Talk:Antiochus IV Epiphanes

message: Can there be no mention of the belief that Epiphanes was predicted in the Book of Daniel?CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 11:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely correct, except contrary to the above opinion of Charles, Antiochus, as a ruthless leader, was correctly predicted Daniel....This cannot be denied even by those who are not believers.... -- 14:51, 15 March 2010 162.115.108.104
Daniel was written in the 1st Century BC, so it doesn't predict anything. It talks about things that happened in the past. This section should be deleted or at least rewritten to stress the real date of Daniel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PublickStews (talk • contribs) 00:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Why is the Book of Daniel not mentioned even a single time in the current version of this article, in light of the fact that the consensus of most modern scholars is that Daniel (from the Book of Daniel) is not a historical figure, and that the book is a cryptic allusion to the reign of the 2nd century BCE Hellenistic king Antiochus IV Epiphanes?  That's not very encyclopedic. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Daniel 

message: :Why is the Book of Daniel not mentioned even a single time in the current version of this article, in light of the fact that the consensus of most modern scholars is that Daniel (from the Book of Daniel) is not a historical figure, and that the book is a cryptic allusion to the reign of the 2nd century BCE Hellenistic king Antiochus IV Epiphanes?  That's not very encyclopedic. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 2022

message: There is compelling evidence to suggest that Antiochus Epiphanes is NOT the little horn of Daniel 8.  I am of the opinion that any discussion of him being the little horn should also present the evidence that he is not.  It's only fair.  The fact that anyone cares about him is most likely purely in view of his potential for fulfilling that part of the prophecy.  If there is evidence to suggest that he doesn't fulfill the prophecy then it should, in all fairness, be presented.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.16.197.252 (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicist vs Preterist View 

message: ænˈtɑi̯əkəs.ɛˈpɪfəniːz  I would like to know where the accents for this pronunciation come from.  I would have accneted his name, in English, as either An ti' o chus E pi' pha nes or An ti o' chus E pi pha' nes  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.220.52 (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  source for accents 

message: The tone and style is wrong.  Facts first, then perhaps a comment on their significance.  "Confrontantion" is too vague.  The claim this is "among the first..." requires a citation.  To whom does the "their" in "their interest for..." refer to? patsw 03:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their="Jews".  For the specific historical events see the various Maccabees article. AnonMoos (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone and style 

message: Epiphanes does not really mean "Shining one" as a Greek word. AnonMoos (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I commented out the reference here because it doesn't provide a source, only linking to an unrelated page. If anyone can provide a source, please add it in.--Reahad (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ordering the worship of Zeus as the supreme god" 

message: I've removed :Category:Hanukkah per WP:CAT: Articles should be categorized by essential, "defining" features of article subjects, and it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. This article doesn't even mention Hanukkah, and while Antiochus IV Epiphanes was important to the Maccabean Revolt, that revolt (and the subsequent celebrations in memory of the Temple re-dedication) are hardly defining features of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Huon (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Hanukkah]] 

message: This section is rather confusing. I wonder if this could be summarized somehow? I reverted an edit by IP 68.28.83.115, but I do in part agree with his edit summary comment that the statement there isn't any "evidence to the contrary" present. My impression is that this article would be much improved if this section would be much abbreviated by replacing it with a clean summary of the different interpretations without all the detail. The detailed discussion belongs on a page about the Book of Daniel, not here.  --AnnekeBart (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right -- and anyway, those are the interpretations of some particular individual Christians, not really any kind of established Christian doctrine... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian interpretations (Sub-)Section 

message: Is there actually any non-Jewish evidence for the persecutions of Antiochus?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert, but I would expect Seleucid and Greek sources to cover Antiochus' edicts, possibly Egyptian or even Roman ones. Have you had a look at Polybius? Huon (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Jewish sources 

message: On November 4 User:67.52.192.26 changed "BC" dates to "BCE" dates with edit summary = "wiki style; minor clarif; ref req". Later User:74.51.84.10 changed back to "BC" with edit summaries saying things like "... BCE is a new designation to take Jesus out of history and should never be used". On December 3 User:Doug Weller changed 
back to BCE with no reason given in the edit summary. I have now
changed back to BC with edit summary = "WP:ERA. See Talk page = Era". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't be expected to examine every article's history before reverting dubious-looking edits, but thanks for that reply. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Era 

