Talk:Diodorus Siculus

message: Who can this be?  Don't usually see a "y" on ancient names!
- - - Vernon White 20:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diyllis

message: This appears to be Charles Henry Oldfather, an American Classical scholar, born 1887.
No reliable reference found, except the British Library catalogue, which gives these forenames.=== Vernon White (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that sounds like the one, Oldfather is the author of the translation of Diodorus Sicilus in the Loeb Classical Library from the 1920's. I think his is the only English translation of the work made in the last century.  See http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/L279.html  --Theranos 12:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it would be worth revising the References section of this article, using Template Cite Books with Oldfather redlinked and the broken link mended. You or me? === Vernon White (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: C.H. Oldfather (his opinion cited in article)

message: I have re-entered these categories since DS's account is one of the earliest refs to the topic.Peterlewis (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS This article needs radical updating to bring in the latest scholarship and research. It would help to have extracts fromn some of his writings to illustrate the work. At the moment this article is typicla of so many dry and dusty Enc Brit articles from the early 1900s. Peterlewis (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem is the bookflap to the Loeb Classical Library edition has been adapted to the article - not an exact copy but it is obvious where it is coming from.  HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Gold Mining

message: I removed "under the year of Abraham 1968" because there is scholarly debate regarding "the year of Abraham 0."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.221.56 (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Jerome is the one who stated Diodorus flourished in the "year of Abraham 1968".  We are simply quoting him firsthand, to avoid misquoting him.  The figure "49 BC" was calculated in the context of the rest of Jerome's chronology, not from when anyone thinks Abraham actually lived.  Removing this part made no sense, and in fact even less because it then read as if Jerome himself wrote in 49 BC, so I have restored it and hopefully indicated more clearly that it is quoting him. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But Jerome himself effectively did write 49 BC, surely?  Why can't we just translate Jerome's date into our calendar? john k (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly why it's confusing.  Jerome wrote in the 4th century AD.  It seemed to be giving people the idea that he was alive in 49 BC.  We have already translated Jerome's date into our calendar, providing both dates. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of Abraham" 

message: If Diodorus' writings are merely compilations, how accurate are they? Which parts of them (if any) are based on his direct experience? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus seems to be that because of his dependence on various authors, his reliability in any given instance is hard to assess.(R S Kraemer, Women's Religions in the Greco=Roman World, 2004, p. 27) Jacobisq (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: accuracy, reliability, veracity, ''etc''