Talk:Saint Porphyrius

message: I was wondering how to deal with the changes, since there are a lot.  Rather than generalities, perhaps the best approach to this would be to look at all the reverts that Wetman has made on a case-by-case, plus whatever changes made, and see what seems best and why?  Let's discuss them.  So I've started with the intro:
=== Intro ===
Currently it reads as follows (text reverted from my changes, but a couple of refs added):
::Saint Porphyry (Greek: Πορφύριος/Porphyrios; Latin: Porphyrius; Slavonic: Порфирий/Porfiriy) (347–420), bishop of Gaza 395 - 420, was canonized for Christianizing the recalcitrant pagan city of Gaza.
::Porphyry (or Porphyrius) of Gaza is known to us only from the Vita Porphyrii allegedly written by his deacon, Marcus Diaconis (Marcus the Deacon), which claims to be a contemporary account Apparent use of Theodoret and other later sources convinced P. Peeters that it was actually written after 534. (P. Peeters, "La vie géorgienne de Saint Porphyre de Gaza" Analecta Bollandiana 59 1941, pp 65-216. of Porphyry that chronicles in some detail the end of paganism in Gaza in the early fifth century. Though the tissue of inventions that is the Vita Porphyrii has come unravelled in the twentieth century,Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire, (Yale University Press) 1984, pp 86-89. its details were carefully crafted for verisimilitude and thus this hagiography may be used by the historian as a marker for what people believed. Without other contemporary sources to corroborate or correct it, uncritical readers have accepted the author's picture in Vita Porphyrii as one showing intimately familiarity with Gaza in late Antiquity.Helen Saradi-Mendelovici, "Christian Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and Their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries" Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990, pp. 47-61) pp 53f instances as history the destruction of the temples in Gaza in Vita Porphyrii.
I have several questions about this, which is what led me to change it in the first place.
* I couldn't think of a less neutral phrase for 'fiction' than "tissue of inventions".  As such it needs to go, surely?  Likewise the following phrases smell of opinion: "crafted for verisimilitude"; "allegedly"; "claims to be"; "uncritical readers".  All these statements mean only "the text is not history -- to what extent it can be used for history is debated".  So wouldn't it be better to say something like that, and then deal with details in the body of the article?
* Not sure why we want "Marcus the deacon" rather than "Mark the Deacon"?  The English literature all uses the latter as far as I can see.
* I think that we shouldn't present MacMullen's views in the intro (or indeed any other single scholar).  Such detail belongs in the body of the article, particularly since most scholars reject his extreme rejection of everything in the life (and so does everyone who has edited this article, as far as I can see -- does anyone disageee?)  All that we should have in the intro, IMHO, is to indicate that there are issues in this area.  It's only a summary, isn't it?
* We shouldn't stud the intro with references, surely?  Surely the intro should simply summarise what the article says?  The points made need to go in the body of the article.
* Has anyone actually read Peeters article?  I ask because the BBKL says that this view well predates him, and describes his contribution only as publishing the Syriac version.  What are Peeters exact words?  And, surely again, shouldn't these should go in the body of the article?  (I have Helen Saradi-Mendelovici before me, and the comment is correct.  Indeed she contradicts the "sculpture-smashing stuff in the body pretty seriously).  But actually I wonder whether the same should apply to that).
My suggested version, mainly as I wrote it but including all the changes since revert which seem good to me:
::Saint Porphyry (Greek: Πορφύριος/Porphyrios; Latin: Porphyrius; Slavonic: Порфирий/Porfiriy) (347–420), bishop of Gaza 395 - 420, was canonized for Christianizing the recalcitrant pagan city of Gaza.
::Porphyry is known to us only from the vivid biography by Mark the Deacon.  The Vita Porphyrii appears to be a contemporary account of Porphyry that chronicles in some detail the end of paganism in Gaza in the early fifth century. However the text has been identified in the 20th century as hagiography rather than history and some elements of it are certainly examples of the stereotyped events characteristic of this form of fiction Apparent use of Theodoret and other later sources convinced P. Peeters that it was actually written after 534. (P. Peeters, "La vie géorgienne de Saint Porphyre de Gaza" Analecta Bollandiana 59 1941, pp 65-216. .  On the other hand the author was certainly intimately familiar with Gaza in late Antiquity Helen Saradi-Mendelovici, "Christian Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and Their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries" Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990, pp. 47-61) pp 53f instances as history the destruction of the temples in Gaza in Vita Porphyrii., and his statements are of interest at least as reflecting attitudes in the 5th century.
(I have retained the Peeters ref. until we know more).
I've put this version into the article, so that people watching it will be notified.
Comments please. :)
:(1) The article states that St. Porphyry "was canonized for Christianizing the recalcitrant pagan city of Gaza." I think it more accurate to think he was canonized for the sanctity of his life. Given the generally negative slant of the original article, this could be interpreted as a criticism of the church (or a suggestion that his canonization was political). Has anyone researched the process that led to his canonization? Can we say with certainty that this really was the sole reason? It seems to me that the simplest and most NPOV solution is to remove the reference to canonization and say something like, "was known for Christianizing the recalcitrant pagan city of Gaza." or simply, "was bishop of the city of Gaza," and allow subsequent paragraphs to explain the process of Christianization.
::Thanks for your comments.  I saw this phrase too.  Unless we actually known why he was canonized -- I don't -- and have a reference for it, I suggest we chop it.  Thinking of the NPOV principle, we want to express neither approval or disapproval.  
::The violence that brought paganism to an end here can certainly speak for itself.Roger Pearse 08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (2) I'm not sure that characterizing hagiography as "fiction" is accurate. Despite some obvious examples of "gilding the lily," the intention behind hagiography is to inspire, not to fabricate; and many hagiographers did make their best efforts to ensure that what they reported was accurate or at least attested-to by eye witnesses. The article linked-to above, "Hagiography," notes that the perjorative use of the term is applied to modern contexts (not to the original religious writings). MishaPan 22:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read Delehaye, and his various categories of hagiography, so I don't want to jump either way on this.  I don't think that it is as simple as 'hagiography=fiction' either (although it sometimes is!).  What I felt was that this issue is one for the hagiography article (and the best of luck to them).  All the material that I have read on the Vita suggests that it really does contain some stereotyped fictional episodes routinely attributed to saints; therefore must be considered a specimen of hagiography (lit. hagios=holy/saint graphos=written thing; this is a "saint's life", so must fall in that definition).  I agree about not wanting to use it as a pejorative term; but some do, and some feel that about this vita.  Roger Pearse 08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going through the edits 

