Talk:Aaron
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Aaron was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: January 12, 2008 |
 |
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain. |
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Inconsistent numbering styles
Regarding citations of biblical sources, most sections use Book Name 0-9:0-9 type but in the Death of Aaron in rabbinic literature section Roman numerals are used. I'd do the cleanup myself but dont trust my reading of Roman numerals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.4.250 (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What about Christian sources?
Except for the Qur’an reference, this article seems somewhat exclusively Jewish. Wouldn't it improve if some Christian sources were added, since Aaron is an important character for this religion too? Rosivaldo 14:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Like what? The cannononical christian sources concerning Aaron pretty much adds up to the "Old Testament" which is effectivly equal to the Jewish sources as far as Jewish characters are concerned. Not totally dismissing you here, just want to know what christian sources might have to do with it? SF2K1
- For instance, Britannica 2004 refers very briefly to The Letter to the Hebrews and to some Church Fathers. This Wikipedia article is significantly more detailed than its Britannica counterpart, but limits its extra-biblical sources to the Jewish ones. Maybe some details drawn from Christian and Muslim sources could enrich even more this article. Rosivaldo 14:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Changes
I deleted the second section of the article, after the section break, because most of it was redundant with the first section of the article, and the first section seemed to be better written. If anyone would like to integrate the valid information in both the sections, please do so.
I removed the reference to Hank Aaron because he's seldom referred to by his last name alone.
The vaguely described source - an unnamed, very old encyclopedia distributed by an organization that provides free copies of public domain books - is the Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia, distributed by Project Gutenberg. Strangely, the encyclopedia actually is unnamed due to trademark issues, and is referred to within Project Gutenberg simply as the Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia. It was written in 1911, so the information in the article could probably stand to be updated by a modern Bible scholar. --AaronW 06:08, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Aaron article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Aaron}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Name of God
I noticed that someone had actually written in the name of God, which is ineffable in Judaism also should not be written in English characters. Since this article is about one of the more important Biblical figures in the Jewish religion, it is insulting to flout an important Jewish tradition so flagrantly. I assume this was an accident and have changed it.
- I guess I could only think "ha ha ha ha ha" about this. I am still young to care about a right way to """solve""" this meta-enciclopedia rules you suggest. But of course here is some idea: learning by the book is good, mainly if you are a good boy kind of boy, but you can't say the other books should follow your own book writting rules. Would like to see what already made debates have been held on wikipedia about this.
- Maybe you should have another version of the article that follows modern jew writting principles and clean ideas. Don't know if it could be "ethically" be hosted as enciclopedic here but this kind of distinction is widespread in the christian themed articles. Pablo2garcia 23:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] JEDP and NPOV
- Thanks for the heads up. I have made some improvements of wording, fixed some misspellings, and added a single sentence that provides an NPOV reference to JEDP in order to clarify what it means to find a clue in documentary analysis here, which is provided by my source A Standard Bible Dictionary. The four bullet points themselves are without references to JEDP. Feel free to make an edit to improve upon my improvements, but I do think that a (NPOV) reference to JEDP makes the section hang together and adds value to the article. --Peter Kirby 08:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- Cool. Like I said, you got some great info there, I just wonder about two things:
- Why do you referance Ezekiel as a source as opposed to D, Deuteronomist?--SF2K1
- The text was originally cut and paste from a public domain (pre-1922) Bible dictionary. Ezekiel is mentioned in the list because it evidences a strong interest in priestly matters, but Aaron is not mentioned; rather, Zadok is the name attached to the priestly line. This stands in distinction to a statement in Numbers saying that only the descendants of Aaron can be priests (Hebrew 17:5, English 16:40). I have now separated out Deuteronomist as a source. --Peter Kirby 21:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- I do not think that Aaron was entirely mutinous in the first view (especially when it says he supported Moses in war). The creation of the golden calf was made under duress due to the situation and additional traditional info (also on the page). Further, Numbers 12 where Miriam and Aaron criticised Moses can be considered some minor harassement, but I don't think it's quite mutinous. Korach seems to be the only notable mutinous person against Moses (Numbers 16).--SF2K1
- Agreed. --Peter Kirby 21:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Brotherhood
Anyone have any views on the theory that Moses and Aaron were not actual fraternal brothers, but actually just both Levites. The evidence from Richard Elliott Friedman is that only in the P source are they mentioned as brothers - which would enhance Aaron for the P version. In E, Aaron is rather identified as "your Levite brother." Referring to "Levite" makes no sense if they are actual siblings. Julianonions
- Julian: My personal take would be that it's quite impossible to tell what they "actually" were - all we can say with certainty is that P says this, J (or whatever) says that. We have no other sources, and even these are not reliable. Indeed, how do we know that Aaron and Moses ever existed? Only through these sources. Or this single source, if you take the view that the DH is wrong-headed, as many on these pages do. PiCo 09:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- (Edited out a phrase which, I'm now told, has connotations in American English that it most definitely doesn't have in my, non-American, dialect thereof). PiCo 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How old was Aaron?
