Jump to content

Talk:Legend of Aphroditian

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
  • Source: Heyden, Katharina (2022). "The Legend of Aphroditian". In Early New Testament Apocrypha. pp. 115–127.

For full disclosure, there is a chat on how much DYKFICTION extends at WT:DYK. IMO, it says "Creative work" which clearly means the likes of novel and film plot summaries, and a "broad" reading of fiction as "anything false" is clearly not merited, and there's an obvious connection to the real world anyway (making an icon in-story = encouraging that as a doctrine in real life to emulate by real-life people who made real-life paintings), but I've provided some alternate hooks regardless in case people feel that a hook is borderline.

Created by SnowFire (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 18 past nominations.

SnowFire (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • @SnowFire: Please provide a QPQ as soon as possible (it should have been at the time of the nomination), as the nomination may be closed without further warning if one is not provided soon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SnowFire: Hooks are interesting in my opinion, especially the first one, which would be my preference; I wouldn't say that I share the concerns around DYKFICTION here, as I think it would make sense to treat ancient religious texts differently to, for instance, modern works of fiction. The article technically falls just outside of the seven-day newness period, though I think we can let this slip. QPQ is satisfied, and the article itself seems fine – my initial concern was the lack of diversity in sourcing, though a little bit of searching fails to bring up much of anything else, so these two sources would seem to be the only detailed treatments of the subject in English. My main query would be whether the page range of the source cited for the hook could be narrowed down (to one or two pages, if possible?). Otherwise all good to go, I think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi @Michael Aurel:. My interlibrary loan expired so I can't directly check the source again, but based on the citation I used in the article, it's cited to this section: "3.2 Mariology: Hera-Urania-Pege." If you have access to the source, should be pretty trivial to find the relevant range with that (and if you don't, I guess it's AGF anyway) - that section is just ~2 pages long to my recollection. (I used a style with section headers in this article as is probably obvious rather than page ranges, given the very helpful numbered sections making it easy to find the relevant material.) SnowFire (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SnowFire: Ok, great (I wasn't entirely sure which citation in the article was the relevant one). Reading section 3.2, I think this might be the relevant part?

        This discussion between the female and the male images of gods may reflect christological-Mariological disputes of the Legend’s own time.
        The Greek goddess Hera, who mythically regained her virginity through a bath after each meeting with Zeus, was identified in Hellenistic times with different mother deities, and in Hierapolis she was identified with Atargatis, Artemis, and Rhea, among others. The fact that she is given the epithet Urania (“Queen of Heaven”) is perhaps already a consequence of the identification with the Syrian Atargatis, who, for her part, has a close relationship to springs and to fish. The female deities seem to want to protect Hera, the mother of the gods par excellence, from being devalued by the claimed pregnancy by referring to the apparently lower goddess Pege. But in their response, the male deities offer an interpretation for the epithet Pege, which helps her even more to fame (see below).

      • – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, that's not quite the line I'd have picked, which seems to be more about Lucian of Samosata identifying Atargatis with Hera. Let me give a more direct reference - from Heyden's 2009 work (and I know what you're saying about narrow sources! Seems Heyden's the only contemporary author who's written about it, though curious to check out Monneret de Villard's work), p. 40:
          • Die »Erzählung des Aphroditian« erscheint in diesem Kontext als biblische Legitimation der heidnisch-christlichen Kultursymbiose: Die Identifikation Marias mit der Muttergöttin Hera und die Belegung mit verschiedenen Namen konnte als Legitimation der Verschmelzung von slavischen Göttinnen mit Maria verstanden werden (GTranslate: "In this context, the “Tale of Aphroditian” appears as a biblical legitimation of the pagan-Christian cultural symbiosis: the identification of Mary with the mother goddess Hera and the use of different names could be understood as legitimizing the fusion of Slavic goddesses with Mary")
        • I guess that line was more specifically talking about the Slavic translations rather than the Greek original, but think it's clear enough overall. (There's lines about whether the father is a carpenter, etc. that makes the identification pretty clear.) SnowFire (talk)
          • Yes, I was clutching at straws a little with that quote. ;) Thanks for the more direct reference, that does the trick nicely. I think, per WP:DYKHOOK, that the citation should be used in the article (adding a simple restatement of the hook would probably work), but other than that I think we're all good to go. The homogeneity with respect to sourcing is understandable – there are at least a few lesser-known works of antique Greek literature I can think of which have only received proper treatment from one or two scholars. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legend_of_Aphroditian&oldid=1266113767"