Talk:Contra Celsum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleContra Celsum has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 15, 2019Good article nomineeListed

Title[edit]

This book by Origenes is called "Contra Celsum" (in Latin, classical as well as medieval) or "Kata Kelsou" in original Greek. Please delete this lemma, spreading nonsense all over the world. Thanks from Germany, Rabanus Flavus, 6 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.201.227.248 (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your passion. The person who created the page must not have known that in Latin the preposition contra requires the accusative case. I'll move the page. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Contra Celsum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 22:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Kato, long time no see. I will be doing this review.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction and limitations[edit]

After Friday, I will be travelling, so there may be some delay in my responses.

Overview[edit]

1. Prose:
  • No copvio.
  • The article reads well and is thorough and interesting. Below I will do a detailed review.
2. MOS:
  • Quite neat and organized, but
  • the section Summary is quite long, you should make subsections.
  • you might want to add a brief description to the last three external links.
3. References layout: No problematic links. Sources can easily be identified.
4. Reliable sources: Yes, but some sources are hardly cited by scholars, especially Gregerman, Somos and Thienes. The first two of these may register not well on citation indices because they are German publishers; the last source has been well-reviewed by other scholars despite that it is not much cited. Authors and publishers are reliable though.
5. Original research: None found.
6. Broadness: Will check later.
7. Focus: Is focused.
8. Neutral: Very minor problems (see below).
9. Stable: article is stable.
10-11. Pics: Not many, but well-licensed and relevant.

Detailed review per section[edit]

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like  Done,  Doing...,  Not done, minus Removed, plus Added, and  Fixed. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own. I will do the review of the lead mostly at the end.

Lead[edit]

  • was the first treatise in which a Christian philosopher was able to hold his own against an educated pagan is the first treatise?
I am not sure what you are trying to suggest here. Could you please clarify what your concern is? —Katolophyromai (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the paragraph is in present tense. Shouldn't this sentence be in present tense?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It feels weird saying this in the present tense, but I have now changed it to the present tense for the sheer sake of simplicity. –Katolophyromai (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background [edit]

  • his arguments reflect ideas of the Platonizing tradition Platonizing or Platonist?
Unfortunately, I do not have the source available at the moment, but, if I remember correctly, Thomas specifically calls Celsus a "philosopher of the Platonizing tradition." He, along with the other sources cited to support this sentence, are very careful to maintain that Celsus was not necessarily a Platonist in the strict sense. Instead, he was something of an eclectic who drew ideas from various philosophical traditions, but his philosophy is most heavily and most evidently influenced by Platonism. —Katolophyromai (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but platonizing sounds as though he is making the tradition more platonist (compare romanizing). Or am I missing something here?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What does the source say?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I now have access to the source again. Thomas describes Celsus thus: "Most modern commentators see him rather as holding to mainly Platonizing opinions and having, accordingly, a Platonist's dislike for common Christianity." Plato was all the rage among philosophers in the third century AD and everyone wanted to emulate him, including Celsus. I am guessing that what Thomas means by "Platonizing" is probably that he was adopting Platonic attitudes and ideas, but was not a Platonist in the strict sense of adhering to everything Plato had written. –Katolophyromai (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 03:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephen Thomas states that Celsus may not have necessarily been a Platonist per se necessarily and per se mean the same thing, choose one.
I went with per se. —Katolophyromai (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thomas remarks that Celsus "is no genius as a philosopher".[7] Nonetheless, Origen's quotations from The True Word reveal that it was well-researched. You attribute one opinion, but not the other. This may look less than neutral. Attribute both. If the latter is the opinion of many scholars in the field, say so. Also, using four citation numbers can violate neutrality. Merge the citations (for example, using the {{refn}} template) or cut out some. Ideally, you should not have more than two or three citation numbers in a row in any part of the article, though this becomes especially relevant when you contrast multiple opinions.
The reason I did not attribute the statement about The True Word being well-researched is because all the sources I could find, including Thomas, agree that it is clearly well-researched. I could not find any sources that argued that it was not well-researched. (Thomas's comment about Celsus being "no genius as a philosopher" is about Celsus's level of original philosophical insight, not his level of knowledge.) —Katolophyromai (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Though the two statements may be about different qualities, you do contrast them using nonetheless, followed by a statement in "Wikipedia's voice" that is not attributed. This appears a little biased. I may be nitpicking here, but I'd suggest you add "many scholars" or a similar attribution.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to say, "Nonetheless, most scholars, including Thomas, agree that Origen's quotations from The True Word reveal that it was well-researched." I personally see no reason to add an attribution here, since no one appears to be disputing the fact that Celsus had done his research and the level of research that went into the work is more-or-less an objective fact. Nonetheless, I have changed it to satisfy you. –Katolophyromai (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the church historian Eusebius Please add dates of birth and death for helpful context.
Done. —Katolophyromai (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • but rather for outsiders who were interested in the faith that had not yet made the decision to convert. Confusing, especially the part in italic.
I am not sure what is confusing about this sentence for you. It reads fine to me. Would it be better if I replaced "that had" with "but who had"? —Katolophyromai (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. –Katolophyromai (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Anthony McGuckin ... answering any objections they might have to it. Too long, split.
I have now split that sentence into two shorter sentences, per your request. —Katolophyromai (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence it still a little hard to read.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have now revised it and split it into two separate sentences. Is it easier to read now? --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

