Talk:High Priest of Israel

Was THE high priest?

So he was "THE" high priest meaning that there have never been any other high priests? Or is Kohen Gadol simply hebrew for high priest? 192.133.12.101 20:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the intro I hope it is clearer now. If you still thinks the article needs improvement either be bold and change it yourself, or comment here. Jon513 19:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Copy and paste

I don't think it helps Wikipedia to have an article which is basically a copy and paste from a century old text. It reads badly, may be out of date, and edits which change the meaning end up still unsourced but people may think come from the original. I thought it was copyvio and removed most of it, but have replaced it now although I'm tempted to remove it again as I think there would then be a chance it would be built up into a decent article, which isn't likely to happen if left as it is. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Janshen 'image'

This was labelled as an image, I've changed it to hypothetical reconstruction. I can't find evidence that Hattin meets our criteria at WP:RS so may be removing it entirely. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio, removing it. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)

The strange thing here is that the copy-paste of this article from the Jewish Encyclopedia should change the English term "high priest" to Hebrew. There is some usage of Kohen in academic texts to describe the status of the Kohen family in post Second Temple Judaism, as you'd expect, but there's zero justification in WP:RS for the Tabernacle/First/Second Temple high priest being described in Hebrew. All the more so since high priest (unlike Kohen) cannot be pagan, kohenim of Baal, so there seems little added clarity in naming this article in Hebrew.

The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources

In ictu oculi (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying the JE doesn't use 'Kohen Gadol'? If so, let's change it. Mind you, I hate copy and paste because you get reverted if you then ask for citations, ending up with just one source. Dougweller (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the JE uses 'High Priest' as the title for their article, so there doesn't seem to be any excuse for the current name. What should the new name be? 'High Priest (Judaism)? Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

2nd time, you are quoting from outdated translations. (see Talk:Kohen#complete name change). --חודר לעומר (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User חודר לעומר, it is not an issue of "translations," since kohen gadol is a transliteration not a translation; gadol "high" is not in any sense an English word. WP:RS prefers secondary, studies on ANE religion, etc. and tertiary reference sources, encyclopedia, dictionaries: these, mainstream ones at least, all use "high priest".

Yes Doug, probably High Priest (Judaism), per usual Wikipedia distinction. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Interesting that no articles link to this one. Maybe there is another article covering the same subject? Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Yes I noticed that. A couple of articles were mislinking to high priest, fixed, which has everything from Egypt to Shinto in it. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

More about sources of information

As a non-Jew, I think the article would be improved by a section near the beginning that discusses the primary sources of information about the High Priest. These would appear to be (a) the Bible (anything outside the Torah proper?), (b) the Apocrypha and deuterocanonical books, (c) Josephus, and (d) the Talmud. Anything else, such as archaeological finds or remarks in other writers in the classical period than Josephus? The present article is very much an article by and for convinced Jews. Wikipedia has a much broader outreach than that, however, so more attention needs to be given to the overall picture.

There must also be scholarly dispute over the interpretation of the primary sources, but this article is silent on such disputes. Human nature being what it is, the traditional Jewish interpretation of the primary sources is sure to have been rejected by some scholars. Surely, in the century since the Jewish Encyclopedia was published, there has been further study and discovery of information relating to the High Priest?

Finally, what about the Jewish temples at Alexandria and Elephantine? Did they have their own high priests, or were they subordinate to the Jerusalem temple? And what about the Samaritans?

Or to put this another way: this article as it stands does not answer the question, "How do we know this?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floozybackloves (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"Catholicus" needs in-line explanation/dating of why a Greek word all of a sudden appears. Linked article must be edited to reflect (as Catholicus stands now it is a nonsensical cross-reference

See subject. Spellung of "hallah, challah" should be regularized.

Shlishke (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The shewbread etc. as depicted in the illustration were NOT inspired by the Arch of Titus. This arch depicts the Romans carrying these items from the Holy Temple to Rome. It also raises the question about where are these items now? Somewhere in the vaults of the Vatican? /Users/rosierosenzweig/Desktop/ts.jpeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.153.99 (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

(Over)capitalisation

Scientific works, including those referenced here, do not capitalise the term. Only *some (!) Christian sources* do *when referring to Jesus Christ* as "the great high priest". The title should be changed accordingly. Arminden (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Arminden (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. WP:COMMONNAME seems to mandate High priest of Israel. There's been no discussion about this. Read WP:RM. Maybe wait a couple of days and then just move it if no one objects? Any later objection can be discussed. Editing seems very inactive, which is another factor. Doug Weller talk 09:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High Priest of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408230338/http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.61/27achare.htm to http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.61/27achare.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)