From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1

Muslim rant[edit]

A large part of this article is a sham, defamatory in nature to the person on whom the article is written. Such untrue allegations, against an honoured person, is unacceptable and out of place here. Irrespective of which highly edited books have such grave untrue stories, such character assassination of one of our revered prophets is intolerable, to me and to fellow Muslims. I am removing the objectionable story-telling from the article. Atif.hussain (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We present what can be sourced. In this case a look in the primary source suffices (hence bible verse references should be given). What you find intolerable is no concern of this encyclopedia. · CUSH · 09:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That said, it is notable that a lot of the content here is stated as fact even though it is taken from old books of dubious origin, and that there may be other (equally dubious) old books that say different things. An example is the story of Jacob's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Especially problematic, in my view, are the etymologies of biblical names offered here. They certainly cannot have the same status as linguistic discussions elsewhere in the encyclopedia, say in an article on Grimm's Law. It is regrettable that these are simply sited as facts. The heel grabbing story could also be an ex post facto attempt to explain the name Jacob, a folk etymology to explain a non-Hebrew name to a Hebrew audience. The claim that "onlookers" created the name is unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Talmud is no valid reliable source for biblical tales[edit]

The various Talmuds are later interpretations of biblical material. It is a secondary source that features no whatsoever presentation of verifyable evidence. Therefore it is impermissible as a reliable source. In addition to that it should be noted that the tales out of Genesis do not only have significance in Judaism but in its offshoots such as Christianity and Islam as well. If Talmudic material should be worked into the article, it must be done so in a separate section. · CUSH · 09:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)\

--are you a Karaite? --Teacherbrock (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it a valid source for Talmudic tales? Just askin'. Rwflammang (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Jacob's sons vis-a-vis the tribes of Israel[edit]

The article states that the 12 tribes of Israel are named after Jacob's 12 sons, which is not entirely correct. First of all, there are really 13 tribes of Israel (It is common to refer to "The 12 Tribes" due to the fact that the tribe of Levi was separate and distinct from the others and did not receive a land allotment in Canaan.) Of those 13 tribes, 2 of them (Manasseh & Ephraim) are actually Jacob's grandsons. (And N.B. there is no tribe of Joseph.) Strictly speaking, Jacob essentially adopted Manasseh and Ephraim as his own and accounted them as his sons, but the article--as written--still lacks accuracy. (Note, too, the correct handling of the subject in the article on the Israelites

Will revise, while trying to maintain succinctness. Jpmacd (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Old Testament characters[edit]

Abraham - Amenemhet I

Jacob - Yakubher

Moses - Thuthmose III

David - Psusennes I

Solomon - Siamun

WillBildUnion (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

See the original research guidelines and the reliable source guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Im aware of the guidelines, this is not original research, and it's on talk page so it should not be problem. The hyksos were hebrews and hebrews rose in power in Egypt. This is not original research. All this can be backed up by university sources, but at this point I only leave this to the talk page.WillBildUnion (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Putting it on the talk page does not make it "not original research." Provide those sources with proper citations, or else it remains in the realm of original research. Also, the identification between the Hebrews and the Hyksos is not universally accepted among scholars. At most, you would be able to put "John Smith in This is my book on history, believes that..." Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Behavoral Character[edit]

It is an embellishment to say Dinah was kidnapped, and also to say raped. There is nothing to prove this other than the desire to justify the slaughter of which Jacob does NOT justify it. Further, Judah was born when Nimrod the founder of Babel died at 500 (2256am) 600 years after the Flood, thus Jacob finally blessed Judah as Shiloh (The Christ), but before Joseph was thought to be dead, Jacob had changed his mind for 17 years because like Sarah and Isaac this Joseph was his firstborn son of the first legal wife by promise though married 7 days after the older sister for another 7 years work. As such the coat is significant as christ-king when the fact comes forth that Hamurabi of Babylon had died (1750bc). Jacob had fled Syria in 1761bc when he heard his distant relatives of Mari had been dragged off in 1763bc to Babylon, and the city destroyed in 1762bc. Lastly, blessings were given at 137 years for two reasons, one 137 Julian = 139x 360 days, and two Ishmael revealed longevity was still decreasing by dying at that age, so Isaac blessed at 137 when his sons were 77, as his father Abram had also lost Sarah (127) when he was 137. So Jacob blessed his sons 10 years before he died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

'Plain' man?[edit]

I've just reverted an edit about a description of Jacob in the King James as a 'plain man' meaning perfect, as it was unsourced and only showed one side of what seems to be a disagreement among translators. See [1] for instance. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


The recently added 'Origins' section connects the Genesis story with older Israelite folk-legend. As I am not aware of any ancient Israelite text predating the Thorah, especially one mentioning names like Jacob, Esau and Laban, I'm very curious to where this story is found. I have no access to the provided reference ('Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible'), so maybe someone who does can clarify this? I suppose mentioning the archaeological source for this specific folk-legend would be quite notable for inclusion in the article. Lindert (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the source. The page number given does not even mention Jacob. MCSKY (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that information. The page number must be a mistake then. On Google Books I have found the Dictionary's entries for Jacob and Esau.
I quote here the relevant parts on which the section is apparently based:
Jacob, p. 460:

"In the astro-mythological interpretation, popular by the end of the 19th century, Jacob is said to represent the nocturnal sky, catching the heel ('aqeb) of his predecessor, the Sun. In his capacity as the nightly sky, Jacob has to engage in a vigorous fight against ->Esau, the Red and ->Laban, the White. They are manifestations of the Sun in the morning and in the evening (Goldzieher 1876). Meyer though that these sagas of rivalry reflected ancient mythology adducing the myth of Samemroumos and Ousoos in support of this view (...) Israelite tradition however transformed the mythological figures into genealogical heroes. In his opinion this hero (or deity) Jacob would have been home in Transjordan..."

Esau, p. 306:

"Early critical scholarship surmised behing the saga of Jacob and Esau a mythological tale of twin rivalry (...) Frequent reference has also been made to the culture myth of Samemroumos and Ousoos as narrated by Philo of Byblos."

Reading this, I find several things wrong with the current version:
"In older Israelite folk-legend Jacob represented the night sky, catching the heel of his twin and predecessor, the Sun ..."
As can be deduced from the source above, the view that Jacob and Esau's story was based on ancient mythology is based on speculation, not actual archaeological evidence of such 'older Israelite folk-tale'. Note that the writings of Philo of Byblos date to the second century CE, although allegedly based on older Phoenician legend.
Furthermore it is a view held by 'early critical scholarship', in particular 'the astro-mythological interpretation, popular by the end of the 19th century'. The source does not state or imply that this view is maintained by modern scholars.
Finally, the notion that (this particular story of) Genesis was written in the 5th century is far from established, as there is currently no concensus about the date and authorship of (various parts of) the Torah.
-- In conclusion, noting that this is a speculative viewpoint popular in the late 1800s, I doubt it is notable for inclusion and at the very least it should be properly attributed and more accurately represent the source. Lindert (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: I reworded the paragraph. I won't remove it, but I personally don't think it contains much valuable info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindert (talkcontribs) 14:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed the text. Couldn't find any other sources referring to this interpretation, a brief allusion in a dictionary entry does not appear to warrant inclusion in the page. MCSKY (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Biblical longevity template[edit]

This template ought to be deleted outright. It is not of encyclopedic value and is pure trivia. Why is it features so prominently here? Why is it here at all? Why not a template listing Biblical figures by the number of times they are mentioned in the Bible, the number of spouses or children they had, or simply by alphabetical order? The template is WP:UNDUE. Please remove it.Griswaldo (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You have deleted this from both Moses and Jacob with the same talk comment and not taken my hint to centralize discussion at the ongoing mediation. Because this issue is relevant to some 80 articles, please continue there. JJB 05:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
That's not a rationale for keeping the template on this page. We are discussing the content of this page, here on the talk page related to that content. Please explain why it should be included here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:MULTI, please centralize discussion as above. This template and its sister appear in 82 articles. JJB 05:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you please list the articles and provide a link to the main template page? I do not know how to find it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The articles are those listed on the templates and the additional ones at that mediation discussion you haven't commented on, to which IMJ is now also inviting you. The template is Template:Biblical longevity (to keep it nondescript I did not use the v-d-e links). I note that your argument has no direct applicability to Jacob, being a carbon-copy of the Moses request. The question is whether comparison of Jacob's age to other Biblical figures is encyclopedic. Sure enough, the question of Esau's age and the conclusion that he reached the same age 147 as Jacob are given in the Talmud. Even the primary source, Genesis, has Jacob inviting this comparison by saying his age (then 130) did not attain to that of his fathers (Isaac 180, Abraham 175, Terah 205). The list of ages of the Biblical patriarchs appears in too many sources for it to be worthwhile to cull out the most reliable ones. If you'd prefer to move down or hide the template, that would be a more reasonable solution to your concerns as stated. JJB 15:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

In-universe tag removed[edit]

Just dropped by, saw the "in-universe" tag on this article, and removed it. The tag was placed by an IP editor, and struck me as inappropriate. If anybody would like to discuss the issue, please respond here. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There should be at least a brief mention that most modern Biblical scholars do not believe that these stories have any historicity.[edit]

I feel that it is wrong that articles like this just re-tell stories from the Bible as if they were true when Biblical scholarship has for many years questioned the historicity of the narratives of the Patriarchs and now there are very few Biblical scholars who would accept that there ever was such a person as Jacob or that any of these stories have historical value, see There really needs to be at least one sentence along the lines of "Many Biblical scholars doubt that these stories reflect any actual persons or happenings" or something like that as otherwise it is giving the impression that these lengthy stories in the article are true when it is much more likely that they are inventions of a much later era than the one they are supposedly writing about.Smeat75 (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right that many scholars doubt the historicity of the patriarchs. Wikipedia's policy is to be bold, so just go ahead and edit the article. -- Lindert (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your right, nothing in the Bible actually happened. It is, however, one of the most attested books of history. Portillo (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Year of birth / death / etc?[edit]

Various individuals (e.g. Usher) have made calculations as to the year of birth / death / etc. of this individual based on the source text and correlating known dates that are also recorded. These dates should be inserted in the article somewhere. The same goes for articles of other related characters. It would be interesting to show how they arrived at the date as well, if that information is well-known or documented. 16:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Old discussion. tahc chat 20:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Eponymous and NPOV "ancestor"[edit]

Removal was seems to have been a mistake, many sources call him eponymous. Took seconds to find some. And Wikipedia can't call him the ancestor of the Israelites as though it were a fact. Isn't that obvious? Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. If anyone needs them, [2], [3], [4] Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)