User talk:Gonel4117
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Gonel4117! I noticed your contributions to Antiochus IV Epiphanes and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks so much! Gonel4117 (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't get it. Christianhatley527 (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Christianhatley, great to hear from you! Hope you're well.
- Regarding 5 Maccabees: Though I'm not one of those who reverts your edits on Biblical canon, I do agree with reverting them. (And I was the one who put 5 Maccabees there as an alternate title). Although the sixth book of Josephus isn't academically called 5 Maccabees, that doesn't change the fact that "5 Maccabees" is an alternate title. I'm not sure how far back its use goes, but it's possible that it goes back further than the title of the other 5 Maccabees, which was only given that name a couple centuries ago. Someone who's an expert or who has dug into the research would have to clarify this, but this doesn't change the fact that this is an alternate title for the book as it is included in the Syriac canon. Nor is this "clearly a misnomer" since it is an entirely legitimate alternate name for this text (even if it isn't a good name for it).
- Regarding 2 and 3 Enoch: Although there is some use in knowing that 2 and 3 Enoch are not considered canon by any tradition, this is something that one can easily see on the pages of these books. Including them in the canon table makes an already hefty table unnecessarily long, can be deceptive for anyone skimming the chart who thinks there are more books in play than there actually are, and sets a precedent for including even more Jewish apocrypha in the table, perhaps even other ancient texts. If all ancient Jewish books were included, there would be no end to this table. Someone already tried using these two as a precedent to add the Gospel of Thomas this past August.
- Regarding the division of Major and Minor Prophets: This will partly come down to other editors, but the reason why I have removed the distinction between Major/Minor Prophets is because it's an unofficial Christian distinction that doesn't correspond to a Hebrew one. In the Masoretic text, all twelve minor prophetic books are collected in a single volume, so separating that from the rest of the section for Nevi'im Akharonim (Latter Prophets) is harder to justify. Frankly, these distinctions are already messy when we throw in all the deuterocanon and apocryphal texts--half the books in the history section correspond to the Jewish Ketuvim. So the section breakdown is unwieldy, but at least keeping the prophet section together doesn't make it seem like there's an official section of the Hebrew Bible that there isn't.
- Hope these make sense--would love to hear your thoughts though. I'll give a few days to respond, and if I don't hear from you I'll revert your edits. --Gonel4117 (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- What about 3 Baruch? It's not part of any canon. But its still there. If 2 and 3 Enoch shouldn't belong there, then 3 Baruch should it be there as well. all three are there for "disambiguation". Christianhatley527 (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should'nt
- Christianhatley527 (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Shouldn't
- Christianhatley527 (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- One could certainly make the case that 3 Baruch doesn't belong there. That said, because 2 and 3 Baruch are both apocalypses and could be very easily confused, it is certainly rational to include them just to differentiate the two. (To this point, one would be justified in including the Arabic 5 Maccabees to differentiate it from the other "5 Maccabees" of Josephus' work.) 4 Baruch is also here, so it would be odd visually to skip 3 Baruch--but as you point out, it arguably has the least credible reason for being here.
- By contrast, there is no confusion between 1 Enoch and the other two books of Enoch. For its part, 3 Enoch was written in the second century AD, well after the destruction of the second temple, and 2 Enoch may not have been written much sooner, perhaps in the late first century AD. The first book of Enoch was written centuries earlier and has had a far more profound influence. --Gonel4117 (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- What about 3 Baruch? It's not part of any canon. But its still there. If 2 and 3 Enoch shouldn't belong there, then 3 Baruch should it be there as well. all three are there for "disambiguation". Christianhatley527 (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't get it. Christianhatley527 (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
An article you recently created, 5 Baruch, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Dan! Thanks for taking a look, I was curious how that first draft would hold up when someone reviewed it. I've taken a more thorough pass today and added more specific analysis from the two academic books I can find that examine it. Like many of the Ethiopic scriptures, this book is frustratingly neglected, and I'd love to highlight the good research that has been done on it and hopefully build a starting point for further investigation on it, other Ethiopic books, and the development of Baruch apocalyptic traditions. I've primarily used the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Ezra as a template for this very comparable book.
- Thanks, Gonel4117 (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)