Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Temple of Artemis

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/hixclient.exe?_IXDB_=compass&_IXFIRST_=1&_IXMAXHITS_=1&_IXSPFX_=graphical/full/&$+with+all_unique_id_index+is+$=ENC111861&submit-button=summary is the link to the British Museum's objects from the Temple of Artemis, once I figure out how to make a pretty wiki link to a very long http address.


Damnit, just spent the morning creating another Temple of Artemis article, under the impression that it didn't exist. (Empty link from the Seven Wonders page) Curses. I'm going to try and merge, but our formats are quite different, so I think I'll just add entire sections without touching your info. I might move a few sentences or incorporate them, I hope you don't mind. -Phaust

Dang! that's irritating! I've made a redirect from Artemision and some links at Ephesus. --Wetman 19:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeeps; unaware of this (although puzzled why this shouldn't have been under Artemision), I may have compounded matters by making a few additional changes, sorry (see next item). — Bill 14:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ptolemy reference

I removed the Ptolemy reference ("Ptolemy, 5"), or actually, commented it out, 'cause (a) it's not enough of a reference — which work of his? — and (b) I couldn't find any reference to the Artemision in those works of his I do have at hand: the Geography, the Optics, the Tetrabiblos. The closest, and I suspect the origin of the vague reference, was a bald listing of Ephesus with its coördinates in the Geography, V.2, but no mention there of the Artemision. I'm quite prepared to stand corrected of course if you guys find the elusive citation. — Bill 14:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bill, thanks for the contribution. However, it appears that you've accidentally copied the text twice at different places, the second copy usually bearing your changes. I will now delete the extra text while keeping the changes you've made. Please check if your changes remain after I edit. Phaust 17:39, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Destruction

I recently visited Selcuk/Ephesus, and saw this. I have one question: How would this marble building have burned down? Granted, it probably would have had many rugs/wooden furniture/decorations that could burn, but how would that destroy the actual building? Many other stone buildings have had large fire (The "Black Church" in Brasov, Romania comes to mind), but the stone part has survived the destruction.

Did the ancient building techniques include something like lead in the mortar which might have melted under a fire's heat? Can anyone offer a good link or explanation on how this would have reduced the building to rubble?

Unlike buildings made of granite for example, marble buildings burn. Marble is a form of limestone, and limestone burns quite easily: making quicklime, whence the name limestone. In a first stage it cracks into small fragments. You are right of course that something, like furnishings, wood, lead, is needed to get the fire going. — Bill 19:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I belive Strabo or Pliny noted that Herostratus set fire to the frame of the temple roof, which was made of wood. Phaust
Thanks, gents. Those are both very useful! I looked up Calcium Oxide and Calcium Carbonate, and it confirms what Bill said. Virosa 22:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Plus our illustration shows the Crusader castle lurking on the hilltop. Ready-dressed stone was always at hand when pagan buildings were quarries for Christians. --Wetman 03:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VANDALISM?? -- Is the introduction of "Tim Mundy" as the perpetrator a joke or act of vandalism?? If so, this should be corrected. I could not find in the page's history where this was done, but maybe someone can correct this. Also "Herostratic" was changed to "Mundatic." Is there a way to remove the perpetrator's account from Wikipedia? --Splitrock105 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It was changed back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitrock105 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Paul of Tarsus or John the Evangelist? about the accounts in Acts of John

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)[reply]

An Achaemenid temple?

New edit: "...was built around 550 BC at Ephesus (present day Turkey) during the Achaemenid Persian period... How sensible is this? Or is this just Third World Acting Up?--Wetman 07:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely have a problem somewhere. Because if the temple was started by King Croesus, around 550, it would indeed have been built mostly under Achaemenid satraps and completed around 430 BC. This is not impossible though, since the Persians did not suppress local cults. The other possibility is that it would have been started around 670 BC and completed under the reign of Croesus. Of course, that would be mostly before the Achaemenids became kings of Anšan. --Svartalf 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...all in an archaic site that predates Hellenes and Persians alike. In style the temple rebuilt under Croesus was Greek. The Greeks identified the "Lady of Ephesus" as Artemis, though we can see that her iconic effigy is not Hellenic. Perhaps the political jurisdiction needs to take a less prominent prersentation. --20:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
On a semi-related note, you gents might want to read Aredvi Sura Anahita, who the Greeks "identified" with Artemis (and the Romans with Diana). cf. the section 'In Asia Minor and the Levant', and also note that per Herodotus/Berosus, the Persians didn't have/promote temples prior to Artaxerxes II (crowned c. 400 BC).
Incidentally, the other Zoroastrian divinity identified with Artemis is Aši (Ashi/Arti) female divinity of "fortune, luck, reward, recompense" (and also of fertility et al). Great pal of Mithra (who the Greeks called Apollo/Helios).
-- Fullstop 13:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

with many breasts denoting her fertility

Those aren't breasts. They're aurochs' (bulls') testicles. --Fulminouscherub 22:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, Mother of Jesus

Interestingly, Mary, mother of Jesus, retired in Ephesus. Thus, even with the passing of the pagan era, Ephesus remains a center of virgin goddess worship. --Fulminouscherub 22:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Would you mind quoting some sources please? In France we have some very interesting traditions about Mary Magdalene and the children Jesus begot on her, but I don't go mentioning those in here (well, in relevant articles)--Svartalf 01:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC), because the sources aren't reputable... Actually, I guess that the legend is completely apocryphal, and sprang up because Ephesus was already the worship center for a Great Goddess, whom the Greeks had (in spite of all logic... why did they not make her into a Demeter, of even a Hera?) associated with a virgin deity of theirs. --Svartalf 01:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw her house with my own two eyes. Actually, Among Orthodox Christians, there are two competing traditions about her retirement and tomb, one in Jerusalem and one in Ephesus. Islam (I believe) has only the tradition about Ephesus. In fact, her house in Efes is one of those few places you'll meet both Muslim and Christian pilgrims coming to the same place.
The most useful sites I found googling were Turkish tourism sites. The religious sites were, as usual, too concerned with proving that God is, in fact, their own private bitch.

--Fulminouscherub 00:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is useless

Although the Roman Diana and the Greek Artemis were perpetual virgins, Cybele, who originated in Anatolia and more closely resembled the goddess of the Ephesian temple, had the title of "Mother of Gods." It may not be coincidental that it was the Council of Ephesus which agreed to give Mary the title of "Mother of God." NRPanikker 03:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander?

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)[reply]

Not true

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)[reply]

Remains?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

All but nothing?

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)[reply]

"Plutarch remarked"

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

Religious bias

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"Megabyzi/Megabyzae"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I just noticed you actually even added "(Strabo 14)"! I guess I'll specify. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the "miracles" of the ancient world?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

damnatio memoriae

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)[reply]

"falsified"

"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)[reply]

John Chrysostom

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Nyx Reference

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bold rearrangement

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

St. John Chrystostom

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) Reader Steven Clark, Orthodox Church in America, ancientraditionalfish@gmail.com[reply]

Good call, thanks for catching that. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only 15, so don't judge.

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)[reply]

Date

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How could a temple of stone be torched?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Another date problem. This one in "Second phase"; my attempted fix of "5500 BC"

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)[reply]

How does a stone building get destroyed by arson?

71.223.60.153 (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 21:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On this day

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)[reply]

Ephesian Temple of Artemis in the canonical Acts of the Apostles

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)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temple_of_Artemis