gives a rather different perspective. Comments?
 * I'm afraid I don't catch the distinction. Is it that the first gives a sense of the community refounding itself while the second gives a sense of the community being refounded through imperial intervention? Oh! That makes sense. I've changed it to "Philip renamed the village Philippopolis (the modern al-Shahbā', Syria) during his reign as emperor". G.W. (Talk) 02:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better - clearer language, grounded in source material. Geometry guy 20:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Biography. The last two sentences of the first paragraph appear to contradict each other. I suggest combining them with "and" to indicate that the local prominance is being deduced from the name.
 * Done. G.W. (Talk) 02:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Biography. "If a fragmentary inscription..." This is too close a paraphrase of the source and is not very clear. It seems to be saying that there is a record of someone who "rose quickly during Gordian III's reign through a variety of equestrian offices", and that this someone may be Philip's brother. If that is what Potter argues (DIR's source), then the article should say that, rather than using the somewhat unencyclopedic "would have".
 * Don't have access to Potter's Prophecy and History, unfortunately. It seems a bit of a stretch to say "Potter argues" when DIR gives no indication of Potter's text beyond a bare citation; it might well be an argument against this identification. Your "it seems to be saying" is correct. Is there some way I can make that "seems to be saying" more clearly demonstrated by the text (without using "would have") without making reference to a book I have not read? G.W. (Talk) 02:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like a good source to have. Apparently, it is based on the 1984 Oxford DPhil thesis of the author, who is currently at Michigan. You could try interlibrary loan. Geometry guy 20:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know! I have Potter's Empire at Bay, a general history of the period from 180 to 395, and it's very good. But Prophecy and History is not on the secondary book markets I follow (and, as a recent OUP hardback with limited distribution and a thin market, it would be pricey if it were), and I don't have access to an effective ILL service; my subscription to the local library has lapsed and would cost fifty dollars to renew. I should have access to better sources this September. G.W. (Talk) 19:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Biography. "... most likely through the intervention of his brother." Source?
 * "Philip's early career is also obscure, though it was undoubtedly helped by that of his brother, Julius Priscus. Priscus was appointed praetorian prefect by Gordian III and had previously served as prefect of the Roman province of Mesopotamia." I assumed that the "undoubtedly helped" could be used in reference to the only detail of Philip's early career supplied in that paragraph. I see that "intervention" is too strong (posits an act nowhere attested), so I've made it "most likely with the help of his brother". G.W. (Talk) 02:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Biography. "Philip's brother Priscus proved unpopular." Source?
 * All I can point to is "The heavy-handedness of his brother Priscus in collecting taxes in the East caused another revolt...", which is not an apparent demonstration of that. I've removed the phrase; it's now just "In the Near East, Philip's brother Priscus' tax collection methods provoked the revolt of Jotapianus". G.W. (Talk) 02:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

More to follow, time permitting. Geometry guy 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, GG. G.W. (Talk) 02:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Further comments...
 * Christianity in Auranitis. "The Arab elements in the region would have been exposed to their own variety of Christianity." Verb tenses such as "would have been exposed" always catch my attention, as this is not usually encyclopedic language, and may indicate unsourced editorializing. I would aim for something like "Christian beliefs were present in the regional Arab community since about A.D. 200, when Abgar VIII, an ethnic Arab and king of the Roman client state Osroene, converted to Christianity; the religion was propagated from his capital at Edessa until its destruction in 244." Geometry guy 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I needed a topic-setting sentence and had a bit of trouble getting the phrasing down. Thanks for this. I've taken your wording, with a slight change to "the region's Arab community". G.W. (Talk) 19:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You've sorted the first sentence, but notice also that my wording shortened the second sentence considerably, and avoided the "would". Geometry guy 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I missed that. Done. G.W. (Talk) 00:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Christianity in Auranitis. "Bellyros believed that Christ did not exist before he was made flesh at the Incarnation. His views were condemned as heresy following debate at a local synod." seems to be sourced to Eusebius, who is not a neutral voice. If so, his analysis needs to be attributed. In general, care is needed when discussing issues of orthodoxy and heresy in periods prior to the establishment of a clear orthodox view. Geometry guy 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have noted this as sourced to Eusebius of Caesarea. I don't believe this is a particularly controversial point, however; the secondary sources I read (including, here, the Cambridge Ancient History, Millar's Near East, and Frend's Rise of Christianity) relayed the information without criticizing the source. The relevant passage in the CAH, for example, reads as follows: "The fact that early in the century the governor of the province could summon Origen from Alexandria for discussion may tell us more about the governor himself and the growing status of the Christian philosophy (Eus. Hist. Eccl. vi.19.15), but his seat of government, Bostra, was soon to have, towards mid-century, a controversial bishop, Beryllus, prominent for his writings (Eus. Hist. Eccl. vi.20.2) whose christological speculations stimulated at least one synod attended by ‘a large number of bishops’ (Eus. Hist. Eccl. vi.33.2), to be followed by another ‘no small synod’ (on the status of the soul after death, Eus. Hist. Eccl. vi.37), to both of which Origen (and others) came and spoke." (Graeme Clarke, "Third Century Christianity", Cambridge Ancient History2 12.599–600; Clarke has parenthetical citations to the primary sources throughout the chapter.) Frend presents Beryllus' Monarchian doctrine in a similar manner. G.W. (Talk) 19:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuing...
