Talk:Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego

Multiple articles with similar name (& similar / overlapping content?)

Resolved

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego is an existing wiki article that currently redirects to Fiery furnace. While *this* article (spelled Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego) does not redirect to Fiery furnace

The name Meshack / Meshach is apparently mispelled (alternate spellings?) in one or the other article title. Should one redirect to the other or should both redirect to the Fiery furnace article? I hope some thoughtful wiki editor with subject-matter knowledge (not me I'm afraid) can try to clean up this article naming / redirecting confusion. Pugetbill 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the redirect so that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego now redirects to *this* article, Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego instead of to Fiery furnace. Although it would appear "Meshach" (not Meshack) is a more common spelling of the name, the original article is under "Meshack" and I leave it to someone with more subject-matter knowledge to decide whether it is better to "move" the article to a different / better title. Pugetbill 05:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The New World Translation uses meshach, but I doubt academics and wikidemics believe it's accurateness in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 66.157.30.83 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have moved Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego tYoung's Literal Translationo the correct spelling Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Meshach" is the spelling used in the following bibles: King James Version, the New King James Version, New International Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, Young's Literal Translation, The Darby Translation, The Webster Bible. However, the Reina-Valera 1960 (the most widely read Spanish version) uses Mesac, the Hebrew Names Version uses Meshakh, the Latin Vulgate uses Misach, the Septuagint uses Μισαχ, and the Hebrew is מישך, which my online translator renders as Meyshak. That being said, I think we can say that by far the largest majority of English Bibles, those used by the largest denominations of Protestant and Catholic branches and the versions that have made the Bible the most widely read book in the world, render the name as "Meshach". In the English Wikipedia, I think we should use the "Meshach" spelling. Other language Wikipedias can use the spelling that is most familiar to them in their language. Banaticus (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Bar Elohim...

The phrase "bar elohim" is aramaic as is the text of daniel... it isnt hebrew as is stated in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.122.48 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplication

Resolved

Why on earth are there separate articles--this one and the Fiery furnace article? Let alone separate articles for the three characters, all of whom only appear in this story in Daniel. THere should be, at most, one article to cover the story.

Winterbadger (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

so which were they

Were they nobility of the tribe of Judah or were they decedents of King David? Did the tribe of Judah have nobles? Nitpyck (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Resolved

The two articles: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and Fiery furnace, should be merged into one article. The biblical account of the fiery furnace is the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. The story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego is that of the fiery furnace. There is little one could write about either topic that is not directly applicable to the other. This has been proposed more than once over the years (2005, 2007) and I don't believe there were any objections - but no editor volunteered to do the merge either and the merge notices were apparently removed without comment. Pugetbill (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Big Merge

Okay... I did it. I hope the merge is adequate to everyone's liking. I carefully went through all of the sections to make sure everything was accounted for. I also edited the article to be more rich in content. There are a few minor link edits I'd like to make... but for the most part the story is complete.

The only thing I dont like is the main image of the young men looking all feminine. They were NOT feminine... I wish there was a more appropriate image.

Jasonasosa (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I second the effort to find a better image. That image is horrible. My personal preference is this one, but most people would probably almost consider that sacrilege. Hypershock (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

New Layout

I really do not like the layout of this page. The way the Influences are titled, they are taking away from the narrative. The sections need to be rebalanced. I'm going to take a shot at rebalancing this article... If anyone objects, there is always [undo]. ;) Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture Section

With recent additions, fully 40% of this page is taken up with "Popular Culture" appearances that essentially amount to trivia and IMO needs a major haircut. Thoughts as to why this section is important as currently comprised? Ckruschke (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Style of era usage - BC or BCE?

For a few years, this article has been inconsistent in its era style, using BC in one place and BCE in another. WP:ERA urges consistency, and says we should not change the established style - but it is difficult to determine what it is in this case. However, we can cut through all that by having a discussion here. I would use BC myself, but I am happy to acknowledge that this is merely a personal preference. StAnselm (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

My normal personal pref is BC, but as an Old Testament topic there may be those preferring BCE. I'll support any consensus that seems to be emerging, & will I expect return to do so. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the established style is BCE although after that was added to the article others added BC. BCE was added at a point where there was no style, and has been in the article since December 2010, see [1]. BC was removed in July 2009[2].BC was in the article a long time ago, but as an example, it isn't in the version from March 2007.[3]. As BC was missing from the article for over a year when BCE was added (without BC being in the article at that point), then I can't see how BC can be considered the established style and thus whether we should change to BC is what we should be discussing. The fact that it was at times inconsistent isn't reason enough to change to BC - we need reasons relating to the article to change from BCE to BC. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I thought discussing it here would cut the Gordian knot. If we were to start with a clean slate, which form should we have in the article, and why? StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

But it isn't really a clean slate; no doubt Doug is correct, in which case BCE has the historical precedence, & failing a move to change that we should go to it consistently. I rarely support moves to change a style in either direction (except in say Chinese topics). Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't convinced that BCE was necessarily the established style - the article was created with "BC", and it continued like that for more than two years. StAnselm (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so it did, and then had a period with no dates at all, then went BCE. So I suppose it should go back to BC, failing consensus to change. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was no style when BCE was added. Being the original style doesn't give it precedence, that's not what WP:ERA says. There was BC, that was removed, then quite a while later BCE was added. Now it is being proposed that BCE be changed to BC. If there was no style when BCE was added, then there was no change. Having people add BC to a BCE article so it is inconsistent is a red herring, when BCE was changed to BC the established style had been BCE for some time. I can't see how anyone can argue that the established style is BC. No where does WP:ERA give precedence to the original style. If we did this, you could argue that a 10 year old article (if there are any) which had BC for a year and then was changed to BCE without discussion should go back to BC. Or that there had to be discussion to add BCE to an article which had no style but started as BC. There was no consensus to change to BCE because there was no need, it was not a 'change'. Dougweller (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think either way of interpreting WP:ERA is arguable. Maybe we had better pretend it's a clean slate. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Doug & Johnbod - its a mess and something that is continually argued about on dozens of Christian-oriented pages... Ckruschke (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Fiction