message: The section "Sacking of Jerusalem and persecution of Jews" first hints at the existence of a Hellenized faction of Judaism, but then goes on to take the side of the authors of the Books of Maccabees, which present Antiochus as a persecutor of all Jews. Here (around 14:00) is a modern scholar who presents a much more nuanced view: he presents Hellenization as a dispute within Judaism, and Zeus worship as a syncretistic compromise where Yahweh was reinterpreted as Zeus to appease Greeks and Jews alike. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: One solution would be to preface the text with 'According to the authors of the Books of Maccabees', or 'According to Josephus' as appropriate.  Other material can then be added and referenced to the author, unless it has an RS that states it as an accepted academic view.  PS Many academics see Zeus as representing Baal, which is why it would be anathema to Yahwists.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think we should merge the section with the one after it; that presents a modern view. An introduction discussing the situation would be nice, but I know too little of this history to write one... QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and sourcing problem 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Antiochus IV Epiphanes. 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/20080201162529/http://www.sichosinenglish.org:80/books/vedibarta-bam/155.htm to http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/vedibarta-bam/155.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The chronology of Antiochus's attack on Jerusalem is confused. In one paragraph it says he took Jerusalem by storm in 167 BC, with the loss of 40,000 lives, and in the next it says he destroyed the city with the loss of many lives in 168 BC. Presumably these two refer to the same event. Could an expert please correct this. Kanjuzi (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems there's not universal agreement - it might better to say that it happened in 168/67.PiCo (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I will change it. Kanjuzi (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: —quite correct: in ancient history and archaeology there are no proofs like in mathematics and physics. But the unanimous verdict of historians and Bible scholars from the Ivy League is that the Book of Daniel was written in the 160s BCE.
Stated otherwise: proof is for math and whisky. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No proof 

message: I get that in certain contentious topics, there is a need to super-precisely document who said what.  But there's a reverse threat; it's not good to set an implication that a particular belief is only made by one person by writing "John Doe claims the capital of France is Paris" when in fact lots of people believe that, and it's not in any way unique to Doe.  Anyway, for less contentious issues, it's understood that the reference is where a reader can find out who precisely is saying it, and writing "Some scholars" or "Most scholars" is both accurate, and about as much information as 99% of readers will be willing to digest.  
Unfortunately, I don't have access to Grabbe 2008 at the moment.  But he's providing a historiographical overview with lots of references to sources, bibliographies, "see this for more" even to the scholars he disagrees with.  I think that going into that level of detail in a Wikipedia article might be undue, though, and it's fine to expect the reader to consult the source for more.  I've usually hidden historiographical discussions in footnotes before (See 2 Maccabees#Authorship and composition date, footnote 3 after "Scholars suggest 2 Maccabees was composed at some point from 150–100 BC", for example) and if we had to expand with an exhaustive list of which scholars think what, I'd probably recommend a style like that of a footnote listing things.  That is a valid way to improve the article, but the existing state is not so bad as to require a cleanup tag.
That said, I don't recall Grabbe going into that much detail on traditionalist scholars.  That bit is mostly a sop to very old literature and modern fundamentalist type stuff.  These writers certainly exist but I don't think there's some "leader" to pick from them.  If you want to go research some examples, though, and cite them, that would be a fair way to improve the article.  Just...  you're part of this too, adding the information directly is probably more helpful than tagging it.  SnowFire (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood, but perhaps the solution for now is to trim the vaguely worded footnote. Wikishovel (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The extended footnote was added because people kept constantly editing the main text to say that Daniel wasn't written / compiled in the Maccabean era.  So the footnote is mostly there to acknowledge that yes, there exist some people who say other things, but the consensus is that modern-Daniel was compiled in the Maccabean era, possibly rearranging pre-existing stories (especially for the first six chapters).  SnowFire (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about naming some of the notable scholars in those consensuses? Wikishovel (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically anyone who is a mainstream Bible scholar agrees that the Book of Daniel was written c. 165 BCE. tgeorgescu (talk)  07:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and the footnote should concisely reflect that scholarly consensus. My sole concern here is MOS:WEASEL.  Wikishovel (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I will expand the footnote when I get a chance, but I disagree that the existing wording is WEASAL.  It's not always a problem to write "Some scholars", "most scholars", etc., especially when referencing what's explicitly a historiographical overview - Grabbe's book is organized by him, but it's really also a bibliography discussing which scholars say what in which papers.  In other words, it's talking about the state of the field, and is thus the perfect source to reference when saying what the scholarly consensus is or isn't.  You're welcome to go look up Grabbe's book yourself if you'd like (Grabbe himself thinks the first six chapters predate the Maccabean era, as already noted in the article).  SnowFire (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be delighted to help but, alas, I have no access to a decent library at present, nor can I afford £20 - £25 of food/heating money for an ebook.  But I'd be grateful for any expansion of that footnote that you and User:tgeorgescu can manage. Wikishovel (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution & "some scholars"