Talk:Snow-white Miriam

Exodus 4:6 talks about another instance involving Moses and skin turning white:

6 Then the LORD said, "Put your hand inside your cloak." So Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was leprous, like snow.

Personally, I can't help but wonder if Moses just knew some sort of stage-magic or chemical trick that allowed him to turn skin white. Frankly, turning skin white hardly seems like a worthwhile "miracle" for a god to perform, it really sounds more like a stupid gimmick. Probably, Moses just used the same sort of trick on Miriam to punish her for disagreeing with him.

---

There is also the case when Moses comes down from the mountain after getting the 10 commandments he has to hide his face. Some versions says its because of the radiance from meeting God. In Friedmans book he thinks it might well be yet more of the Snow White stuff happening. When you consider how much time they spend in Leviticus discussing detection and control of Leprosy and Mildew, maybe it was just the the illness of favour for divine retribution of the time. Spin the wheel... you get ... Leprosy! Reminds me of the BOFH chronicles -- and the sheet with todays excuse listed! Codec 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The Signs of Moses (including Exodus 4:6, and also turning his rod into a snake) are thought, in critical scholarship, to be a continued supernatural theme of authority by the Elohist. The Elohist also presents Moses as bringing the plagues of Egypt upon Pharaoh himself. It is notable that the Jahwist doesn't seem to mention Moses, or Balaam, as having any supernatural powers, instead only interceeding with God.

Conversely, the "veil of Moses" that he was forced to wear because of his face, is thought, in critical scholarship, to be a slur by the Priestly source on the hero (Moses) of its anti-Aaronid rivals. A mistranslation of this feature given to moses, in the Vulgate, meant that in the renaissance, they thought Moses had horns, Michaelangelo depicting him as such.

Leviticus, specifically the Priestly Code, discusses Tzaraath. Certain religious groups (but by no means a majority) dispute this being leprosy or mildew, since Leviticus regarding houses as being able to catch leprosy - "leprosy of houses" - would be stupid, in the light of modern scientific knowledge.

--User talk:FDuffy 12:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Eh?

On the part of this article which says, "Yahweh subsequently visits a punishment on Miriam (though curiously not on Aaron)" is that "though curiously" part really necessary? Homestarmy 20:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been awhile, I took it out on my own. Homestarmy 05:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Miriam

Propose merging this article with Miriam, with a redirect since this article covers one incident in Miriam's life. --Shirahadasha 06:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced

Hello, want to point out that this article is currently completely unsourced, needs to be attributed ("According to...") and sourced. This article may reflect a particular point of view (See NPOV). Unsourced material may need to be be deleted per WP's WP:VERIFY policy. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree it was not completey unsourced. Many of the comments were references to the primary text the Book of Numbers. The commentary has now had some more sources added however.

Delete?

Hello, the article in its current form appears to interpret the narrative on Miriam in exclusively racial terms without accounting for any other possible interpretation. It is completely unsourced. Suggest deleting if sources not provided.

Well there's no denying the subject has notability, it's just not really referenced is the problem. Article's don't get deleted just for being unsourced or not being broad enough :/. (Unless their attack pages violating WP:BIO or something). Homestarmy 15:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion going on in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow-white Miriam about whether to delete this article. You might want to present your views there. Best,--Shirahadasha 19:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because it only has one interpretation does not mean it should be deleted. It means that mention of other notable interpretations should be added!!!! If you know any, you should add them; no one is stopping you. --User talk:FDuffy 17:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)