The lead of this article could probably better indicate that there is no evidence as to the historicity of the story in Daniel chapter 3. Though this should be obvious, there are some who consider the story to refer to actual events.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I'm not married to the section, but why would it need to be ref'd when it looks like all the bullets are Wiki linked to the source it is summarizing? Wouldn't this be over kill to copy/paste ref's from another page simply to corroborate a reference to a book/movie that's already cited on its own page? Ckruschke (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Ckruschke

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Firstly, Wikipedia is not a reliable secondary source; Wikilinks never substitute for RS. Secondly, even if we could convince readers to go chasing references across articles rather than referring to self-contained footnotes, the Wikilinks do not refer to any particular revision of the article history, and so with all this in mind, how can we have any guarantee that the same reference will still be there in the future? And have you checked all the articles to see if they actually mention this topic? I bet many don't. Elizium23 (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Title of page

Why is the title of this page "Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego," in lieu of "Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah?" The former are their Babylonian names, the latter are their Hebrew names. Daniel was also given a Babylonian name (Beltshazzar), but he is not commonly referred to by that name. So why are his companions referred to by their Babylonian names? One surmises with reasonable evidence that the Hebrews, being known for pride of their history and culture, would prefer the monikers of their birth and heritage rather than the names which are a reference to heathen gods.

Can anyone explain why we don't title this page "Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C1C0:E5:C9E4:CAE6:3924:CD35 (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's because of WP:COMMONNAME. StAnselm (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Either way, the second comma is not required. BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with StAnselm - this is their common names. Also all the commas in the title are needed per US grammar rules. Ckruschke (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

@Ckruschke, thanks for this. Where are US grammar rules explained? The UK grammar rules, e.g. BBC information at https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/z8x6cj6/articles/zxvcrdm, state that a comma should not be used with 'and' before the final item in a list. -BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

BobKilcoyne, ironically, that final comma is named "The Oxford Comma" and is the source of much pedantry. Elizium23 (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, thanks - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@BobKilcoyne: Right - its an Oxford comma. If I had been thinking properly I would have suggested that since its an open debate about whether it is needed, then the current title should probably stand. Sorry about that. Ckruschke (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Neither added nor apocryphal.

Protestants use the term "apocryphal" to denigrate the portions of the Bible which Catholics and Orthodox include, but they do not. The term is not appropriate. It means "hidden" and applies to ancient books and letters which were about biblical topics or attributed to persons known from the bible, but which were left out of the bible. Even if Protestants intend the modern usage ("of dubious authenticity"), the term is confused with a separate corpus of literature written after Jesus. The verses herein called, "apocryphal" appear to be of more ancient origin than the final chapter of Daniel, preceding the life of Jesus, as they are present in older Dead Sea Scrolls which lack the final chapter. The correct term is "Deuterocanonical," literally meaning of the secondary (as in, disputed) canon. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by DanMarshCTR (talk o contribs) 03:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If anything is in the Septuagint Greek translation of the Bible, but is not included in the Hebrew-language text handed down by the Masoretes, then it is "apocryphal" by some definitions. In a few cases the Septuagint may contain passages which have been lost from the Hebrew text, but in the vast majority of cases it does not. Another passage in Greek Daniel, Susanna and the Elders has puns on Greek names of trees, showing it is unlikely to be derived from Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"The Apocryphia" is a very common term for the Catholic-only texts. Its only a non-nuetral POV that would say that this is a denigration. Ckruschke (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

Secondary source required for popular culture entries

@Jahaza, if you mention "Anthony Trollope's novel Miss Mackenzie" and you cite Miss Mackenzie by Trollope, Anthony, even if you link to a specific edition, that is a WP:PRIMARY source. It does not demonstrate WP:DUE coverage for your pop culture trivia. Elizium23 (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. When I cite the notes of a specific edition, it's a secondary source commenting on the novel. And it was your responsibility to look at the citation to figure that out or to otherwise AGF, not to remove my edit and template me as if I had never edited something before.

If you think the reference doesn't deserve to be in the article because it's not cited in enough secondary sources, that's a different argument all together. Jahaza (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Bar Elahin

The correct translation is son of God, not “the Son of God.” The text did not use a definite article and there is no capitalization in Aramaic. It is a Christian interpolation that is inconsistent with similar Hebrew terms used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and has no contextual foundation in the Book of Daniel. Jshorn718 (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact is that early Christians understood the term “bar elahin” to refer to angels. That explains why an angel is depicted in the Medieval artwork appearing in this article. Jshorn718 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but the text you are changing is a quotation from a book. If you want to change it, you have to rewrite the section, not change a referenced quotation to your preferred wording. Jahaza (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln told a story about a boy in a Sunday-school class who was given the task of reading a Bible verse and "stumbled on Shadrach, floundered on Mesach, and went all to pieces on Abednego", then a little later despaired because the classroom rotation would require him to read another verse with those names... AnonMoos (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That anecdote has some other details as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)