Talk:Joseph (Hebrew Bible)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Joseph (Hebrew Bible) is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| A | This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] The {} sign/s
One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] "Palestine?" "Israel"? or "Canaan"
Someone has "corrected" "Palestine" by substituting "Land of Israel". Does a historically correct geographical designation even matter in this context? If so isn't it "Canaan"? Since it's all legendary lore anyway, there's some relevant text in the [Book of Jubilees] that might be quoted also. --Wetman 10:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say Canaan, since no parts of Canaan had actually be conquered by Israelites yet. - Gilgamesh 11:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- In the context of the Genesis narrative, the land is already called Israel in Genesis 34:7. (The term Israel is understood to mean the entire land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel, while Canaan seems to denote only the part lying between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.) Either Israel or Canaan would be consistent with the narrative, "Palestine" is just plain out of place for Genesis. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Moving old bibliography here
Bibliography: Qur'an, sura xii., and its commentators, Baidawi,Zamakhshari,?abari, and others. D'Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale,iii. 368 et seq., Paris, 1789. A. Geiger,Was Hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume Aufgenommen? Bonn, 1833 ;Schlechta-Wssehrd,Aus Firdusi's "Yussuf und Suleicha," in Z. D. M. G. xli. G. Weil,Biblical Legends of the Mussulmans, Eng. transl., New York, 1846. G. M. W.
In addition to the literature cited above, see the commentaries of Dillmann and Gunkel on Genesis, and Driver in Hogarth, Authority and Archaeology, pp. 46-54. E. G. H. G. A. B.
Adolf Kurrein, Traum und Wahrheit, Lebensbild Josephs nach der Agada, Regensburg, 1887.S. S. M. Sel.
[edit] Question of scope
The bulk of this article deals with the rabbinical view and sources of Joseph's story. Would it be more appropriate to move this to a separate article called: "Joseph in the Rabbinical tradition"? It would probably have to be created. But this would reduce the size of the article and also move the material to a more appropriate place (although I admit the 19th century nature of the English is somewhat offputting for modern readers; I'm just editing and cleaning it up).User:FeanorStar7
[edit] Critcal View
can we get this split up? it should'nt be so lnog without even a paragraph break. it's daunting to look at for readers passing by --arctic 17:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Timeframe
The article suggests that Joseph was in Egypt circa 1600 B.C.E. However, that is not an established fact, but is only conjecture.
There are two competing arguments: an Early Exodus argument and a Late Exodus argument. There are evidences and positions on both sides that are plausible and have merit. The 1600 B.C.E. date in this article would lead a reader to conclude that the Late Exodus theory has been proven or established beyond all doubt. This is simply not the case.
It would be better to say that the range of Joseph's possible stay in Egypt could be anywhere from 1950 B.C.E. to 1600 B.C.E. Mormonchess 18:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be better to say 1950 BCE to 1350 BCE, as there is evidence for any of these dates. mikey 00:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted the section headed "Timeframe". My reason is simply that the same subject (i.e. the historicity of the Joseph narrative) is addressed at greater length in the "Critical view" section. That section is also far more scholarly - it quotes multpile sources, and and appears to give a balanced and comprehensive overview. PiCo 03:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- An editor evidently didn't like the way I handled this. So I tried to take the best material from the "Timeframe" section and blend it into the "Critical View" section, avoiding retition and keeping a coherent structure. I also renamed the section "Historicity", in keeping with the practice in othe articles on similar OT characters. Please dicuss here if you want to make more major changes - make the changes, but tell your reasons. Thanks. PiCo 05:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Hebrew Bible"?
What's a Hebrew Bible? Why is he mentioned as being in the "Hebrew Bible", whatever that is, and not in the Old Testament? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The term Hebrew Bible or the Hebrew Canon is preferable as it does not identify the covenant God made with the Jews as being "Old" as opposed to the covenant made with Christians as being "New." chazman 00:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
