User talk:FDuffy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Priestly Source 2 Image:Early-Historical-Israel-Dan-Beersheba-Judea.png 3 Achan (Bible) 4 Hannah 5 Hannah (Bible) Critical Theory 6 Comments on Wikipedia:Editor Review/Shirahadasha 7 Snow-white Miriam article 8 Undue weight 9 Pidyon HaBen 10 Cherub 11 Heave Offering 12 Book of spells of serpents

[edit] Priestly Source

As, a quick search of the article's edit history shows that you added the "accretion of material" section, I'd like to ask- do you have a citation? I think the accretion model makes sense, as the laws in P often interrupt the narrative- think of the census and case law chapters interrupting the Midianite campaign- but I have yet to see a source for it.--Rob117 01:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of the sources, and a good one to start with, is the (now public domain) Jewish Encyclopedia. In this case, it is the articles on Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, and Leviticus, particularly those on Leviticus and Numbers, which particularly mention the accretion of material section (in a very dry and formal manner). I believe there is also an article there on the Priestly Source or the Priestly Code, and the Holiness Code, but I'm not sure that they are under intuitive titles. This accretion position is backed up in more modern sources such as Friedmann (various). --User talk:FDuffy 16:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, why the change in in the identification of the Holiness Code? In the earlier edits it was only parts of the material between 17-26, whereas in the more recent edits it encompasses almost all of that material.--Rob117 02:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread my sources in the earlier edits - the holiness code itself is thought to have been built up by accretion, and I had misread the split of the holiness code into its constituent parts as being a split of which parts of leviticus are and are not the holiness code. The correct position is that most of 17-26 constitutes the holiness code, except some of the minor insertions of the "and god said..." type. --User talk:FDuffy 16:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Early-Historical-Israel-Dan-Beersheba-Judea.png

This wasn't really intended to be a full historical map in the sense which you probably have in mind -- it's a partially "achronous" map, designed to represent a reasonable scholarly guess at areas with a fairly heavy Israelite population and/or which were under a degree of systematic direct royal central administration at some time during the reign of Solomon, or the latter part of the reign of David (after his conquests). Pre-Jerusalem capitals are not really relevant, and Shechem was only included because it was the catpital of the northern kingdom in the first few years after the break-up of the united monarchy. The map was intended more to be relevant to discussions of the definition of the Biblical Land of Israel, rather than to document specific events in the lives of David and Solomon, sorry... AnonMoos 01:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Ill do it myself then. --User talk:FDuffy 17:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Achan (Bible)

Didn't you just create Achan (Bible)? FLaRN (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes? --User talk:FDuffy 19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hannah

[edit] Hannah (Bible) Critical Theory

hello. I've moved the paragraph below to the article's talk page pending sourcing. Could you please supply an actual source or sources with author(s), title, journal title if applicapble, etc. for this theory, sufficient to permit an outsider to determine how notable it is? The information provided, "See article on Saul is problematic, especially since the Saul link goes to a disambiguation page. (It's also problematic in general, please add sources directly in each article rather than linking to another article). Please see the Reliable Sources policy. In particular, could you supply sources evidencing the statement that "most" scholars believe this theory?

Though the text currently seems to describe Samuel as the child, the reason given for Hannah naming him as Samuel is considered to be quite awkward by textual scholars, particularly when Saul fits the reasoning very easily, and most see it as having originally referred to Saul (being censored by a later anti-monarchist editor)^[1]. Eli, also, has been argued to be not what he at first seems - Eli (meaning El or my El or my God) instead being considered to be El himself (either the Canaanite deity or the monotheistic God of the later Israelite religion), since Hannah prays with him nearby, at a doorpost (argued to be a symbolic pole representing the deity), he responds to her prayer, she refers to herself as Eli's handmaiden (1 Samuel 1:16) when she had only just described herself as God's handmaiden (1 Samuel 1:11), and when Eli wishes for her to have children she is straight away able to.

Thanks, --Shirahadasha 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, I looked up the source you listed in the King Saul article and it appears to be the personal web site of Rabbi Moishe Reiss, [1]

Wikipedia has some policies about the types of sources that can be used to support claims made on its encyclopedia, which normally require publications in established journals for scholarly claims. In particular, the reliable sources policy says this about the use of self-published or private web sites:

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Unfortunately it appears that this source is not considered sufficiently reliable to be usable on Wikipedia. If you have other sources to support these statements, please supply them as soon as possible. Wikipedia policy is to delete statements not supported by reliable sources. Your understanding is appreciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My main sources are the Jewish Encyclopedia, and works by Israel Finkelstein, Martin Noth, Richard Friedman, etc. I certainly don't remember using the website of a Rabbi. --User talk:FDuffy 14:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ive just looked at that Rabbi's website, and I am at a loss to see what connection it has to my contributions. Please explain. --User talk:FDuffy 14:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reason is simple. This Rabbi's website was the source cited in the article. These other sources were not cited. "The Jewish Encyclopedia" is too unspecific a source, need to cite a specific article -- enough information to permit a reviewer to check. Also, the Jewish Encycloedia, published before 1906, isn't a reliable source for what "many" or "most" scholars believe (in the present tense). Best, --Shirahadasha 06:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I posted the following comments on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Judaism, feel free to reply there.