People have removed Aaron's date of death and his "Supercentenarian" status. Either Aaron was a real person, or he was a myth and should be treated as such. If he was a real person, he had a year of death quite as much as a year of birth, and it is inconsistent to have one and not the other as a category. Is anyone in favour of removing both categories?
Stop the either/or fallacy. Aaron could very well have been a real person and died at 83, and had his age exaggerated to fit eschatology. In any case, most scientists really don't want to debate whether Aaron lived to 123 or not. Instead, we can let you have your own "Biblical figures" category. Isn't that enough? Your pushing this issue when it's clearly already tilted in favor of religion (at the base of it, Aaron is a myth, and the Encyclopedia Britannica says as much when it postulates that Aaron was a later addition to be 'older than Moses' as an explanation for why the priesthood went to a different tribe than Moses. But surely if we're discussing proven ages in historic records, this case isn't it. At the very least, you could list Aaron as a "longevity claim." And to claim "Biblical proof" is stupid...even the Bible says "live by faith," the substantiation of things not seen. So if you can't prove it, then why claim it is proof? By the way, the Muslims say Jesus lived to 120, even though Christians believe it's 33 1/2 years. You really want to make a mess?70.89.83.190 06:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, don't be a douche. SF2K1 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I know this is old, but I feel a need to add a better response than "don't be a douche". The persona of Aaron as portrayed in the Bible may not have existed exactly as depicted, but there is genetic evidence that all members of the Kohen caste share a patrilineal common ancestor who lived several thousand years ago, which is exactly what the character of Aaron purports to be. Therefore, even he didn't do all the deeds the Bible claims, he still must have existed in some form - there is genetic evidence for that. Since the Bible is the only source we're ever likely to have on his age of death, that question is indeed moot. Robin S 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the Bible, he lived to 123 hence was a Supercentenarian. If anyone can bring a reference that this is wrong, let them do so. The comparison with evolution is absurd. There are plenty of references to bring in favour of evolution - even references that evolution is consistent with the Bible. - Runcorn 22:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that the "supercentenarian" group wants Biblical figures to be included possibly. Would you create a group called octocentenarians for the biblical figures who lived to be 800? It just needlessly complicates thing. Biblical figures were not quite normal people, which is why we have the Cat. Biblical figures. They don't need to be put into every group they sorta fit in. As for the birth/death dates. I feel that's pseudo irrelevent as the gregorian calendar is hideously innacurate (not to mention the years have shifted a few times), and anything other than the Hebrew Calendrial date (being Anno Mundi via Torah dates and biblical times to today) is not 100% accurate. That's my opinion anyway. SF2K1 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that is just a biased assumption, to think that one's dates are 100% accurate and no one else's is, is just foolish. 70.89.83.190 19:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Considering that the hebrew calendar is scientificially proven to be accurate to 1 day every 10,000 years, while the gregorian calendar is a piece of shit by anyone who bothers to look into it (but we're too lazy to change it, and instead add BS like Leap years/seconds and change dates at the will of various popes), you're still a douche. SF2K1
[edit] Question
The following was moved from the article Rasmus (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Question: We acknowledge that Cohanim are children of Aaron but how did Aaron get that gene? Where was the origin of this gene? To make the matter simpler, let us start from Abraham and not trace it any further back in time. It must have come from Abraham, to Isaac (& also Ishmael and all of his male descendents) and from Isaac to Jacob (and also his brother Esau and all of his male descendents) and from Jacob to all his 12 sons and their descendents thereafter, one of whom was Levi. From Levi to his sons and their male grand children to…Aaron continuing to present day.