  • I found this section to be most informative and interesting. There should be more content like this on Wikipedia.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make subsections, as this section is quite long. Also, I found the reasoning hard to follow at times:
  • and argues for a rational basis of Christian faith He argues that Christianity should become more rational, or he argues that it already is? I know you mean the latter, but it reads slightly ambiguous.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to say that Origen argues that the Christian faith has a rational basis. –Katolophyromai (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In two cases, Origen points out problems in the literal interpretations Just so I understand this correctly: Origen gives two examples of how the Bible can't be literally true, which are better examples than Celcius has given to prove the same point? So basically, Origen is saying that Celcius's criticism is correct, but that he is raising the wrong examples? Or what am I missing here?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not necessarily "better examples," but ones that Celsus had not noticed. If I read the source correctly, Origen is agreeing with Celsus that the literal interpretations of a number of stories in the Bible are not possible, but, unlike Celsus, Origen argues that these passages are intended allegorically. In some ways, one could argue that Origen is essentially admitting that Celsus is correct on this point, but "moving the goalposts." Origen, however, who supported the allegorical interpretation anyways, probably viewed Celsus's attacks on the literal interpretations of the passages in question as a straw man. –Katolophyromai (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand your writing correctly, Celsus is criticizing the Bible by giving examples in which he interprets the Bible literally. Origen doesn't agree with these examples, because he believes the Bible should be interpreted more figuratively. Correct? Regardless, you need to explain this more.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 03:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed this myself now. I hope my interpretation is correct.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also notes with suspicion that the "Jewish" source quotes the Greek tragedian Euripides Why is this suspicious to him?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is suspicious to him, because Origen believed that a real Jewish author would most likely be intimately familiar with the Hebrew Bible, but not very familiar with works of Greek drama. The supposed "Jewish" source cited by Celsus, in Origen's view, displays precisely the opposite tendency: ignorance of the Hebrew Bible, but an unusual familiarity with Greek drama, indicating to Origen that the work may have, in fact, been written by a Greek pretending to be a Jew. –Katolophyromai (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • that it argues against the miracles described in the New Testament as irrational, even though the same argument could be equally applied to the miracles in the Hebrew Bible. I am not sure how this argument could work in favor of Origen, since Celcius is pagan, not Jewish. Please explain.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This part of Celsus's argument is relying on the Jewish source, so Origen is attempting to refute the Jewish source's arguments here by pointing out inconsistencies in reasoning. –Katolophyromai (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. –Katolophyromai (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a phrase borrowed from the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:3 Normally, we don't link to external links in the body of the article, per MOS. Try wikisource instead.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the truly philosophical writings on the subject which subject? The Bible?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Or do you mean allegorical interpretation? --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 02:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I was referring to the Bible, specifically the allegorical interpretation thereof. Origen was a stalwart proponent of the view that much of the Bible was intended allegorically. –Katolophyromai (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this myself now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origen lauds these thing These things refers to Christian worship, right? Please clarify this a little more. Perhaps this is better than these things.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and evaluation[edit]

