Talk:Book of Amos

message: Anyone want to make any suggestions/comments? -- MDeLong
Looks Good Man.  Make sure that you keep the prophet Amos, and the Book of Amos as seperate articles on Wiki though...as they are two seperate things. --John Campbell 00:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It's been corrected. ProfGray (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: How does it look?

message: Substituted at 10:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I'm not going to remove or replace the citation, because I'm new here, but for someone who's been around here a bit longer: Does the Apologetics Study Bible cited in the first paragraph of the 'Date' section qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards? My guess is no. Regardless, if anyone owns or has access to a physical copy, could someone get us a page number citation for the claims made in the first paragraph of the Date Section? Alephb (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologetics Study Bible: Reliable Source?

message: There appears to be a contradiction amongst Wikipedia articles regarding the dating of the reign of Uzziah and Jeroboam II and this page on Amos's dating. This page uses Uzziah's reign and Jeroboam's reign as an anchor for dating Amos to about 765-750 BC, whereas the actual Wikipedia article on [[Uzziah] gives three chronologies for his reign, 809 - 759 BC, 783 - 742 BC, and 792-767 BC. Jeroboam is likewise put as early as the 790's BC. Yet this article uses the reigns of Jeroboam and Uzziah to date Amos to about 750 BC. What's worse, I see no citations for this dating, although plenty exists. I think the main problem here is the actual citations for this view.
Secondly, the page makes no mention of the second dating by scholars on the Book of Amos, put forth primarily by Aren Maeir based on his excavations at Tell es-Safi/Gath and Amos 6:2, which places the composition of Amos between the early 9th century BC to late 8th century BC, which would be about a third to half a century earlier then the already-noted dating of the Book of Amos. So I think, overall, citations need to be implemented for the first view, and Aren Maeir's work on the Book of Amos must also be mentioned.Korvex (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In the lead paragraph, the article provides a partial citation to a book called "Understanding the Bible" (but without page numbers) supporting the c. 750 date. On the other hand, while the lead says "c. 750" the actual dating section of the article says 765-760, with a citation to something called "Apologetics Study Bible" (again no page number). There's definitely room for improvement. In general, you're going to see this kind of issue with multiple conflicting dates up and down articles dealing with the monarchies of Judah and Israel in general, because the biblical timeline for those centuries is not at all straightforward, and in most cases external kings didn't have a lot to say about Judah and Israel. I tend to like Thiele's Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings myself on these sorts of things, but opinions vary. Alephb (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for clearing that up, I had not noticed the citation for this. Although you said nothing about including Aren Maier's dating of the Book of Amos, which was my primary focus when adding this section -- it isn't a consensus but I believe definitely warrants inclusion as a scholarly dating for the Book of Amos.Korvex (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really don't know much about Aren Maier's dating of Amos, but I don't have any objection to including him. I think he published an article on this in Vetus Testamentum, so the citation should be pretty easy to track down. If you do, it'll be the first specifically cited stuff on Amos' date in the article so far, so that would be a serious improvement. Alephb (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

text:  That is correct, I've read Maier's paper about two weeks ago. I made the edit, although I feel like my edit could be better-phrased in some areas.Korvex (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to try to nail Amos, or any other biblical book, down to a particular year - in most cases it can't be done (some exceptions of course). In this case "first half of the 8th century" would be close enough. Korvex, I suggest you get the entry on Amos from the Eerdmans' Commentary and use it as your "base" - it's mainstream and contains enough to build an article. I also suggest you use the framework used in most other articles on OT books - it goes structure/summary/composition/themes, with room for freedom within that (have at, e.g., the article Book of Isaiah - but this article should be considerably shorter). This can be an exercise to get you used to the way editing is done in Wikipedia. You should enjoy it. (By the way, I personally try to avoid single articles in journals - not because they're not reliable, but because the authors are trying to make an argument, often against the accepted viewpoint, while we, being an enclyclopedia, need to reflect that viewpoint, not question it). PiCo (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

text:  I made sure to reflect what Maeir's paper said -- Maier's paper places it on the "end of the 9th century/beginning of the 8th century BC", and so that's the exact wording I reflected in the edit. My problem was with a lack of sources for the current datings, as well as including into this page Maier's dating which has received support, based on his excavations at Tell es-Safi. At this point, I have made a number of edits on various pages. When it comes to material on Ai/Exodus/one time in Deuteronomy, I seem to get stuck in debate, but I do not recall ever being in debate in other of my edits. By the way, PiCo -- take a look at the first dating given on the Book of Amos, it references a historically verifiable earthquake that may pin Amos at 765-760 BC, but the citation is beyond ambiguous. Do you think the mention of the earthquake should be removed?Korvex (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't get bogged down on the date, especially not in trying to tie it to a specific year - a range within 50 years would do. And use a general reference work, not Meier (too specific for a general encyclopedia like this). Concentrate more on what Amos says, and why he said it. PiCo (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating of Amos 

message: The "Structure" section begins with a paranthetical citation to a book by Michael Coogan. If someone has access to that book, could you possibly let me know whether the "Structure" section is copied word-for-word from it, or whether the Structure section is simply adapted from or based on Coogan's work? I'd like to reword the opening of the section to more precisely reflect what's going on here. Thanks, Alephb (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Request for Someone With Access to Michael Coogan's Book 

message: Please state early on the article the evidence demonstrating whether the subject of the article is real or fictional character.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.114.170 (talk • contribs) 
:We don't do that. Why? See https://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10 Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional?