Talk:Daniel in rabbinic literature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Judaism (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Isaiah 39;7

7 And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, whom thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be officers in the palace of the king of Babylon.'

"Officer" is not the same as "Eunoch," and the Rabbinical tradition is in fact wrong, because the ancient Babylonians only castrated harem guards, and sometimes slaves as a form of punishment. Just thought I'd point that out. (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)stardingo747

I wasn't in Babylon at the time, but I note that the Rabbinic literature appears simply to be repeating what it says in the first few lines of the Book of Daniel:The master of the eunuchs was given charge over some of the children of Israel, some of the king's descendants, and some of the children of nobles. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC))

Significant rewrite needed[edit]

This page mostly retells the stories, without any commentary explaining how they differ from that found in Book of Daniel or what the role of the rabbinic tradition is. Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The point, I think, is merely to catalogue what additional inferences/expansions/elaborations are found in the early rabbinical works. So pretty much everything on the page should be taken to be additional to the Book of Daniel. I've added an opening lead sentence to this effect.
Sometimes it's connecting the story with something else to make what they thought was an interesting comment or explanation on some aspect of the story; sometimes it's simply amplification.
The point really is just to bring together what early references there are, because they may be quite scattered; and to give an idea of what sort of things those early rabbis were inspired to write. That's I think as much as the article is setting out to do (or perhaps rather, it's as much as this bit of the article in the respected 1906 Jewish Encylopedia was setting out to do), so in my view once seen from that perspective the cleanup tag is unwarranted, and could be removed. Jheald (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)