This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Once the history gets merged into here, very roughtly from the duplicated from "Corinth", we need to see that it is truly summarized from the forks, and not just duplicated mindlessly. This results in maintenance problems when it is in two or more places. Student7 ( talk) 13:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
An editor has removed places named after Ancient Corinth, saying they were already dab-ed! Actually, the original point was (not mine BTW) to show the influence of Ancient Corinth on modern civilization. Student7 ( talk) 14:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there's doubles of at least four pictures in this article. Somebody needs to fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.140.28 ( talk) 22:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It is clear to me that the classical section is a mess: it includes bits which should be in the Corinth Under the Tyrants section, about Periander or events that occurred in the 6th century BC. Further down, some events aren't dated. The Peloponnesian War and Corinthian War at the least should probably have subheadings. If I find the time I'll have a go at rewriting the classical section from scratch, but if anyone feels they can dedicate a little time to some tidy-up in the mean time, that would be welcome. Chilari ( talk) 14:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Since 27 Januari 2010, our article, section Classical Corinth, says, after an anonimous edit (editor 69.27.215.68): “It was once believed that Corinth housed a great temple on its ancient acropolis dedicated to the goddess Aphrodite; yet excavations of the temples of Aphrodite in Corinth reveal them to be small in stature. Despite the mythical story from Strabo of there being more than one thousand temple prostitutes employed at the Temple of Aphrodite, this was likely not accurate as the story rests on a misunderstanding.[referencing to: Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 1, pg. 733.]”
I wonder: could anyone elaborate on that? Does anyone have or know that book of O'Connor? What does O'Connor, or editor 69.27.215.68, mean with ‘misunderstanding’? ‘not accurate’? ‘likely’? Were there likely less prostitutes? No prostitutes at all? And by the way, in which period in history is this all supposed to have, or have not, happened? -- Corriebertus ( talk) 10:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I took out:
Its a bit garbled; "With the Syracusan troops in Athens" is odd; this is describing the battle in Syracuse bay. But really, its barely about Corinth; the only "Corinth" bit here is what one of their helmsmen did William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
References
A population of 700000 is just impossible (just compare with the estimates for Rome or Alexandria, Corinth is never described as a megalopole, the place is not large enough anyway). It is only found in theological books which provide no reference for it, and history books are much more prudent (the oft cited Engels Roman Corinth: an Alternative Model for the Classical City says "80 000 (...) does not seem unreasonable" e.g.). The 700 000 inhabitants could perhaps come from a slip of pen from 70 000 (a reasonable estimate) copied over and over from New Testament commentators to each others. We should only keep the history books-sourced numbers.-- Phso2 ( talk) 09:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ancient Corinth. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is not a single shred of archaeological evidence, proof, or any neutral, contemporary literary source that can establish as a historical fact the presence of the Christian proselytiser with the Roman name "Paulus" in the city of Ancient Corinth as being claimed in certain religious (and thus by definition non-historical) texts.
If the author of this Wikipedia article wants to claim historical expertise and academic professionalism, and if he honours the principle that historiography should be based on well-established facts that can be scientifically proven or corroborated (by archaeology or any other scientific discipline), instead of on religious propaganda, then the whole paragraph about "Biblical Corinth" needs to be deleted as it is nothing more than fiction.
2A02:587:BC07:D200:54DC:FF6C:2733:F96A ( talk) 14:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC) The Keeper of the Garden
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 18:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)So... Mr Eggishorn, can you give me proof of the statements made in the article that Paulus was in Corinth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Keeper of the Garden ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Why do I have to give proof of something that is obvious: the Bible is not a scientific but a religious book. Why don't the original authors of the paragraph have to give proof of what they are claiming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Keeper of the Garden ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The article Corinth Excavations would be better, I think, as a subsection of this one: it's currently two paragraphs (which could themselves do with a little trimming) and two images.
Courtesy ping to the creator, User:Blackmelas. UndercoverClassicist T· C 10:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Once the history gets merged into here, very roughtly from the duplicated from "Corinth", we need to see that it is truly summarized from the forks, and not just duplicated mindlessly. This results in maintenance problems when it is in two or more places. Student7 ( talk) 13:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
An editor has removed places named after Ancient Corinth, saying they were already dab-ed! Actually, the original point was (not mine BTW) to show the influence of Ancient Corinth on modern civilization. Student7 ( talk) 14:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there's doubles of at least four pictures in this article. Somebody needs to fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.140.28 ( talk) 22:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It is clear to me that the classical section is a mess: it includes bits which should be in the Corinth Under the Tyrants section, about Periander or events that occurred in the 6th century BC. Further down, some events aren't dated. The Peloponnesian War and Corinthian War at the least should probably have subheadings. If I find the time I'll have a go at rewriting the classical section from scratch, but if anyone feels they can dedicate a little time to some tidy-up in the mean time, that would be welcome. Chilari ( talk) 14:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Since 27 Januari 2010, our article, section Classical Corinth, says, after an anonimous edit (editor 69.27.215.68): “It was once believed that Corinth housed a great temple on its ancient acropolis dedicated to the goddess Aphrodite; yet excavations of the temples of Aphrodite in Corinth reveal them to be small in stature. Despite the mythical story from Strabo of there being more than one thousand temple prostitutes employed at the Temple of Aphrodite, this was likely not accurate as the story rests on a misunderstanding.[referencing to: Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 1, pg. 733.]”
I wonder: could anyone elaborate on that? Does anyone have or know that book of O'Connor? What does O'Connor, or editor 69.27.215.68, mean with ‘misunderstanding’? ‘not accurate’? ‘likely’? Were there likely less prostitutes? No prostitutes at all? And by the way, in which period in history is this all supposed to have, or have not, happened? -- Corriebertus ( talk) 10:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I took out:
Its a bit garbled; "With the Syracusan troops in Athens" is odd; this is describing the battle in Syracuse bay. But really, its barely about Corinth; the only "Corinth" bit here is what one of their helmsmen did William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
References
A population of 700000 is just impossible (just compare with the estimates for Rome or Alexandria, Corinth is never described as a megalopole, the place is not large enough anyway). It is only found in theological books which provide no reference for it, and history books are much more prudent (the oft cited Engels Roman Corinth: an Alternative Model for the Classical City says "80 000 (...) does not seem unreasonable" e.g.). The 700 000 inhabitants could perhaps come from a slip of pen from 70 000 (a reasonable estimate) copied over and over from New Testament commentators to each others. We should only keep the history books-sourced numbers.-- Phso2 ( talk) 09:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ancient Corinth. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is not a single shred of archaeological evidence, proof, or any neutral, contemporary literary source that can establish as a historical fact the presence of the Christian proselytiser with the Roman name "Paulus" in the city of Ancient Corinth as being claimed in certain religious (and thus by definition non-historical) texts.
If the author of this Wikipedia article wants to claim historical expertise and academic professionalism, and if he honours the principle that historiography should be based on well-established facts that can be scientifically proven or corroborated (by archaeology or any other scientific discipline), instead of on religious propaganda, then the whole paragraph about "Biblical Corinth" needs to be deleted as it is nothing more than fiction.
2A02:587:BC07:D200:54DC:FF6C:2733:F96A ( talk) 14:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC) The Keeper of the Garden
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 18:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)So... Mr Eggishorn, can you give me proof of the statements made in the article that Paulus was in Corinth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Keeper of the Garden ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Why do I have to give proof of something that is obvious: the Bible is not a scientific but a religious book. Why don't the original authors of the paragraph have to give proof of what they are claiming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Keeper of the Garden ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The article Corinth Excavations would be better, I think, as a subsection of this one: it's currently two paragraphs (which could themselves do with a little trimming) and two images.
Courtesy ping to the creator, User:Blackmelas. UndercoverClassicist T· C 10:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)