message: Currently it reads as follows (text reverted from my changes, but a couple of refs added):
::Saint Porphyry (Greek: Πορφύριος/Porphyrios; Latin: Porphyrius; Slavonic: Порфирий/Porfiriy) (347–420), bishop of Gaza 395 - 420, was canonized for Christianizing the recalcitrant pagan city of Gaza.
::Porphyry (or Porphyrius) of Gaza is known to us only from the Vita Porphyrii allegedly written by his deacon, Marcus Diaconis (Marcus the Deacon), which claims to be a contemporary account Apparent use of Theodoret and other later sources convinced P. Peeters that it was actually written after 534. (P. Peeters, "La vie géorgienne de Saint Porphyre de Gaza" Analecta Bollandiana 59 1941, pp 65-216. of Porphyry that chronicles in some detail the end of paganism in Gaza in the early fifth century. Though the tissue of inventions that is the Vita Porphyrii has come unravelled in the twentieth century,Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire, (Yale University Press) 1984, pp 86-89. its details were carefully crafted for verisimilitude and thus this hagiography may be used by the historian as a marker for what people believed. Without other contemporary sources to corroborate or correct it, uncritical readers have accepted the author's picture in Vita Porphyrii as one showing intimately familiarity with Gaza in late Antiquity.Helen Saradi-Mendelovici, "Christian Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and Their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries" Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990, pp. 47-61) pp 53f instances as history the destruction of the temples in Gaza in Vita Porphyrii.
I have several questions about this, which is what led me to change it in the first place.
* I couldn't think of a less neutral phrase for 'fiction' than "tissue of inventions".  As such it needs to go, surely?  Likewise the following phrases smell of opinion: "crafted for verisimilitude"; "allegedly"; "claims to be"; "uncritical readers".  All these statements mean only "the text is not history -- to what extent it can be used for history is debated".  So wouldn't it be better to say something like that, and then deal with details in the body of the article?
* Not sure why we want "Marcus the deacon" rather than "Mark the Deacon"?  The English literature all uses the latter as far as I can see.
* I think that we shouldn't present MacMullen's views in the intro (or indeed any other single scholar).  Such detail belongs in the body of the article, particularly since most scholars reject his extreme rejection of everything in the life (and so does everyone who has edited this article, as far as I can see -- does anyone disageee?)  All that we should have in the intro, IMHO, is to indicate that there are issues in this area.  It's only a summary, isn't it?
* We shouldn't stud the intro with references, surely?  Surely the intro should simply summarise what the article says?  The points made need to go in the body of the article.
* Has anyone actually read Peeters article?  I ask because the BBKL says that this view well predates him, and describes his contribution only as publishing the Syriac version.  What are Peeters exact words?  And, surely again, shouldn't these should go in the body of the article?  (I have Helen Saradi-Mendelovici before me, and the comment is correct.  Indeed she contradicts the "sculpture-smashing stuff in the body pretty seriously).  But actually I wonder whether the same should apply to that).
My suggested version, mainly as I wrote it but including all the changes since revert which seem good to me:
::Saint Porphyry (Greek: Πορφύριος/Porphyrios; Latin: Porphyrius; Slavonic: Порфирий/Porfiriy) (347–420), bishop of Gaza 395 - 420, was canonized for Christianizing the recalcitrant pagan city of Gaza.
::Porphyry is known to us only from the vivid biography by Mark the Deacon.  The Vita Porphyrii appears to be a contemporary account of Porphyry that chronicles in some detail the end of paganism in Gaza in the early fifth century. However the text has been identified in the 20th century as hagiography rather than history and some elements of it are certainly examples of the stereotyped events characteristic of this form of fiction Apparent use of Theodoret and other later sources convinced P. Peeters that it was actually written after 534. (P. Peeters, "La vie géorgienne de Saint Porphyre de Gaza" Analecta Bollandiana 59 1941, pp 65-216. .  On the other hand the author was certainly intimately familiar with Gaza in late Antiquity Helen Saradi-Mendelovici, "Christian Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and Their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries" Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990, pp. 47-61) pp 53f instances as history the destruction of the temples in Gaza in Vita Porphyrii., and his statements are of interest at least as reflecting attitudes in the 5th century.
(I have retained the Peeters ref. until we know more).
I've put this version into the article, so that people watching it will be notified.
Comments please. :)
:(1) The article states that St. Porphyry "was canonized for Christianizing the recalcitrant pagan city of Gaza." I think it more accurate to think he was canonized for the sanctity of his life. Given the generally negative slant of the original article, this could be interpreted as a criticism of the church (or a suggestion that his canonization was political). Has anyone researched the process that led to his canonization? Can we say with certainty that this really was the sole reason? It seems to me that the simplest and most NPOV solution is to remove the reference to canonization and say something like, "was known for Christianizing the recalcitrant pagan city of Gaza." or simply, "was bishop of the city of Gaza," and allow subsequent paragraphs to explain the process of Christianization.
::Thanks for your comments.  I saw this phrase too.  Unless we actually known why he was canonized -- I don't -- and have a reference for it, I suggest we chop it.  Thinking of the NPOV principle, we want to express neither approval or disapproval.  
::The violence that brought paganism to an end here can certainly speak for itself.Roger Pearse 08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (2) I'm not sure that characterizing hagiography as "fiction" is accurate. Despite some obvious examples of "gilding the lily," the intention behind hagiography is to inspire, not to fabricate; and many hagiographers did make their best efforts to ensure that what they reported was accurate or at least attested-to by eye witnesses. The article linked-to above, "Hagiography," notes that the perjorative use of the term is applied to modern contexts (not to the original religious writings). MishaPan 22:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read Delehaye, and his various categories of hagiography, so I don't want to jump either way on this.  I don't think that it is as simple as 'hagiography=fiction' either (although it sometimes is!).  What I felt was that this issue is one for the hagiography article (and the best of luck to them).  All the material that I have read on the Vita suggests that it really does contain some stereotyped fictional episodes routinely attributed to saints; therefore must be considered a specimen of hagiography (lit. hagios=holy/saint graphos=written thing; this is a "saint's life", so must fall in that definition).  I agree about not wanting to use it as a pejorative term; but some do, and some feel that about this vita.  Roger Pearse 08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Can I query the (interesting) section on the Marneion?  I'm not sure that it belongs where it is.  I don't want to lose it, but mostly it relates to events in the reign of Hadrian, 3 centuries earlier, so chronologically doesn't really belong where it is.  I initially moved it to a chronological position.  But I was wondering whether we should have a separate section in the page on 'Paganism in Gaza' or something like that?  Where does this info come from?  Is it in MacMullen? Roger Pearse 09:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marneion bits

