I have know idea what the following phrase refers to, so I removed it:
- compare additions to the Book of Daniel
What additions are meant here? Song of the Three Children? Susanna? Bel and the Dragon? None of these additions are prophesies, purported prophesies, or vaticinia ex eventu.
- What this anonymity refers to are the incremental additions to the Book of Daniel, added after the facts they "prophesy". One point-of-view simply being substituted anonymously for the critical reading of Daniel's text. All quite unnecessary here, anyway. --Wetman 17:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The comment about Constantine's conversion to the worship of "christus" is most certainly false. The coinage from the era following the battle with Maxentius is evidence enough of this. The date of Constantine's exact conversion is not known, but Eusebius' account should be be taken at face value. Thus, I am removing the statement regarding constantine. (unsigned)
- C.H.V. Sutherland, The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. VI (London: Spink and Son), the coinage suggests a movement towards a devotion to Sol, not Christ. Remember...Eusebius was, first and foremost, a bishop, not a historian. His allegiance lay with the church, not with historical reality.MedievalScholar 05:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Were the quindecemviri sacris faciundis unich's as well?
I was just curious, seeing as i'm looking into their connection with Canon Law
Sibylline Books vs. Sibylline Oracles
There is currently an unfortunate contradiction in the text of this article, viz.: The second paragraph warns that the Books and the Oracles should not be confused, then the third paragraph (with the blockquote) proceeds to confuse them. It should be excised & incorporated into the "Sibylline Oracles" article. Adamgarrigus (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Burning of the Temple of Apollo
Other research I've done indicates that the Temple of Apollo Palatinus was burned/destroyed in 363. If so, how can the Books still be there? Were they moved somewhere else or was the temple restored? Draperjc (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- It sounds like a very good question, but I fear for us editors to try to answer it would require "going out on a limb", AKA Original research, which is discouraged on wikipedia projects -- unless you can find a published source that mentions anything about the Books in relation to a destruction of 363. (I presume you mean AD?) If it's not published, I believe there is only one Wikimedia project that does allow and encourage O.R., so maybe you could try to solve it there: (I haven't even visited there in over a year, so don't know what they really do much, but you could try it, here:) v:... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
363: Julian the Apostate
In the edition of Ammianus Marcellinus I have before me (Loeb Classical Library, trans. John C. Rolfe) it says "the Sibylline books had been consulted about this war, as he [Julian] had ordered, and had given the definite replay that the emperor must not that year leave his frontiers". This is in contradiction to the quote in the article, that does not reference a specific edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)