Talk:Leucippe and Clitophon

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leucippe and Clitophon. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051026153205/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/0020.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/0020.html

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

Y 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) 18:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'according to whom': here's a source

YouTube video: Yale course on New testament, Lecture 20, 'The anti-household Paul: Thecla', Chapter 1, by Professor Dale Martin 50.220.95.38 (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious comments in dating discussion

The paragraph beginning with "The problem with this otherwise conclusive theory is the much earlier date of the papyri of A.T." is factually inaccurate. In the same section, the papyri in question are shown to be later than the mentioned event, not "much earlier." 2603:9001:6D00:53C6:31FD:D76D:D124:D0E0 (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually cited two papyrological experts: Cavallo and Del Corso, who both date it to the early second century. Also see Heinrich's paper, who concurs with Cavallo's date. To quote again from Del Corso's paper: "Similar considerations can also be proposed for P.Oxy. LVI 3836 ... The analogy with the aforementioned P.Phil. 1 ... allows us to also attribute this papyrus to the first quarter of II century CE". Of course there are striking similarities between the two stories, but the dating of the papyri does not appear to be in dispute: it was first half, not second half, of the 2nd century. Chasharpur (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The date of the Bucoli rebellion is established by Papyrus Thmouis 1, and by other historical sources, as cited in the article. The revolt started in 167/8 CE (Blouin 2010, p.392) and ended in 171/2 CE (Blouin 2010, p.402). Since the author of the comment seems to agree with the dating of P.Oxy 3836 to the early second century, ca. 120 CE, he/she would have to overturn this historical evidence, but cites no sources in support. Chasharpur (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]