 * Christianity and Philip's early life and career. "Trachonitis, equidistant from Antioch in the north and Bosra in the south, and sited on a road connecting the two..." The biography section describes Trachonitis as a district containing Auranitis. It seems odd to locate such a region so precisely here. What gives? Geometry guy 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a paraphrase of Allard. The point of it is something like: (1) we don't have many examples of Aurantine Christianity from this period, so we don't know whether it had a Bostran or an Antiochene flavor (in a somewhat analogous situation, we might say something like "Bosnia lies equidistant from Rome and Constantinople, and is on a major land route between them, so it could as plausibly have followed the Eastern Orthodox tradition as the Roman Catholic"), and (2) traffic between two major regional centers of Christianity may have resulted in a Christian seeding of the community, much as the interstate highway system seeds fast-food franchises across the American landscape. Regions that are not sited on major traffic lines (so, in our period, places like Britain, Mauritania (viz., Mauretania, latter-day western Algeria and Morocco, not Mauritania/Mauritanie, which is further southwest), and inland Spain) experience cultural development only after significant delay. G.W. (Talk) 00:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Christianity and Philip's early life and career. "For others, like scholar of religion Frank Trombley, the absence of evidence for the early Christianization of Shahbā' means that Shahîd's assumption is without merit." This is sourced to Trombley, which seems a bit odd, as it refers to "others". Does Trombley do so? Also "Shahbā'" requires the reader to remember that this is the modern name for Philippopolis. Geometry guy 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made it Philippopolis. (Archaeologists&mdash;and those who make extensive use of archaeological material, like Trombley&mdash;are in the habit of using modern names for sites.) The re-arrangement of the section has made the "others" unnecessary. Trombley's point in the footnote is somewhat oblique. He cites the page numbers corresponding to Shahid's argument for Philip's Christianity, but makes no specific address to it; he only addresses himself to Shahid's assumption that Philippopolis was Christianized by the third century. G.W. (Talk) 00:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Christianity and Philip's early life and career. The order of argument in this section is confusing and unclear, and the prose suffers as a consequence (e.g., several "would"s again). The hypothesis is that Philip was a Christian before he became emperor, indeed before he began his military career. There is evidence for and against, and scholars with various opinions. Why not start with the absence of evidence for conversion? Then explain why this leads scholars like Shahid to conclude that he was Christian already, why this is a possible/reasonable interpretation (the likelihood of exposure to Christianity, possible curiosity, the presence of Christians in the Roman military). Then discuss other scholarly views. Geometry guy 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion; I have re-arranged the paragraph. I find the "would"s are difficult to avoid, however; where arguments are made without positive evidence, the conditional tense feels natural. G.W. (Talk) 00:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Christianity and Philip's early life and career. The first commandment would have been an issue for jews as well. Are there any sources which comment on this? Geometry guy 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't remember reading anything on this. The sources are somewhat segregated here. For example, in the series Jewish and Christian Self-Defintion, the first volume is addressed to The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries and the second to Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period. Volume one is written by professors of theology, Classics, history, NT studies, and religion; volume two is written by professors of OT studies, Jewish studies, Rabinnics, the Talmud and Midrash, Jewish History and Literature, Hebrew, religion, history, Classics, and law. Some overlap, but a good amount of specialization. I don't do much reading on Jewish history, to be honest. As far as I know, the Jews received special exemption from Roman demands for ritual obeisance&mdash;an entitlement solidified by bloody insurrections against Hellenic rule from the Maccabees on through Bar Kokhba. G.W. (Talk) 00:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * G.W. is right; Jews were exempt. If you really need it, I can dig up a source but it'll take me some time. There's a cited sentence or two on this issue in Imperial cult (ancient Rome).Haploidavey (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your comment. Peer review is intended to be formative, not summative, and hence provide suggestions and advice rather than concerns and issues. But sources always help, so if you can find them so much the better! Meanwhile I apologise that my review stalled. I won't be able to continue it until after Easter, but I would be happy to do so then if this review remains open. Geometry guy 21:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Haploidavey. I've added a note on Jewish exemption sourced to Smallwood. G.W. (Talk) 01:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)