  • but apparently decided once he had already started this method to instead take a more systematic approach of refuting the general principles of the argument Please simplify.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. –Katolophyromai (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness[edit]

Pending your response to the remaining suggestions above, i found some content that might have to be added to the article to meet the broadness criterion:

I have added a new section to the article on the various manuscripts of Contra Celsum, as discussed in the source you have suggested here. –Katolophyromai (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of sources that deal with the relationship between Origen's Contra Celsum and Stoicism.[1][2] I felt this was not sufficiently covered by the article.
  • That's all. I believe the article covers all the major issues of debate and other topics, except for these two matters.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought it may be useful to add more detail about Stoic influence on Contra Celsum, after having looked at the two articles I found, i don't think it is required for GA.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January[edit]

By tomorrow, the review will have lasted for 14 days. Katolophyromai, do you still want to pursue this? If not, I'll close the review and we can move on.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 02:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides broadness, i underlined the remaining minor issues.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 03:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still wish to continue this review. I did not realize this had gone on for so long. I have been becoming less involved with Wikipedia lately and have not been keeping up with what is going on here nearly as much as I used to. I suspect this may be one of my last GA reviews for a while, although I have promised some other editors that I will work on expanding the article Adonis, so that one may end up being my last for a time. –Katolophyromai (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the good news is you're not gone yet. I'll keep the review running for a bit longer then.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two issues remaining above, plus some content for broadness.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your replies, Katolophyromai. Don't forget to fix the issues as well.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Katolophyromai, having taken another look at the article, I noticed that the lead doesn't summarize the article sufficiently yet. In particular, the section Summary is hardly covered. If you would add a bit to the lead (doesn't have to be much), I will pass for GA.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Farang Rak Tham: I apologize for the fact that I have not been very responsive throughout this review. I have been spending far less time on Wikipedia nowadays than I used to and have honestly not been paying that much attention to what is going on here. I am confused, however, when you say that the "Summary" section is not addressed in the lead. That is what all this is:

Among a variety of other charges, Celsus had denounced many Christian doctrines as irrational and criticized Christians themselves as uneducated, deluded, unpatriotic, close-minded towards reason, and too accepting of sinners. He had accused Jesus of performing his miracles using black magic rather than actual divine powers and of plagiarizing his teachings from Plato. Celsus had warned that Christianity itself was drawing people away from traditional religion and claimed that its growth would lead to a collapse of traditional, conservative values... In the treatise itself... Origen responds to Celsus's arguments point-by-point from the perspective of a Platonic philosopher. Modern scholars note that Origen and Celsus actually agree on many points of doctrine, with both authors emphatically rejecting conventional notions of anthropomorphic deities, idolatry, and religious literalism.

I think that perhaps part of the problem here is that, because the entire treatise is essentially just Origen refuting various claims made by Celsus, it is impossible to summarize the whole thing without going into all the specific claims. In the passage from the lead quoted above, I tried to strike a middle ground by touching on some of the highlights of Celsus's claims and some of the points where Origen and Celsus agree. I figure that, if people want a real summary that covers all the specific details of the treatise with Origen's specific responses, they can read the "Summary" section. It would be really hard to say more in the lead without giving too much specific information. –Katolophyromai (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree with the subsection headers in the Summary section?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are adequate and I am willing to live with them. –Katolophyromai (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February[edit]

I expanded the lead, based on the headings of the subsections. You expressed agreement with these headings, so I hope you will agree with my expansion of the lead.

Passing for GA.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary criteria[edit]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Contra_Celsum&oldid=1206781439"