Talk:Apis (deity)

Age

Can anyone confirm the age at which the Apis bull was killed?

It says 28 in this article, but Joseph Campbell says 25. On the web there seem to be more votes for 25, but I cannot find an original source.

Ruling out one source: Everyday Life in Ancient Egypt by Lionel Casson (my favourite historian) doesn't give the age. --Damate

Civilization before Greece and Rome by H.W.E. Saggs also doesn't say... --Damate

Citing Herodotus and [[Plutarch], Wilkinson states that the bull was killed at 25. (Wilkinson, Richard H. The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames and Hudson, 2003. ISBN 0500051208.)

The lack of age, is because it is likely conjecture based on a single documented age at time of burial. Therefore the authors you approved of were not able to find a source and did not include such information. ~ This article is infuriating to me for the same reason. I learn some of these language things 20 years ago. And still have books to cite about the Bull Messenger of God. Because there were two divine bulls in each of two regions (See Narmer's Palette, with 4 different bulls, two per side) and a sun focus, perhaps they did it on the 11th or 21st year of life to match the sun cycles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.192.38 (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hieroglyphics

{{helpme}} This article is missing a heiroglyphic version of the god's name, but I'm not sure how the Wikipedia heiroglyph template works.

Wow, the talk pages for those heiroglyph templates (which should contain instructions) are just about worthless! My best suggestion is to look at other uses of the template and try to deduce what is done. The Egyptian hieroglyphics page says that this code:

{{Hiero/1cartouche|align=left|era=ok|name=[[Ptolemaic dynasty|Ptolemy]]|nomen=<hiero>p:t-wA-l:M-i-i-s</hiero>}} yields this:

nomen or birth name
Ptolemy in hieroglyphs
Era: Old Kingdom (2686–2181 BC)

So, realizing that I know nothing about heiroglyphs, my best guess for this article would be:

{{Hiero/1cartouche|align=left|era=ok|name=Apis|nomen=<hiero>a-p-i-s</hiero>}} which yields:

nomen or birth name
Apis in hieroglyphs
Era: Old Kingdom (2686–2181 BC)

I'll keep looking for an explanation of the <hiero> tag. Hoof Hearted 17:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I found this one on geman wikipedia

nomen or birth name
Apis in hieroglyphs
Era: Old Kingdom (2686–2181 BC)

. There they say, this was the usual way to write the name of Apis. They also show three alternative forms:

nomen or birth name
Apis in hieroglyphs
Era: Old Kingdom (2686–2181 BC)

nomen or birth name
Apis in hieroglyphs
Era: Old Kingdom (2686–2181 BC)

nomen or birth name
Apis in hieroglyphs
Era: Old Kingdom (2686–2181 BC)

You can look at de:Apis (Ägyptische Mythologie) --Thw1309 17:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done Thw. I finally found the help page for the hiero tags. See Help:WikiHiero syntax. Hoof Hearted 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you sir (or madam)! Your help has been much appreciated!

The following Author by: Neil Sandage "nomen" is Latin. Mihi Nomen Es, "my name is". The Bull Hapi or Hep predates both the Greek and Latin languages. If you are going to use the Greek name for this Article, at least stick to one language. Apis is also a Greek word, for the Haapi-Anak Bull God. The Greeks insisted Man was more divine than the Cow. Latins gave us Bull Fighting with Spears. Greeks Vaulted the bull barehanded to prove themselves superior. So why the False latin "Nomen" which has nothing to do with the God or Argument about nature? 108.196.192.38 (talk) The Editor borrowed this from the German wiki, but the partial Hieroglyphic sample probably means "Named Male Son..." and not Apis(Greek) or Hapi(Ancient Aramaic) or Hep(Coptic Egyptian). 108.196.192.38 (talk)

Here is a Translation of the German Page.

"Apis ( ancient Egyptian Hep ; Coptic Sahidic Hape ; Coptic bohairisch Hapi [1] ; Aramaic H py , חפי) was the Greek name of the sacred bull of Memphis , as the embodiment of the god Ptah was worshiped."

