Talk:Religio licita

Rewrite

I have just finished a major edit to the article on religio licita. I had noticed that the assertions made in the previous article were unverifiable and that it offered no citations in support of its conclusions. For that reason, I have completely re-written it, citing numerous scholarly works in an effort to provide a better understanding of the origin, use, and meaning of this term in the context of Roman, Jewish and Christian history, specifically with regards to assertions previously made about toleration in the Roman empire and the legal status of religions, particularly Judaism.StevenBTodd (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have redone the article as the original article was re-inserted in the form of two paragraphs. It does not cite sources, has no footnotes to show where the claims made originate, and is entirely contradicted by the evidence presented in the remainder of the article, which does cite sources. It seems unreasonable to continue to present information for which there is no evidence whatsoever.StevenBTodd (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The whole rewrite is incredibly POV. In fact, the whole article is simply one huge argument against another POV. This article is in dire need of a rewrite.--Adrift* (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It would help to start with a simple statement of what the phrase means, what it's origins were, etc., then move onto the arguments that Witherington et al present for why the phrase is perhaps later rather than early, and therefore questionable. And whilst the concept of Religio Licita may not be strong in the historic literature, never-the-less, the records are quite clear as to what a fragile relationship Christianity and Judiasm enjoyed in Rome, such as the Jewish purges that were occassional in Rome, or the writings of Pliny and Trajan with regards the trial of anyone caught worshipping "Chrestus as a god". So a good discussion might be had as to how these non-roman beliefs were treated, given that there was no official status, but that there was tension.

I would like to see a fuller exploration of the tolerance and intolerance within Roman rule of various religions and beliefs and not just Jewish/Christian thinking. Many thanks, Jason Ward

the pov-orgy is due to one StephenBTodd who instead of introducing a new viewpoint pretty much turned the article as he found it on its head. --dab (𒁳) 16:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If Christianity was not considered Religio illicita, perhaps the writer (stephenbtodd) would like to explain why the edict of Toleration (by Galerius) and the edict of Milan were relevant at all?

I believe the answer can be easily obtained by asking the following question: What were the events that necessitated the Edict of Toleration by Galerius and the Edict of Milan? In 303, according to the article on the Diocletianic Persecution, "Emperor Diocletian and his colleagues Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius issued a series of edicts rescinding the legal rights of Christians and demanding that they comply with traditional religious practices... The persecution varied in intensity across the empire... Persecutory laws were nullified by different emperors at different times [cf. the Edict of Toleration by Galerius], but Constantine and Licinius's Edict of Milan (313) has traditionally marked the end of the persecution." Put differently, the Edict of Toleration by Galerius and the Edict of Milan were issued as a response to the Diocletianic persecution. Nidrosia (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Public?

"In Roman understanding, in marked contrast to Greek tradition, religion was something that was practiced in public."

I think I understand what the person who wrote this means, when looking at the quote. However, in another article (Sourvinou-Inwood, 'Male and female, public and private, ancient and modern', in: E.D. Reeder ed., Pandora: Women in Classical Greece (Princeton 1995) 111-120) Greek religion is said to take place in public. The 'basic unit' of the Greek polis religion was the individual and not the oikos. That is indeed what the current quote says. In Roman religion with its collegia etc. However, the very word public should be changed into "communial" or something in my opinion or at least there should be a more elaborate description of what public means in this context. The meaning of "public" is not clear to the reader (and myself at first) now.

The section should explain the importance of pax deorum earlier. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

confused

This article struck me as highly confused. It strayed from the stated topic of religio licita to examine the basis for Roman "tolerance" of Judaism, and the nature of Judaism's special status. This is sound material, but has nothing to with the term, which appears only once, and in Tertullian, not (for example) a Roman historian or Varro or Cicero. The various accommodations of Judaism exist as a topic that is not dependent on whether this phrase represents an official legal status (which it doesn't). So if other editors want to restore the material I've taken out, OK, but it really belongs to an article on Roman–Jewish relations. The material on persecutions also seems like a digression, as if the persecutions resulted from a legal status based on the unattested phrase religio illicita. The order of information seemed illogical as well. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes

Does anyone object to the use of shortened footnotes in this article? ImTheIP (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No objection. In fact, it is nearly always an improvement to have "short ciatations" directing the reader to the source in the "Bibliography" section. To add "short citations" one must needs add a "Bibliography" section too.Davidbena (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)