During the course of history, from Exodus to present, many outsiders adopted Judaism and joined Israelites; also many true children of Israel deserted their Jewish religion. We can therefore safely conclude that millions of male population of the world, including most of the Semite race, Jews, Moslems, Christians and atheists must carry that Gene
But do they? If not, what happened? Unless you argue that suddenly a mutation took effect in Aaron, where else that gene could have come from?
Why don’t you match DNA from Cohanim to those of the Mummies of Pharaohs? I have seen several scientific documentaries in which teeth, bones and skin tissues of several Pharaohs were removed for medical purposes, scientific explorations and DNA testing.
Anybody with an answer? I will appreciate it. Add your e-mail here and I will be grateful. SE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.147.85 (talk • contribs).
- Very simple. This gene descends in the male line. It was originally widely present among the Jewish people. However, non-priests have been diluted so that few have a pure patrilinear descent from Aaron's contemporaries. - Runcorn 20:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This is in part because of the laws surrounding how a person can be a Kohen. You can only be a Kohen if your father was a Kohen. One cannot convert to being a Kohen. A Kohen cannot even marry a convert. SF2K1
I believe that Levites from some parts of the world also show characteristic genes but those from other parts do not. Does anyone have a reference on that? Runcorn 18:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV
Bible view, Qur'an rejects that Aaron was active in creatin the Calf --Striver 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a POV statement, it's a fact in the Tanakh, and this article concerns the Judaeo-Christian conception of Aaron, not the Quranic Harun for which there is a seperate article. Differences between that and Quran can be addressed under the Quran section if they need be at all present in this article. SF2K1
- In that case, lets rename this to Judaeo-Christian view of Aaron. --Striver 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Then Moses would have to be renamed Judaeo-Christian view of Moses. And also renaming every english page about the non-Islamic version of the prophets despite their clear name difference from Quranic ones. It's completely unnesicary as the name clearly denotes who is being discussed, and no one would confuse this page for being about the Muslim prophet Harun. Just look at Moses and compare with Musa SF2K1
- The name anology is not correct. Both the Arabic Bible and Arabic Qur'an use the same names. Moses is Musa in both books, and Jesus is Isa in both books. And to prove it, Musa has been renamed to Islamic view of Moses. If this article is about the Judaeo-Christian view of Aaron, then name is such. Else, let it be Aaron and not give it undue weight to either verison. If the article curently named Moses is in reality about the Judaeo-Christian view of Moses, then it also need to be renamed accordingly, just as we have Islamic view of Moses, or not give undue weight to either version and only be a introduction to all the views about him. --Striver 17:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Then Moses would have to be renamed Judaeo-Christian view of Moses. And also renaming every english page about the non-Islamic version of the prophets despite their clear name difference from Quranic ones. It's completely unnesicary as the name clearly denotes who is being discussed, and no one would confuse this page for being about the Muslim prophet Harun. Just look at Moses and compare with Musa SF2K1
- In that case, lets rename this to Judaeo-Christian view of Aaron. --Striver 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a section devoted to the Muslim view in this article. The source for knowledge of Aaron (i.e. the Torah) pre-dates the Qur'an by 1500 years; the Qur'an's revisionist view of him is interesting, and should be documented, but this article is about Aaron, not Harun. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, both the Arabic Bible and the Arabic Qur'an call that person for Harun. Harun and Aaron are not different persons, its different laguages for the same name.