Golden Calf

Is it possible that the "molten calf" or "golden calf" images described in Exodus 32 were representations of the Apis? Lacking any guidance, the Hebrew people may have reverted to Egyptian religions, which many probably practiced in deference to their captors. They weren't at all uniform in their worship of YHWH - something the Prophets preached against over and over again. Indeed, the God of Abraham may have been forgotten altogether until Moses came along. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

108.196.192.38 (talk) wrote: There weren't uniform in their worship because the Bible started ABOUT 1600-1500BCE in Aramaic with the Minoan Volcano in Crete. Then Macedonian Hebrew est 200BCE (aka Mishnaic aka Rabbinic, Hebrew source Britannica) was when they began to invent a new name for God. nine or hebrew letter יהוה = YHWH does not appear before the Masoretic Text 500-1200AD (Earliest complete Torah dates from the 1100's). In Isaiah of the Dead Sea Scrolls god's name is phonetically "HaShem" and not appearance of Yahweh can be found. Either way there were two cows who personified God's Wisdom (Not God). = A male calf and a female mother. Perhaps the mother was the Angel who after the ethnic cleansing by Moses led the people guided by "Lord" Moses. 108.196.192.38 (talk)

Ka of Osiris

The 'Ka of Osiris' thing is complete rubbish and does not cite or link a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.192.38 (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

True, much of it is apparently incorrect and all of it is unsourced, so I've removed the most dubious parts. But much of what you've just said on this talk page is equally sourceless and looks equally dubious. A. Parrot (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Not having a link and not knowing how to cite other than write Britannica, I posted it here instead of on the main page. What I would like to know is why did someone delete the quote I took from the Online Egyptian Museum at the bottom of the page. Academic use allows something like 250 words to be quoted without violating copyright. Both Source & Standard for future revisions of this page. 108.196.192.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I deleted it. Because Wikipedia's license allows article text to be copied very freely, its use of copyrighted text is highly restricted (see WP:Copy-paste for a short overview of how to treat copyrighted text). Short quotations are allowed, but what I deleted didn't look all that short to me. Anyway, there's no reason that this article can't paraphrase that text instead. A. Parrot (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There is no consensus that the deity is the primary topic here.(non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

---

• Apis (deity) → Apis
• Apis → Apis (disambiguation)

– Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with views greatly exceeding all other pages titled "Apis" and longterm mythological importance. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. bd2412 T 02:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Support there's no page about the Honey bee titled Apis, which would be the only competitor to being a PT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"No page titled" is an irrelvant argument for titling discussions. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Apis (genus) is equally or more notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• The amount of people who use Apis (genus) to navigate to Honey bee is pretty low - around 7 on average daily. The vast majority of people most likely see Honey bee as the more obvious search term. If the article was at Apis (genus) I would most certainly agree... but it isn't._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think it meets the "much more likely than any other single topic" criterion wrt the genus. It's worth noting that the redirect Apis (insect) is only used in 5 articles including the dab page itself (also Beekeeping and 3 relatively obscure articles). This makes it almost like a WP:DABTEST. Based on views, perhaps around 1 in 6 visitors to the dab page are clicking through to honeybees. That would be a pretty high ratio, considering many visits to dab pages end there, and don't click on any of the links. If anyone wants to measure the numbers more accurately, I'd encourage them to set up a proper dabtest (with unique redirects for at least the deity and genus). If clicks on the deity are "much more" than for the genus, I will happily admit I was wrong. Colin M (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - the greater significance goes to honeybees due to them actually existing Red Slash 00:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position in this move discussion, but this response is just silly. By this argument, the Unicorn genus of spider would be more significant than unicorns. And besides, the Apis bulls literally existed—we have the mummified remains of some of them. A. Parrot (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, notability and primary topics are not determined by whether things "actually exist". That would, among other things, make Strategic Defense Initiative the primary topic for Star Wars, which is obviously not the case._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.