Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses in hellenistic literature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This result does not preclude a merge, which can be proposed on the article's talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moses in hellenistic literature

Moses in hellenistic literature (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Makes statements of a religious nature (ex. "...this was owing to the power God lent him while he received the Law"). References only books in the Bible, and not secondary sources. Alksub 23:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the whole text it quotes many historians and you are taking the quote out of context read then whole thing While the Pentateuch represents Moses as the greatest of all prophets, to whom the Lord made Himself known face to face... yet there is no attempt made to lift him above the ordinary man in his nature...but this was owing to the power God lent him while he received the Law; he died and was buried like any other mortal...Owing to the contact of the Jews with the Greeks in Alexandria, Moses was made the subject of many legends, and in many respects lifted to supernatural heights.--Java7837 13:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - it actually references some good historiographic sources that should be added to the list at main article, which I mean to do soon, then this straight up copy from the 1911 Jewish Encyclopedia can safely be deleted. Til Eulenspiegel 02:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have now merged the main historiographic bits worth salvaging; most of the rest of this is hardly modern or impartial language ("Fantastic and grotesque as these stories are..."), so I say go ahead and delete now. Til Eulenspiegel 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • CSD tagged as copyvio Corpx 06:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Jewish Encyclopedia is a PD source, see the article on it. DGG (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Aargh...Transwiki to wikisource then Corpx 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Is not POV read these quotes
  1. While the Pentateuch represents Moses as the greatest of all prophets, to whom the Lord made Himself known face to face (Deut. xxxiv. 10; comp. Num. xii. 7), and who, when descending Mount Sinai, had a halo about his head which so filled the people with awe that they could not look at him (Ex. xxxiv. 29), yet there is no attempt made to lift him above the ordinary man in his nature
  2. the views of hellenists for example Ben Sira was probably the first to compare him with the angels, the Jewish men of letters who lived in Alexandria were by no means satisfied with the idea
  3. Fantastic and grotesque as these stories are, they are scarcely inventions of Artapanus only.
  4. Long contact of the Jews of Alexandria with Egyptian men of letters in a time of syncretism, when all mythology was being submitted to a rationalizing process, naturally produced such fables.
  5. Philo also shows familiarity with these legends; he refers to the beauty of the babe Moses.
  6. The end of the great lawgiver especially was surrounded with legends.
  7. Philo says: "He was entombed not by mortal hands, but by immortal powers, so that he was not placed in the tomb of his forefathers, having obtained a peculiar memorial [i.e., grave] which no man ever saw"
  8. Later on, the belief became current that Moses did not die, but was taken up to heaven like Elijah. This seems to have been the chief content of the apocryphon entitled "Assumption of Moses," preserved only in fragmentary form
  9. No sooner was the view maintained that Moses was translated to heaven than the idea was suggested that his soul was different from that of other men.
  10. Philo also calls Moses "the mediator and reconciler of the world"


Do not misquote it actually says"While the Pentateuch represents Moses as the greatest of all prophets, to whom the Lord made Himself known face to face (Deut. xxxiv. 10; comp. Num. xii. 7), and who, when descending Mount Sinai, had a halo about his head which so filled the people with awe that they could not look at him (Ex. xxxiv. 29), yet there is no attempt made to lift him above the ordinary man in his nature. He lived for forty days and forty nights on the mount without eating and drinking (Deut. ix. 9), but this was owing to the power God lent him while he received the Law; he died and was buried like any other mortal (ib. xxxiv. 5-6). Owing to the contact of the Jews with the Greeks in Alexandria, Moses was made the subject of many legends, and in many respects lifted to supernatural heights." ....

Besides if you think it violates POV then simply edit the article--Java7837 13:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

it references many non-biblical texts only the introduction quotes from the bible only to show while the bible says moses died and other things hellenists said many things about him that conflicted with the bible

texts quoted Eusebius, "Præparatio Evangelica Philo Josephus Flavius Assumption of Moses and many other hellenistic peoples and their texts --Java7837 13:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Needs editting, but the topic is notable. --EAEB 14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation. Jewish encyclopedia should not be cut and pasted onto wikipedia. Granted there is no copy violation. but the article are near impossible to read. The references are hard to understand, and much of it is original research. JE is fine as a source, and ok of a backbone of an article - but cut and pasting does not do wikipedia any favors. After a few months sentences degrade to the point where they are ununderstandable and there is no one to ask what was meant. Jon513 14:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep'. It is not original research, because it comes from Jewish Encyclopedia. WP:OR is when the Wikipedia editors do research themselves and then publish it in an article. If it has been published elsewhere, it is never OR. The article needs a lot of cleanup, but deserves to be kept.--Carabinieri 14:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep', thoroughly cleanup, add modern sources. Mukadderat 16:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per EAEB. Needs significant rewrite and modernization, contemporary POVs and sources, the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia reflects a particular POV, etc. However, these problems can be corrected, and the material is encyclopedic. --Shirahadasha 19:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Needs a massive rewrite/cleanup, as others have said... but it can be sourced, and is certainly a noted phenomenon in traditional literature. ◄Zahakiel► 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - maybe nobody saw my comment above, but just to reiterate, since I have just merged all salvageable info in at Moses, making this redundant, why not just redirect it? Til Eulenspiegel 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You did not move a majority of the material to the Moses article you even some jewish historians beliefs under Moses in rabbinic literature which is a major error in that philo josephus flavius etc. are not considered rabbis and also their works are not considered authoritative by Jews or the Rabbis--69.153.48.188 02:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That is simply incorrect. I moved some information to the section already entitled "Moses in Jewish thought", which is 100% appropriate and had already been tagged for expansion, even. Obviously, we agree that there have historically been more streams of "Jewish thought" than the "rabbinic literature" (which is usually written much, much later) and that said "rabbinic literature" does not speak for all streams of "Jewish thought". I also moved a valuable quote to the historiography section. The rest of the material that I didn't merge is total outdated opinion / POV of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia and is of scarcely any value to a neutral and impartial encyclopedia, eg. "Fantastic and grotesque as these stories are..." There is no real need to keep mostly the same info duplicated here buried amidst so much POV and outdated language; it can become a redirect. Til Eulenspiegel 11:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems kind of late in the discussion to field a new proposal. Suggest keeping it to a straight keep/delete here since others have weighted in on those choices. If it's kept, you can always propose merging it with the Moses article. --Shirahadasha 22:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then, if you are sure I will need to start a whole new discussion to propose that the merged article be redirected. Til Eulenspiegel 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.