Talk:Jonathan Apphus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jonathan Apphus - NOT Jonathan Maccabeus[edit]

The page Jonathan Apphus was renamed Jonathan Maccabeus. I believe that there is no justification for such a move and is based on a misunderstanding. Jonathan was indeed a Maccabean and could rightly be called Jonathan the Maccabean, ie, a member of the group of brothers originally led by Judas Maccabeus. However, Jonathan's name is not and never was Jonathan Maccabeus.

The most obvious source for Jonathan's name is the the (apocryphal) biblical book "I Maccabees". In 1 Maccabees 2:1–5, Jonathan is called (in greek καλούμενος) - Apphus. Maccabeus is not the family name. It was a name given only to Judas. Each of the brothers had a different name - John Gaddi, Simon Thassi, Judas Maccabeus, Eleazar Avaran, and Jonathan Apphus - all sons of Mattathias son of John son of Simeon, a priest of the family of Joarib. Nowhere in the biblical sources can the name Jonathan Maccabeus be found.

This article should be reverted to its original name "Jonathan Apphus". --@Efrat (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions on WP for the Maccabees[edit]

Please see Talk:Eleazar Avaran#Naming conventions on WP for the Maccabees. Discussion: How should the original Maccabees, the father Mattathias and his five sons, John (Johanan), Simon, Judah (Judas), Eleazar (Elazar), Jonathan be known on Wikipedia? Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERA[edit]

An IP editor has changed all the BCEs to BC, but I am reluctant to revert, since the established usage in this article was "BC" until this edit, which itself seems to contravene WP:ERA. StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Apphus. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scripture as sources[edit]

@Watchlonly: You have been told on a number of occasions that scripture isn't reliable sources for historical claims. There is a community consensus that such sources are unreliable (see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and Scripture as sources. Your reverts are in violation of WP:V which is a core content policy and you need to stop. ImTheIP (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To any third opinion volunteers: It may not seem like this issue has been discussed thoroughly, but it has. I have previously requested dispute resolution, but it was denied because Watchlonly declined to participate. Watchlonly has indicated on the talk page for Hasmonean Dynasty and their own user talk page that they do not intend to change their behavior.

In this article, Watchlonly insists on using the Books of the Maccabees which is scripture as a source to build a historical narrative. See this diff. This is impermissible according to WP:RSPSCRIPTURE which ways that "Scriptural texts, like the Bible and the Quran, are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes". Like many bible books, the Book of the Maccabees contain internal inconsistencies and stand in contradiction with external evidence. See f.e. [1]. Watchlonly has been told about this and why it is necessary to restrict ourselves to proper scholarly sources. They don't get it and I have no idea how to convince them. ImTheIP (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Primary sources are acceptable with proper attribution, including the Book of Maccabees. In other words, the Book of Maccabees is reliable for what the Book of Maccabees says. Apparently you are the only one who doesn't understand that. You did the same thing here, despite text is very explicit that this is what the fricking Bible says. What part of this policy you fail to understand?--Watchlonly (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with whether the Bible is a primary source or not. We on Wikipedia treat it as an unreliable source and refrain from sourcing it unless necessary. It doesn't matter if the paragraph starts with "According to the Bible ..." or not. According to a lot of fundamentalists the earth is 6,000 years old too. But that's no reason for adding that to our articles dealing with the evolution. ImTheIP (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If an article considers important to mention what the Bible says because it's related to the topic, such as history on ancient Israel, you don't revert me if I add specific verses to support this attributed text. Got it? It's not so hard.--Watchlonly (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the policies are what they are. Biblical sources should be replaced with reliable scholarly ones. If you don't like it, you need to take your grievance to the WP:RSN and have the policies changed. ImTheIP (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't replace anything. You removed biblical verses to support a text which talks about the biblical narrative, because it's perfectly pertinent to that part of article. You have no Wikipedia policy to base your editing pattern on.--Watchlonly (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been told a number of times, the policy is WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. From The Hasmoneans and their State: A Study in History, Ideology, and the Institutions edited by Edward Dąbrowa:

Without a doubt, the author of 1 Macc intended to show the exceptional contributions of the first generation of the Hasmoneans in fighting against the kings of Syria. Such feats were meant to bolster the political position of Hasmonean successors as legitimate leaders of an independent Judea. To ensure that his account caused proper resonance, the same author resorted to passing over certain events or presenting them in a way that served the Hasmonean cause. Some scholars go so far as to suggest that the author may have deliberately falsified certain developments early in the uprising in order to better highlight the role of his protagonists.

You may not get it, but this is why one should refrain from using scripture as sources. ImTheIP (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:
This is an unusual situation where a Biblical figure is also described in an ancient historical source. Omitting relevant Biblical content that is clearly marked as such, would not serve our readers. Scholarly doubts about the historical accuracy of the account in Maccabees can be mentioned in the article. I would suggest a different wording, something like "The Hebrew Bible in Maccabees 1, describes Jonathan Apphus as... agr (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--agr (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. No content has to be omitted. But poor sources should be replaced with reliable ones. There are hundreds of Bible commentaries covering the Books of the Maccabees that can be cited instead of the bible verses. That is preferable because it "filters" the bible verses which often contradicts each other. As the article stands now it is impossible to separate the fact from the fiction; what historians believe is true about the historical Jonathan Apphus and what is only found in the Bible. ImTheIP (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_Apphus&oldid=1214571370"