Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:56, 16 June 2006

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Link suggestions

An automated Misplaced Pages 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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

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 — Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)