Talk:Susanna (Book of Daniel)

The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 11:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

She wasn't a 'maiden'. --ClemMcGann 21:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Susanna an Egyptian borrowing meaning "lily"?

I believe the Egyptians themselves borrowed it from the Elamites. The Elamite capital was called Susa or Shushan, which means "lily". Eroica 15:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Similar story from Sumerian sources

The story is quite similar to Sumerian texts: The maiden Ninlil is warned by her mother about Enlil. He forces himself on her and is punished by being sent to the underworld. In another text Inanna is asaulted by the gardener Shukaletuda, he is condemned to death for his crime.

redirect

The talk page for Susanna redirects to here, making it impossible for that article to have its own talk page. Could that be changed? Shoshonna 09:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Enough revisionist etymologies from Wikipedia

The names Shoshannah and Sasson are both derived from the Hebrew root Shin-Vav-Shin, meaning to be joyful, bright, or cheerful. Sasson literally means "joy". Shoshannah is feminine for Shoshan, which literally means "that which gives joy, brightness". This seems to be the most plausible etymology for the Hebrew lily flower name "shushan". There is no evidence that it was taken from the Egyptian language, which usually finds its way into Hebrew in the case of names of people and places.

J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"early Jewish literature"

The text may or may not have existed in an Aramaic variant, but it is clear that it was part of the original Septuagint, and was thus part of the tradition of Hellenistic Judaism. The original book of Daniel isn't significantly older than the Septuagint, so there isn't a big difference in age, the text is part of 2nd-century BC Judaism in any case, the question is just whether it was limited to "Hellenistic" Judaism. --dab (𒁳) 12:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Rejected attempt to add a new reference

I just published a paper arguing that Susanna and the Elders is based on a Greek Comedy by Nicolaus of Damascus. The paper is peer-reviewed; of course that doesn't mean I'm right but readers might be interested anyway. My attempt to add the following sentence was rejected, however, as a conflict of interest:

It has recently been argued that the biblical version attributed to Theodotion is actually the remnant of a stage comedy written in Greek by Nicolaus of Damascus.

I appreciate that, so I'll just leave the reference here. If anyone else is inclined to investigate, the link is live. MSFontaine (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

That's what's called WP:Original Research. We don't publish it here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I am missing the point but original research is what I do. I'm an academic. The paper is published in a volume of collected essays by other experts in Roman drama (https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/466455). The policy you cite on original research objects to research that isn't substantiated. I would object to that, too. The paper I tried to link to is amply sourced, with references to standard works in several languages and with in-line citations in Greek and Latin from the source texts. Again, the paper is peer reviewed and the book is published by a major academic publisher (De Gruyter). Is the problem here simply that I tried to post the link myself using my own name rather than a pseudonym or having someone else do it for me? MSFontaine (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC):

Well, I'm glad you're smarter than the rest of us. Please don't push your latest theories on Wikipedia. If it's generally accepted as fact, then WP:SELFCITE is permissible. However, saying in effect "a smart guy (me) came up with this new theory" in the article is highly inappropriate. It may seem like a good idea but it isn't. Toddst1 (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, just so I understand you, I thought by leaving my own name out of the sentence it was in keeping with the self-citation policy you point to. Would it be more appropriate for me to have put my name in the sentence in the third person? Or is the idea that new academic research should in general not be cited in Wikipedia until some years have passed and a consensus can form around an idea? MSFontaine (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

That's more or less accurate. WP:WPNOTRS explains why your paper is a primary source concerning this new theory and that it has been argued. I think you should try to understand WP:COI as well. Toddst1 (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Susanna and the elders

I've added this name to the lead - it's the usual name, it's rightly used in the infobox, and it's used in (for example) the names of all five paintings in the article, so it seems essential to have it in the lead, even if we are Wikillogically doing our usual thing and using some weird coinage as the article title. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)