Talk:Temple of Artemis

message: whatever one thinks about the historicity of Acts of John, in the original text it is stated that John the Evangelist and NOT Paul of Tarsus was the one who prayed in the Temple of Artemis, which  allegedly caused the "miraculous" destruction of the altar and some part of the building. 
Here's the source text; the link was taken from the wikipedia article on Acts of John
http://www.gnosis.org/library/actjohn.htm
Critto (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul of Tarsus or John the Evangelist? about the accounts in Acts of John 

message: Those aren't breasts. They're aurochs' (bulls') testicles. --Fulminouscherub 22:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  with many breasts denoting her fertility  

message: I removed a throwaway comment about the chosen location 'emphasising Alexander the Great's vast empire', which is a bizarre statement given that the temple was completed 200 years before he was born and destroyed the same day he was born, years before he had an empire. Ignoring the fact that a temple in Ionia, which had been 'Greek territory' for hundreds of years, hardly impresses the expanse of the newly-won empire from Greece to India. Xander 10:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander? 

message: I moved this here, as it's troubled me from the start: "Like the other wonders, Antipater chose the temple for his list not only because of its beauty or size, but also because it rested near the border of the Greek world. This inspired a sense of mystery and awe for the Greeks." But no: since one of the Wonders was Olympia, this is patently untrue. In Hellenistic times, Ephesus was not peripheral in any sense. Nor were Rhodes or Alexandria. --Wetman 14:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not true

message: One section says nothing remains of the temple and another says a single column is still there -- which is it? Largesock 18:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption of the self-explanatory illustration reads in part "A column assembled from fragments marks the site"--Wetman (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Remains?

message: Can someone alter the 'ancient' writing on the page that says "all but nothing remains..." Obviously we all know what it means, but let's strive for some clear and simple writing here at Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.128.18 (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  All but nothing? 

message: This is incorrect, Plutarch reported a remark; see http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/1547.html 14:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Plutarch remarked" 

message: Removing the phrase:
*"The Christians stood out from all contemporaries in their unique approach to gods that were not theirs."
from the Ephesian Artemis section. Lofty anti-Christianity sentiment here, as well as an opinion, passed off as fact, that violates the "original research" clause and is patently untrue to boot. The early Christians (a monotheistic society) may not have been as accepting of other gods as their contemporary friends the Romans (a polytheistic society), but they were far from "unique" in their "approach to gods that were not theirs". Eastern world history much (or for that matter, Judaism)? 76.102.165.45 (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Christian approach was at variance with the tolerant syncretistic approach of pagans to gods who were not theirs" will make a definite, more accurate  improvement. Editors who have the courtesy to log in are often taken more seriously. --Wetman (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious bias 

message: Back on 16 May 2004 I introduced "eunuch priests called megabyzi". Now I think this should have been "eunuch priests, such as the Megabyzus known to Xenophon". Megabyzus (not the Persian general), "sacristan" (in this translation) of the Artemision at Ephesus, returned to Xenophon when he was in exile at Scillos, the gold that had been set aside for the Lady of Ephesus on the shore of the Black Sea, in gratitude for the safe arrival of most of the Ten Thousand (Anabasis 5.3). Xenophon used the gold to buy a plot at Scillus, not far from Olympia, and set it aside for the Lady of Ephesus .  Is this the only source of a connection of "Megabyzi" with Ephesus? Should I correct the text taking Megabyzus to be Xenonphon's friend, not a title? --Wetman (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strabo also mentions eunuch priests called Megabyzoi at the temple of Artemis (Geographica 14.1.23); it seems that you were right. I -think- I remember something about them in Hesychius ("priests of Artemis") as well. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I just noticed you actually even added "(Strabo 14)"! I guess I'll specify. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Megabyzi/Megabyzae"

message: Currently appearing in the introduction: "Around 550 BC, they started to build the "new" temple, known as one of the miracles of the ancient world."  Is this encyclopedic?  The rather questionable phrasing was contributed by user Protomoney on the 9th of August 2008 (see article history), and has not been subsequently challenged as far as I can tell.  I am certainly aware of the (Seven) Wonders of the Ancient World in referencing certain archeological sites, but never miracles of the ancient world.  True, in certain contexts (eg: the Bible), the words "wonders" and "miracles" are sometimes interchangeable, but I think that these refer to certain "supernatural" actions, not things that were constructed "naturally" without miraculous powers or something.  Is it simply a problem with differences in language translations from a non-English user's Language X (perhaps Greek?) to English?  Perhaps some cultures refer to the Seven Wonders as the Seven Miracles?  If so, I think we need a link or reference or something to prove this point.  Otherwise I think it ought to read "Wonders...".  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed this and linked it to the Wonders article. Seems like just an accidental confusion of words. —porges(talk) 00:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the "miracles" of the ancient world? 

message: I removed the phrase (and therefore the link). To link a Greek legal decision of 356 BC/BCE to a much later Roman, Latin legal (or quasi-legal) term offers the misleading impression that even back then, Greeks used Roman laws and Latin terms.  Haploidavey (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: damnatio memoriae

message: "Falsified" ? Did LIDONNICI say that, or did the article writer feel like imputing their own bias?
-IF LIDONNICI said it, then may it need the "[sic]" add?
"Lynn LIDONNICI observes that modern scholars are likely to be more concerned with origins of the Lady of Ephesus and her iconology than her adherents were at any point in time, and are also prone to creating a synthetic account of the Lady of Ephesus by drawing together documentation that ranges over more than a millennium in its origins, creating a FALSIFIED, unitary picture, as of an unchanging icon."
2010-03-06T16:10Z-8
76.90.226.194 (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "falsified"