I agree that this discussion suggests that there is some support for the Samuel-substituted-for-Saul theory. A remaining difficulty is that both the Jewish Encyclopedia and the New American Bible sources seem to use very tentative language, presenting the idea as something of a possibility or a speculative hypothesis, and don't provide a clear idea of how widely the view is held. This language doesn't seem to be consistent with the definite, even emphatic way that the idea is presented in the proposed content. It also doesn't seem to be consistent with statements that this is the view of "many" or "most" contemporary critical scholars. I also agree that terms like "textual scholars" may be unclear and suggest that the views of academic biblical critical scholars should be labeled more clearly, just as the views of rabbinical or Christian religious scholars are clearly labeled as such. Finally, it is often appropriate to separate religious and academic views of these subjects into separate sections, just as (for example) the Jewish Encyclopedia often does. I want to stress that the issue is not the inclusion of the views of Biblical Criticism as such, but issues such as the citing of sources, whether statements go further than can be supported by the sources cited, whether a hypothesis or speculation is presented as definitive, a minority view as a majority or principle view, etc. These are all nuts-and-bolts issues of ensuring that an encyclopedia provides appropriate coverage to the range of views held. Wikipedia is vulnerable to having an editor's favorite theory or own Original Research given undue weight or presented as fact. The content contained elements such as unclarity of sourcing, emphatic statements, statements like "most" scholars, etc. which are often clues that these sorts of problems may be present. More explicit sourcing including the use of standard sourcing formats, and more modest and measured statements about definiteness and evidentiary support, are usually best, and could prevent these sorts of difficulties.

Best,--Shirahadasha 03:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You have repeatedly indicated that a variety of other sources exist. If so, please cite them using a generally-accepted citation format. Dropping names is insufficient to permit verification, you need to cite specific journal articles using journal name, article title, date of publication, and page number. If you are familiar with a scientific point of view, you will doubtless understand the need for verification and for citing works in a form that can be verified. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 04:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed your Jewish Encyclopedia quote, and it simply doesn't check out. I've posted the following on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Judaism

User:FDuffy claims that the Jewish Encyclopedia supports his position and brings a quote from it as evidence. The problem with this argument is that the Jewish Encyclopedia quote plainly opposed FDuffy's position. It plainly and clearly states that it is interpreting Samuel as representing "asked of" God -- Saul -that is untenable. The Jewish Encyclopedia not only provides no support for FDuffy's position, it strongly and emphatically opposes it. Here is the qoute again:

The name "Shemu'el" is interpreted "asked of Yhwh," and, as Ḳimḥi suggests, represents a contraction of , an opinion which Ewald is inclined to accept ("Lehrbuch der Hebräischen Sprache," p. 275, 3). But it is not tenable. The story of Samuel's birth, indeed, is worked out on the theory of this construction of the name (i. 1 et seq., 17, 20, 27, 28; ii. 20). But even with this etymology the value of the elements would be "priest of El" (Jastrow, in "Jour. Bib. Lit." xix. 92 et seq.). Ch. iii. supports the theory that the name implies "heard by El" or "hearer of El." The fact that "alef" and "'ayin" are confounded in this interpretation does not constitute an objection; for assonance and not etymology is the decisive factor in the Biblical name-legends, and of this class are both the first and the second chapter. The first of the two elements represents the Hebrew term "shem" (= "name"); but in this connection it as often means "son." "Shemu'el," or "Samuel," thus signifies "son of God" (see Jastrow, l.c.).

FDuffy's whole argument rests on an assumption that Hannah's answer must represent the etymology of Samuel's name, only if one believes this could an anomaly be perceived. The Jewish Encyclopedia takes the contrary position, stating that a purely etomological interpretation is "untenable." The sources FDuffy supplies simply do not check out in a very basic way. These claims should be removed. Best --Shirahadasha 14:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Wikipedia:Editor Review/Shirahadasha

You're welcome to post a review in the same place as the other reviews. The questions are standard ones that WP provides. Transfered additions to that sections to User Talk:Shirahadasha. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snow-white Miriam article

There's currently a discussion going on in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow-white Miriam about whether to delete this article. You might want to present your views there. Best,--Shirahadasha 01:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight

I believe you're putting undue weight on the work of Finkelstein over some sensitive issues, and I ask you to please be more careful with that. Thank you. Amoruso 00:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein is one of the main biblical archaeologists. He is generally acknowledged as the leading and most knowledgable biblical archaeologist, and his views are well regarded by the archaeological community. His position is that of the mainstream, and the views he presents are generally acknowledged to be the mainstream view. His recent book on biblical archaeology is generally regarded as a primer for the subject, and a core text, and so I don't see how he can count as undue weight. --User talk:FDuffy 07:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Simple. He's in a very minor minority representing the post-biblical outlook , in his words NEW VISION, and it shouldn't be written as fact. Finkelstein considers the Bible seriously distorted propaganda and that's something very controversial shouldn't been given more than one footnote/comment and attributed only to him... Amoruso 12:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein is very much the majority view, you should read Biblical Archaeology Review (the series not the article).--User talk:FDuffy 16:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pidyon HaBen

I rearranged this article leaving your Biblical Criticism section intact, but with the article beginning with a description of current practice and describing biblical origins later with both a traditional interpretation and biblical-criticism perspective on the biblical narrative. I restored all the content on the ritual-law aspects as it was. I am not happy that you simply erased the traditional interpretation and replaced sections of the discussion of the Jewish-law issues with your own input from the Jewish encyclopedia. Quite frankly, Jewish law has developed somewhat in the century since the Jewish Encyclopedia came out in circa 1900, and I would urge you not to attempt to revise content about matters of contemporary Jewish law, practice, and interpretation based on a source like a Jewish Encyclopedia article. One of the areas of contemporary nuance is the role of women in the Pidyon HaBen ceremony. You erased the paragraph on it. Female Kohanim, although not eligible to function in the Kohen role in Temple sacrifices, retain some lineal sanctity and it is a topic of hot contemporary debate -- one I imagine would be utterly foreign to you -- what their contemporary role should be. In addition to rights to various tithes and sacrificial parts, there is a cryptic passage in the Talmud suggesting that they have a right to receive Pidyon HaBen monies. The passage was ignored by Jews for hundreds of years, including when the Jewish Encyclopedia was written. It is a topic of hot debate today. The debate has nothing to do with anything written in the Hebrew Bible.

You are welcome to add a section with Biblical criticism perspectives, but this is an article on a contemporary Jewish practice and contemporary Jewish thought about that practice, including the belief (right or wrong) that the practice originates with the Bible. Please do not apply your viewpoint in a way that runs roughshod over the article's primary purpose. Thank you. --Shirahadasha 01:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cherub

The first chapter of Ezekiel never uses the word Cherub or Cherubim, although Chapter 10 does. Some commentators regard the angels appearing in Chapter 1 as Cherubim, although some don't. Contemporary Jewish liturgy refers to the various angels involved in a way that follows Maimonides' Jewish Angelarchy and regards the "living creatures" as Chayot, a different kind of angel. Since the creatures who appear in Chapter 1 aren't described as "Cherubim", either we can simply use the reference from Chapter 10 for illustration or we'll need to source whose interpretation is involved and point out that others disagree. Here again the Jewish Encyclopedia is taking a position, one that isn't universal. Its viewpoint has to be attributed and can't be presented as fact.

Please respond on Talk:Cherub#Book of Ezekiel. Thanks. --Shirahadasha 02:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heave Offering

I see that in the Heave offering article you copied information from the Jewish Encyclopedia in a way that simply erased prior information about contempoary practice. Once again there has been a revolution in contemporary practice since the Jewish Encyclopedia was written. In this case the rise of Zionism and the return of large numbers of Jews to the land of Israel brought about a revolution in Jewish practice as rabbis researched and publicized the previously theoretical and obscure topic of contemporary Orthodox Jews' current obligations under the various biblical tithes and offerings concerning produce from the land of Israel. As this website [2] indicates, these tithes remain current obligations of Orthodox Jews but are discharged in a way that has evolved substantially since their Biblical origins. (Among other things the heave element has dissappeared in everything but thePidyon HaBen, and even there it is a custom rather than a requirement in the absence of a Temple.) When editing articles about contemporary Jewish practices with roots in the Bible, you are welcome to add critical perspectives about these practices' Biblical references, but PLEASE do not simply erase information about contemporary practices and convert these articles into articles solely about the Biblical Critical view of what was done in Biblical times. That is not the focus of these articles. Now that I've warned you multiple times, if you continue to do this I will regard it as WP:Vandalism and take the matter to WP:Arbitration. Thank you --Shirahadasha 00:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book of spells of serpents

This article is up for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book of spells of serpents. Since you edited the article and your userpage says you study theology, can you weigh in? It's being called out as a hoax, and I'm having trouble finding anything online that supports the fact that this particular piece of apocrypha does, in fact, exist. That doesn't mean it does not however, there are stranger things in history, certainly. So your input is valued. Cheers. Dina 23:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)