message: "The text has come down to us in a Greek and a Georgian recension... and... the text of the Vita transmitted to us represents a revision of the sixth century, which borrowed from the church history of Theodoret of Cyrrhus of 444, e.g. for the Proemium and deleted in particular each mention of John II, Bishop of Jerusalem, replacing it with the name of Praylius, his successor as bishop of Jerusalem in the time of Porphyrius"
It should be noted that I have a copy of the Vita Porphyrii in Church Slavonic and the latter point is not attested in it. No Praylius is mentioned and two distinct Johns appear: John Chrysostomos and this John II, Bishop of Jerusalem. It may be true that these recension exist in Greek and Georgian but certainly not in the copy kept by the Old Believers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.174.226 (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Vita Porphyrii in Church Slavonic

message: Given that the rest of the action is in Syria, are we sure that they're talking about Heliopolis (Ancient Egypt) instead of Heliopolis (Syria)? — LlywelynII 06:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Heliopolis

message: Does the reference support the word "fiction" in this line?  "However the text has been identified in the 20th century as hagiography rather than history and some elements of it are certainly examples of the stereotyped events characteristic of this form of fiction."  Hagiography might not be history but that does not make it fiction. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "fiction"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Porphyry of Gaza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605021656/http://www.baladna.ps/SPCGaza.htm to http://www.baladna.ps/SPCGaza.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928014855/http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=February&day=26&Go.x=8&Go.y=12 to http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=February&day=26&Go.x=8&Go.y=12
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified