Talk:Aaron/Archive 1

Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Aaron article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add to this page. &mdash; LinkBot 00:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

JEDP and NPOV

 * Thanks for the heads up. I have made some improvements of wording, fixed some misspellings, and added a single sentence that provides an NPOV reference to JEDP in order to clarify what it means to find a clue in documentary analysis here, which is provided by my source A Standard Bible Dictionary.  The four bullet points themselves are without references to JEDP.  Feel free to make an edit to improve upon my improvements, but I do think that a (NPOV) reference to JEDP makes the section hang together and adds value to the article. --Peter Kirby 08:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool. Like I said, you got some great info there, I just wonder about two things:


 * Why do you referance Ezekiel as a source as opposed to D, Deuteronomist?--SF2K1
 * The text was originally cut and paste from a public domain (pre-1922) Bible dictionary. Ezekiel is mentioned in the list because it evidences a strong interest in priestly matters, but Aaron is not mentioned; rather, Zadok is the name attached to the priestly line.  This stands in distinction to a statement in Numbers saying that only the descendants of Aaron can be priests (Hebrew 17:5, English 16:40). I have now separated out Deuteronomist as a source. --Peter Kirby 21:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not think that Aaron was entirely mutinous in the first view (especially when it says he supported Moses in war). The creation of the golden calf was made under duress due to the situation and additional traditional info (also on the page). Further, Numbers 12 where Miriam and Aaron criticised Moses can be considered some minor harassement, but I don't think it's quite mutinous. Korach seems to be the only notable mutinous person against Moses (Numbers 16).--SF2K1
 * Agreed. --Peter Kirby 21:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

What about Christian sources?
Except for the Qur’an reference, this article seems somewhat exclusively Jewish. Wouldn't it improve if some Christian sources were added, since Aaron is an important character for this religion too? Rosivaldo 14:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Like what? The cannononical christian sources concerning Aaron pretty much adds up to the "Old Testament" which is effectivly equal to the Jewish sources as far as Jewish characters are concerned. Not totally dismissing you here, just want to know what christian sources might have to do with it? SF2K1
 * For instance, Britannica 2004 refers very briefly to The Letter to the Hebrews and to some Church Fathers. This Wikipedia article is significantly more detailed than its Britannica counterpart, but limits its extra-biblical sources to the Jewish ones. Maybe some details drawn from Christian and Muslim sources could enrich even more this article. Rosivaldo 14:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Brotherhood
Anyone have any views on the theory that Moses and Aaron were not actual fraternal brothers, but actually just both Levites. The evidence from Richard Elliott Friedman is that only in the P source are they mentioned as brothers - which would enhance Aaron for the P version. In E, Aaron is rather identified as "your Levite brother." Referring to "Levite" makes no sense if they are actual siblings. Julianonions


 * Julian: My personal take would be that it's quite impossible to tell what they "actually" were - all we can say with certainty is that P says this, J (or whatever) says that. We have no other sources, and even these are not reliable. Indeed, how do we know that Aaron and Moses ever existed? Only through these sources. Or this single source, if you take the view that the DH is wrong-headed, as many on these pages do. PiCo 09:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (Edited out a phrase which, I'm now told, has connotations in American English that it most definitely doesn't have in my, non-American, dialect thereof). PiCo 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Question
The following was moved from the article Rasmus (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Question: We acknowledge that Cohanim are children of Aaron but how did Aaron get that gene? Where was the origin of this gene? To make the matter simpler, let us start from Abraham and not trace it any further back in time. It must have come from Abraham, to Isaac (& also Ishmael and all of his male descendents) and from Isaac to Jacob (and also his brother Esau and all of his male descendents) and from Jacob to all his 12 sons and their descendents thereafter, one of whom was Levi. From Levi to his sons and their male grand children to…Aaron continuing to present day.

During the course of history, from Exodus to present, many outsiders adopted Judaism and joined Israelites; also many true children of Israel deserted their Jewish religion. We can therefore safely conclude that millions of male population of the world, including most of the Semite race, Jews, Moslems, Christians and atheists must carry that Gene

But do they? If not, what happened? Unless you argue that suddenly a mutation took effect in Aaron, where else that gene could have come from?

Why don’t you match DNA from Cohanim to those of the Mummies of Pharaohs? I have seen several scientific documentaries in which teeth, bones and skin tissues of several Pharaohs were removed for medical purposes, scientific explorations and DNA testing.

Anybody with an answer? I will appreciate it. Add your e-mail here and I will be grateful. SE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.147.85 (talk • contribs).


 * Very simple. This gene descends in the male line.  It was originally widely present among the Jewish people.  However, non-priests have been diluted so that few have a pure patrilinear descent from Aaron's contemporaries. - Runcorn 20:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This is in part because of the laws surrounding how a person can be a Kohen. You can only be a Kohen if your father was a Kohen. One cannot convert to being a Kohen. A Kohen cannot even marry a convert. SF2K1

I believe that Levites from some parts of the world also show characteristic genes but those from other parts do not. Does anyone have a reference on that? Runcorn 18:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Refs to Book of Numbers
Do we need to have the reference Numbers so many times? Let's just have it once, then replace subsequent occurrences with Numbers .--Runcorn 22:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Christianity vs. Mormonism?
The paragraph on the Aaronic order, formerly under the heading "Aaron in Christianity", has been give its own heading, "Aaron in Mormonism". I have long understood that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a Christian church. Am I wrong? Fbarw 19:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Question. I am a mormon and I will attempt give you my best NPOV response. The Mormon church identifies itself as a Christian denomination. However, because of their belief in the Book of Mormon, most of the other "Christian" demonitions define the Mormon Church as NOT a "Christian" church.

However, the fact remains that Mormons believe in the Bible and believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and base their lives on his teachings as recorded in the Bible... and The Book of Mormon.

So the answer really hinges on how you define "Christian". If you define it as any group claiming to believe in Jesus Christ, then Mormonism is most certainly a Christian denomiation.

Your question can be answered in greater depth by studying "Restorationism". The central theme to which is that Christ established the "true church" and gave authority to Peter, James and John to carry it on after he left the earth. However, within a short time (100 years or so) the authority was lost as those holding it were persecuted to the point of extinction and did not have opportunity to pass the authority on. Therefore the resulting church, while containing many truthes, was no longer the true church. At least this much of Restorationism is supported by Protestants as the whole point of Protestantism is to attempt to restore the true doctrines that were clearly lost from Catholicism. Restorationism holds though that while Martin Luther and the other original Protestants were righteous and inspired men, their "Reforming" (or "Reformation") was merely the precursor to the "Restoration", in which Jesus Christ would again directly establish the one True Church personally. Accordingly the Mormon Church (i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, "LDS" Church) claims to be that church.

So here is my POV answer. Yes, Mormons are Christian, but no they are not Protestant Christians.

I would guess that the reason the section was renamed "Aaron in Mormonism" is that the information contained in that section describes doctrine that is unique to the Mormon church and not really representative of the Protestant and Catholic Churches. --Ssuede7 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

POV
I think the main article should represents all of the major viewpoints about Aaron. Therefor we can't say "This article is about Aaron in the Hebrew Bible." If so, we should move it to something like "Judaeo-Christian view of Aaron" like "Islamic view of Aaron". Another solution is adding other POVs to the article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem has solved.-- Seyyed(t-c) 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dates
There needs to be a reference for the date given in the lede paragraph of about 1200 BC. I presume you mean the consensus of modern commentators on the OT, but this needs to sourced,--and, it is important enough to be discussed in the actual article with an explanation for he basis of the consensus. DGG (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

interwiki links
An edit has recently been done as follows

JAnDbot (Talk | contribs) (robot Removing: ar:هارون, tr:Harun (peygamber))

I investigated a bit and it seems that this bot will remove links if they are not reciprocated. The Arabic and Turkish articles referred to are about Aaron, but they link back to the English article Islamic view of Aaron, so the bot removed the forward links.

I reverted the edit, but the bot has done it again. What do people think about this? There is an issue of wikipedia policy here, and the author of this bot should not be allowed just to impose his ideas without consultation. Or perhaps there has been discussion of this issue? If so, could someone please direct me to it. Thanks.SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Inheritance
In all fairness to the article and to it's accuracy shouldn't this be noted?

In the Sefer Torah, under sections Exodus 40:15, Numbers 8:19, Numbers 18,1, Numbers 18:5, Numbers 18:20, Deuteronomy 10:9, Deuteronomy 18:1, God promised Aaron and his decendents several honourable duties and inheritances: "An everlasting priesthood throughout their generations." "I have given the Levites - They are given to Aaron and to his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of Israel in the tent of meeting, and to make atonement for the children of Israel." "The LORD said unto Aaron: Thou and thy sons and thy fathers house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary; and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood." "Ye shall keep the charge of the holy things, and the charge of the altar that there be wrath no more upon the children of Israel." "Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any portion among them; I am thy portion and thine inheritance among the children of Israel." "Wherefore Levi hath no portion nor inheritance with his brethren; the LORD is his inheritance." "The priests the Levites, even all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion nor inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and His inheritance and they shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the LORD is their inheritance."

It's been a while since I posted this for discussion and nobody has any comment on it. What would you suggest I do? Post it again on Aaron?

Anybody want to discuss this before I post it? Youknowbest (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you've put this as the first section, and sections should run in chronological order, then not many people will have noticed it. I am going to move this to the bottom. And note that no, you should not put it in, every time you tried people pointed out that it didn't belong here, etc. Please don't start this up again. dougweller (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Map of the Middle East "according to the Israelites" is without merit or basis
It tallies neither with facts nor with geographical information given in the Bible. It is a pure a fantasy, a concoction of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, not Wikipedia, but an editor who didn't understand or care about our policies. And others, like me, who missed it. Good call. dougweller (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

POV
Bible view, Qur'an rejects that Aaron was active in creatin the Calf --Striver 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a POV statement, it's a fact in the Tanakh, and this article concerns the Judaeo-Christian conception of Aaron, not the Quranic Harun for which there is a seperate article. Differences between that and Quran can be addressed under the Quran section if they need be at all present in this article. SF2K1
 * In that case, lets rename this to Judaeo-Christian view of Aaron. --Striver 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then Moses would have to be renamed Judaeo-Christian view of Moses. And also renaming every english page about the non-Islamic version of the prophets despite their clear name difference from Quranic ones. It's completely unnesicary as the name clearly denotes who is being discussed, and no one would confuse this page for being about the Muslim prophet Harun. Just look at Moses and compare with Musa SF2K1
 * The name anology is not correct. Both the Arabic Bible and Arabic Qur'an use the same names. Moses is Musa in both books, and Jesus is Isa in both books. And to prove it, Musa has been renamed to Islamic view of Moses. If this article is about the Judaeo-Christian view of Aaron, then name is such. Else, let it be Aaron and not give it undue weight to either verison. If the article curently named Moses is in reality about the Judaeo-Christian view of Moses, then it also need to be renamed accordingly, just as we have Islamic view of Moses, or not give undue weight to either version and only be a introduction to all the views about him. --Striver 17:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a section devoted to the Muslim view in this article. The source for knowledge of Aaron (i.e. the Torah) pre-dates the Qur'an by 1500 years; the Qur'an's revisionist view of him is interesting, and should be documented, but this article is about Aaron, not Harun. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, both the Arabic Bible and the Arabic Qur'an call that person for Harun. Harun and Aaron are not different persons, its different laguages for the same name.


 * Scholarly consensus views the Quranic description of Biblical figures as a reinterpretation based on much older sources (the Tanakh). Islam may view the Quran as the received word of God which replaces all older sources; and that's fine, but it's a matter of faith. Encyclopediae are not constructed on faith, they are based on scholarly consensus and research. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that Muslim scholars are somehow less "academical" than non-Muslim scholars? --Striver 23:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm implying nothing. I am stating exactly what I wrote above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If we're concerned about the niceties of names, Aaron isn't the Hebrew name; it's Aharon.--Runcorn 07:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Why must the Quranic view feature under a seperate heading when Islam is the second biggest Abrahamic religion in the world? With more than a quarter of the worlds inhabitants being muslims?

I'd like to add that Moses & Aaron are the most mentioned prophets in the Quran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.252.86 (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Quran by the way does recognise Aaron's effort to stop the people:

Chapter 20/ TH: 90. And certainly Haroun had said to them before: O my people! you are only tried by it, and surely your Lord is the Beneficent God, therefore follow me and obey my order.

91. They said: We will by no means cease to keep to its worship until Musa returns to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.252.86 (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Failed
This article is failed due to lack of secondary sources and incomplete coverage of Islamic viewpoint. You can use this to complete it. -- Seyyed(t-c) 13:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Some worthwhile input there Seyyed. I also support the notion of an Abrahmic (All Three Major Religions) viewpoint of Aaron, not a Judeo-Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.245.196 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent numbering styles
Regarding citations of biblical sources, most sections use Book Name 0-9:0-9 type but in the Death of Aaron in rabbinic literature section Roman numerals are used. I'd do the cleanup myself but dont trust my reading of Roman numerals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.4.250 (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've cleaned up all the Biblical references you mentioned, although I left the Roman Numerals as they were in non-biblical sources. As I'm not as familiar with the Talmuds, Midrashes, Haggadah, and other traditions of Rabbinical Tradition, I have left their formatting to others. Mitchell Powell (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Two sections on his death
Not sure if there's a tag to recommend merging of sections, but could someone clear this up please? Robin S 22:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think what's going on here is that one section deals with Aaron's death strictly through the eyes of the Biblical account(s), and the other section, as a sub-section of the Rabbinic section, deals with extra-biblical Jewish traditions surrounding Aaron's death. Hope that helps. Mitchell Powell (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Relationship of Aaron, Miriam, and Moses
There is a controvery over this in the academic literature that is not reflected in the article. See for instance ,



Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Name of God
I noticed that someone had actually written in the name of God, which is ineffable in Judaism also should not be written in English characters. Since this article is about one of the more important Biblical figures in the Jewish religion, it is insulting to flout an important Jewish tradition so flagrantly. I assume this was an accident and have changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.79.68 (talk) 18:06, 2005 June 28 (UTC)


 * I guess I could only think "ha ha ha ha ha" about this. I am still young to care about a right way to """solve""" this meta-enciclopedia rules you suggest. But of course here is some idea: learning by the book is good, mainly if you are a good boy kind of boy, but you can't say the other books should follow your own book writting rules. Would like to see what already made debates have been held on wikipedia about this.
 * Maybe you should have another version of the article that follows modern jew writting principles and clean ideas. Don't know if it could be "ethically" be hosted as enciclopedic here but this kind of distinction is widespread in the christian themed articles. Pablo2garcia 23:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "I find your religion offensive. Wikipedia should not offend me by allowing the Judaism to be mentioned in anything but negative terms, and definately shouldn't allow Christian, Muslim and Jewish editors" < That's how retarded you sound --Kurtle (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversy over 'brother'
This is raised above in the section 'brotherhood'. Sources exist, eg "That Aaron originally had nothing to do with Moses - at least as his brother, is generally acknowledged." (kinsman, I don't know what E. is) (kinsman again). Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's generally acknowledged that Aaron appears only in Priestly-source literature. Elsewhere the priests are called Zadokites (meaning they traced themselves from a different ancestor). If you separate the J source off from the P source, Moses doesn't have a brother. I guess that's what you're getting at. Since the P-source dates from the exilic-post-exilic period, it seems that that authors of P were Aaronite priests making a takeover against the Zadokites (the traditional priests). Aaron himself (a mythical ancestor, but myths are important) is associated with Bethel and the golden-calf cult there. So it seems that, at some point in the exilic/post-exilic period, the Bethel priests made a successful bid to be the priests in the temple in Jerusalem. There are a few books, but not easy to come across. PiCo (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Modern Scholarship
Is it my imagination, or does the article lack any reference to scholarship concerning Aharon of the past couple hundred years? Seems odd since Aharon plays one of the major roles of sorting textual sources among those who endorse the various Documentary Hypotheses. Even outside of DH, there has been many various opinions on Aharon, his connection to various personages, place in Israelite and Jehudite religion, etc. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Genetic section
This really doesn't belong in the article. Y-chromosomal Aaron is in see also, and it says "The hypothetical most recent common ancestor was therefore jocularly dubbed "Y-chromosomal Aaron"". I also without much checking discovered two misrepresentations of sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

New sources
How is the website of The Christ's Assembly a reliable source for this article? (And there's an article with problems, starting with copyvio). Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

How old was Aaron?
People have removed Aaron's date of death and his "Supercentenarian" status. Either Aaron was a real person, or he was a myth and should be treated as such. If he was a real person, he had a year of death quite as much as a year of birth, and it is inconsistent to have one and not the other as a category. Is anyone in favour of removing both categories?

Stop the either/or fallacy. Aaron could very well have been a real person and died at 83, and had his age exaggerated to fit eschatology. In any case, most scientists really don't want to debate whether Aaron lived to 123 or not. Instead, we can let you have your own "Biblical figures" category. Isn't that enough? Your pushing this issue when it's clearly already tilted in favor of religion (at the base of it, Aaron is a myth, and the Encyclopedia Britannica says as much when it postulates that Aaron was a later addition to be 'older than Moses' as an explanation for why the priesthood went to a different tribe than Moses. But surely if we're discussing proven ages in historic records, this case isn't it.  At the very least, you could list Aaron as a "longevity claim." And to claim "Biblical proof" is stupid...even the Bible says "live by faith," the substantiation of things not seen.  So if you can't prove it, then why claim it is proof? By the way, the Muslims say Jesus lived to 120, even though Christians believe it's 33 1/2 years.  You really want to make a mess?70.89.83.190 06:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, don't be a douche. SF2K1 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I know this is old, but I feel a need to add a better response than "don't be a douche". The persona of Aaron as portrayed in the Bible may not have existed exactly as depicted, but there is genetic evidence that all members of the Kohen caste share a patrilineal common ancestor who lived several thousand years ago, which is exactly what the character of Aaron purports to be. Therefore, even he didn't do all the deeds the Bible claims, he still must have existed in some form - there is genetic evidence for that. Since the Bible is the only source we're ever likely to have on his age of death, that question is indeed moot. Robin S 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the Bible, he lived to 123 hence was a Supercentenarian. If anyone can bring a reference that this is wrong, let them do so. The comparison with evolution is absurd. There are plenty of references to bring in favour of evolution - even references that evolution is consistent with the Bible. - Runcorn 22:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the "supercentenarian" group wants Biblical figures to be included possibly. Would you create a group called octocentenarians for the biblical figures who lived to be 800? It just needlessly complicates thing. Biblical figures were not quite normal people, which is why we have the Cat. Biblical figures. They don't need to be put into every group they sorta fit in. As for the birth/death dates. I feel that's pseudo irrelevent as the gregorian calendar is hideously innacurate (not to mention the years have shifted a few times), and anything other than the Hebrew Calendrial date (being Anno Mundi via Torah dates and biblical times to today) is not 100% accurate. That's my opinion anyway. SF2K1 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that is just a biased assumption, to think that one's dates are 100% accurate and no one else's is, is just foolish. 70.89.83.190 19:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering that the hebrew calendar is scientificially proven to be accurate to 1 day every 10,000 years, while the gregorian calendar is a piece of shit by anyone who bothers to look into it (but we're too lazy to change it, and instead add BS like Leap years/seconds and change dates at the will of various popes), you're still a douche. SF2K1

Keep in mind that the Hebrew calendar/time-keeping system was a lunar/solar calendar that has evolved since the use of dating in the Torah. That calendar that is used now or even 1,000 years ago is not the same calendar that is used for early Biblical dates. Many scientists argue that it is simply the process of oral history that became exaggerated through the process of multiple transmissions, but it is more likely that the system of ancient "calendaring" which was really a system to determine the proper date for upcoming festivals and religious days of observance (they did not have a calendar in any modern sense as we do) also did not develop a process for counting years as they correspond to the modern sense. The calendaring system was not originally used nor intended for use in keeping track of someone's personal age... We are talking about a period of time when people were fairly primitive aren't we? Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Contrasting the painstaking litany of ages at death in Genesis & the absence of them in Leviticus & Numbers, I wonder whether this is a topic for indie scholars but not for Wikipedia. Maybe we can figure out Aaron's age by inference, but Numbers is not clear & altho we get the ages of a host of minor characters early on, ages of first priestly assistants Aaron's sons (major development there in Sinai) go uncited. Maybe extra-Wikipedia projects include explaining why ages so important to O.T. writers (& presumably God) early on & such a non-factor later on. BubbleDine (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Understanding the references on this article
Hey, I just read through this article (doing a bit of reference organizing as well), and I am thoroughly confused. I understand most of the references.. Christian, and Islamic, however the Jewish references have me bewildered. For example what does this mean (Tan., Shemot, ed. Buber, 24-26)

or this (Sifra, Shemini, Milluim; Tan., Korah, ed. Buber, 14)

and even something as innocuous as Zebahim 115b

Is is just me or is there no easy way to find these references. In chritianity-- the OT-- it is very straightforward, as is the Quran. Please give me some pointers and information. Thanksspeednat (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For the first, "Tan." seems to be Tanhuma (a collection of lore for each of the five books of Moses), and "Buber" the editor of Tanhuma A.
 * Shemot is the Hebrew name for the Book of Exodus, so "Shemot... 24-26" seems to be where in that collection to find it. That would give...

(Tan., Shemot, ed. Buber, 24-26)
 * Certainly I agree the citations need improving for we who are Gentiles. tahc chat 05:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference reorganization
I did some reorganization of the references and added missing information etc. etc. ; However I ran afoul of one editor's interpretation of This rule, and so I now come to you on the talk page to gain conscensus. I have already done the work compare This, which is what I cleaned it up as to This the reverted version, or |This version before I even started. I am not placing blame on the reverter. I just ran across the article with conflicting styles and a very confusing reference section, and tried to make it neater, cleaner, and less confusing. ✅ speednat (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. The added info is still there, only the removal of information from the inline citations was reverted. I made a number of silent corrections to your material, like the Quran links with roman numerals that didn't work, and added the s=ns parameter so it would not display as tiny superscript. I also undid your combination of the 4 Jewish Encyclopedia cites, which link to different sections. The relevant edits are in this slice of the page history. Appearance is not everything. The short references version didn't look neat to me, but barren, with a thin column down the left side of the page and an ENORMOUS amount of white space beside it. It is difficult to work on references while editing a section, if the references are not there. Ordinary references are one click away, with a ^ return link back to the place referenced. Short references force the reader to go to a third location, with no return link. See also User_talk:Speednat WP:CITEVAR discussion. Thanks for your attention to this matter. &mdash;Telpardec (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If there is no opposition to the reorganization, I will go ahead and redo it. speednat (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"LetterATopics/Aaron" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LetterATopics/Aaron. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of unverified categories
Per WP:CATV ''Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.'' No source is given for the claim that Aaron is a "Muslim saint". Therefore it has been removed. Per WP:CATDEF ''A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having".''It is not a defining characteristic of Aaron that he is an "Islamic figure" or "Islamic personality" and so those have also been removed.Smeat75 (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)