- Scholarly consensus views the Quranic description of Biblical figures as a reinterpretation based on much older sources (the Tanakh). Islam may view the Quran as the received word of God which replaces all older sources; and that's fine, but it's a matter of faith. Encyclopediae are not constructed on faith, they are based on scholarly consensus and research. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Are you implying that Muslim scholars are somehow less "academical" than non-Muslim scholars? --Striver 23:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm implying nothing. I am stating exactly what I wrote above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- If we're concerned about the niceties of names, Aaron isn't the Hebrew name; it's Aharon.--Runcorn 07:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Two sections on his death
Not sure if there's a tag to recommend merging of sections, but could someone clear this up please? Robin S 22:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Refs to Book of Numbers
Do we need to have the reference [[Book of Numbers|Numbers]] so many times? Let's just have it once, then replace subsequent occurrences with '''Numbers'''.--Runcorn 22:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Christianity vs. Mormonism?
The paragraph on the Aaronic order, formerly under the heading "Aaron in Christianity", has been give its own heading, "Aaron in Mormonism". I have long understood that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a Christian church. Am I wrong? Fbarw 19:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Good Question. I am a mormon and I will attempt give you my best NPOV response. The Mormon church identifies itself as a Christian denomination. However, because of their belief in the Book of Mormon, most of the other "Christian" demonitions define the Mormon Church as NOT a "Christian" church.
However, the fact remains that Mormons believe in the Bible and believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and base their lives on his teachings as recorded in the Bible... and The Book of Mormon.
So the answer really hinges on how you define "Christian". If you define it as any group claiming to believe in Jesus Christ, then Mormonism is most certainly a Christian denomiation.
Your question can be answered in greater depth by studying "Restorationism". The central theme to which is that Christ established the "true church" and gave authority to Peter, James and John to carry it on after he left the earth. However, within a short time (100 years or so) the authority was lost as those holding it were persecuted to the point of extinction and did not have opportunity to pass the authority on. Therefore the resulting church, while containing many truthes, was no longer the true church. At least this much of Restorationism is supported by Protestants as the whole point of Protestantism is to attempt to restore the true doctrines that were clearly lost from Catholicism. Restorationism holds though that while Martin Luther and the other original Protestants were righteous and inspired men, their "Reforming" (or "Reformation") was merely the precursor to the "Restoration", in which Jesus Christ would again directly establish the one True Church personally. Accordingly the Mormon Church (i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, "LDS" Church) claims to be that church.
So here is my POV answer. Yes, Mormons are Christian, but no they are not Protestant Christians.
I would guess that the reason the section was renamed "Aaron in Mormonism" is that the information contained in that section describes doctrine that is unique to the Mormon church and not really representative of the Protestant and Catholic Churches. --Ssuede7 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV
I think the main article should represents all of the major viewpoints about Aaron. Therefor we can't say "This article is about Aaron in the Hebrew Bible." If so, we should move it to something like "Judaeo-Christian view of Aaron" like "Islamic view of Aaron". Another solution is adding other POVs to the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
The following is often an issue on Islam-related articles, thus it might also be an issue over here. On Islam-related articles, the use of the Qur'an as a source is considered inappropriate, and tantamount to violating WP:NOR. This is because I can pick up a religious scripture and interpret it any way I like.
Thus, I think that use of the Bible here as the sole source (not accompanied by a reliable source) is also inappropriate. However, I could be wrong, and the rules may be different here.Bless sins (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the sources are primary. The primary sources are good for clarification but there should be some reliable sources for verification. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Failed
This article is failed due to lack of secondary sources and incomplete coverage of Islamic viewpoint. You can use this to complete it. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dates
There needs to be a reference for the date given in the lede paragraph of about 1200 BC. I presume you mean the consensus of modern commentators on the OT, but this needs to sourced,--and, it is important enough to be discussed in the actual article with an explanation for he basis of the consensus. DGG (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] interwiki links
An edit has recently been done as follows
JAnDbot (Talk | contribs) (robot Removing: ar:هارون, tr:Harun (peygamber))
I investigated a bit and it seems that this bot will remove links if they are not reciprocated. The Arabic and Turkish articles referred to are about Aaron, but they link back to the English article Islamic view of Aaron, so the bot removed the forward links.
I reverted the edit, but the bot has done it again. What do people think about this? There is an issue of wikipedia policy here, and the author of this bot should not be allowed just to impose his ideas without consultation. Or perhaps there has been discussion of this issue? If so, could someone please direct me to it. Thanks.SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