message: "In 401, the temple in its last version was finally destroyed by a mob led by St. John Chrysostom,[25] and the stones were used in construction of other buildings."
The source given for this is hardly a definitive history. After checking it, it does not appear to cite its sources, either. I can find no mention in any of the primary documents that Chrysostom was involved in the temple's destruction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.128.74 (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that it was "destroyed by a mob led by St. John Chrysostom" is a persistent myth that seems to be based entirely on a single very unclear comment by Proclus of Constantinople in the Fifth Century.  In his twentieth Oration, Proclus praises Chrysostom for various things including by sayining "In Ephesus, he despoiled the art of Midas".  Exactly how this can be interpreted as "he led a mob to destroy the re-built Temple of Artemis" is a mystery.  As you say, the supposed source previously given backs up this claim with precisely nothing and the whole idea seems to be fantasy.  In fact, I know of no evidence at all that the Temple was rebuilt after the Gothic sack in the Third Century.  I've removed the Chrysostom claim, because I keep coming across people asserting this is true and pointing to this Wiki entry when challenged on it. Wikipedia should not be supporting unsubstantiated pseudo history. TimONeill (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it seems that the claim that Chrysostom destroyed the temple, backed on by the reference in a travel book, has been restored.  This is a myth without foundation and an assertion of it in a travel guide is not a sufficient scholarly reference to support it.  I've removed it again.  Unless someone can back this claim with actual evidence or something scholarly, it should not be restored.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimONeill (talk • contribs) 00:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Chrysostom 

message: On the "Nyx" page, under the subtitle "Role in Society", there is a line saying that Nyx had a statue at Artemis Temple, Ephesus. Yet there is no mention, picture, or external link of it here. So is it true, or have the two pages simply not caught up with each other yet? Coin flip as the line is unreferenced.
76.90.229.237 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. It's in Pausanius, and seems relevant to this article. So I'll pop it in somewhere, and add - or clarify - the same at Nyx. The linked translation will be less than ideal for doubters (it simply gives "Night"), so I'll just re-inforce it with a modern secondary source (overdressed in belt and braces, but alas, that seems to be wikipedia attire du jour. Haploidavey (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nyx Reference

message: I'm going to re-arrange the article, because some sections have expanded considerably and perhaps disproportionately over time, with unnecessary repetition within them. Let's stick mostly to the Temple itself, yes? As at least three are known (or maybe two, and one suspected: no, four, who'd have thunk it?), I think it would help to present them in chronological order, thus obviating the need for a separate (and repetitious) summary on Architecture and Art. Some of the section on cult might be moved to the main article; but I'll leave that for now, and go for the rest. Haploidavey (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking again, our Ephesian Artemis seems so utterly unlike t'other, she's better off staying here (probably too much of an handful for anyplace else). More detail on specifics of her cult would be good to have. Haploidavey (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold rearrangement 

message: St. John Chrystostom was never Archbishop of Ephesus. I have thus removed that part of the comment
76.121.94.212 (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, thanks for catching that. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. John Chrystostom 

message: hwo was it that burnt down that beautiful temple?
(Ireally didn't want to read all of that.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.139.245 (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm only 15, so don't judge. 

message: How do you know it was 21 July? They didn't have our calendar. Exactly what does the source say? Soerfm (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. We don't know, and shouldn't offer an exact date; or if we do, should offer it with greater transparency. According to later Greek and Roman sources, Theopompus  marries the burning with the birth of Alexander the Great. Other sources give Alexander's birth date as the 6th day of Hekatombaion; but the various ancient Greek religious and civil calendars weren't integrated until some time after this, so modern scholarship has to work backwards from known dates, with a rough scholarly consensus for 20/21 (or thereabouts) July 356 BC for Alexander's birth.  Anyway, thanks to your questioning, I've rewritten the section. Haploidavey (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: I wonder how it's possible that a temple built wholly of marble can be set on fire and burned down? :)85.81.40.95 (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Pliny (or at least I think it's Pliny) has him set fire to the roof beams. Haploidavey (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How could a temple of stone be torched? 

message: The opening sentence of "Second phase" currently reads: 
The new temple was sponsored at least in part by Croesus, who founded Lydia's empire and was overlord of Ephesus,[10] and was designed and constructed from around 5500 BC by the Cretan architect Chersiphron and his son Metagenes.  
The year 5500 BC is clearly wrong, but its source isn't clear. I have edited 5500 BC to 550 BC to match the lead section of the article, but if another editor has a good source, please make further correction. Oaklandguy (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another date problem. This one in "Second phase"; my attempted fix of "5500 BC" 

message: 71.223.60.153 (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but my guess is -- plenty of flammables inside for starters. Marble is fragile and, I think, probably heat-sensitive -- it is, after all, mostly carbon. Get a good fire going, the roof burning or melting, and I expect the marble would break up to some extent, and the rest be charred and stained and collapsed beyond restoration. Herostratus (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does a stone building get destroyed by arson? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Temple of Artemis. 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/20070202193125/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/1547.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/1547.html
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) 21:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article was excluded from an On This Day mention because of Page Number Needed tags, all for Nielsen, M. (2009). I hope someone can fix those for 21 July 2023! Sparafucil (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  On this day 

message: Please consider including the insights from this newly published article: Bilby, Mark. G. and Anna Lefteratou. "A Dramatic Heist of Epic Proportion: Iphigenia among the Taurians in the Acts of the Apostles," Harvard Theological Review 115.4 (2002) 496-518. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816022000293
Full disclosure of potential bias: As one of the co-authors, I'm suggesting that this article be consulted and considered by Wikipedia editors, not presuming to evaluate whether it merits citation in this entry. Vocesanticae (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ephesian Temple of Artemis in the canonical Acts of the Apostles