Talk:Composition of the Torah

Obviously false claim

Today scholars are virtually unanimous in rejecting Mosaic authorship of the Torah. An absurd statement. If you define a Biblical scholar as someone with an advanced degree who vocationally studies, teaches, and writes scholarly works about the Bible, it's likely that a majority, certainly a substantial minority, hold to Mosaic authorship of the first five books. You may not agree with them, but you can't deny they exist. –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

And what is the source for your assertion? Dimadick (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a very broad definition of what a scholar is. Your definition would include Bible school graduates who are bloggers. My definition would be those who write scholarly papers on the subject of biblical studies or theology. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Dimadick: Anecdotal. I personally know several such scholars, and know of several institutes of higher learning where I expect Mosaic authorship is the prevailing view. But the burden of proof is not on me, it's on the one who claims in the body of the article that the indicated POV is "virtually unanimous".

Walter Görlitz: I specified "advanced degree". As you may know, that typically means something above a bachelor's. I added "scholarly works about the Bible" to clarify what I meant by "writes".

FYI, see: WP:NPOVN#Bible POV. Feel free to express alternate viewpoints. :) To be clear, I did not mean to imply that either of you was being militant. –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 19:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The statement is sourced. You are promoted a fringe theory in modern academic scholarship.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected, you did write "advanced degree", not simply a degree. The statement is sourced though. Even when I was studying in the 80s, Mosaic authorship was not accepted by many scholars, and I was studying at an Evangelical school. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

And there is an article that addresses the entire topic: Mosaic authorship. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

New section

FYI, took a look at the source of the statement "this view began to be seriously questioned in the 17th century, and today scholars are virtually unanimous in rejecting Mosaic authorship.[1][2]" ... the second source is online, and it actually reads "There is a consensus among modern biblical scholars that the final text of the Bible is a product of a long evolution" Note a consensus is not the same as virtually unanimous. Also note that advocating the Bible is a product of a long evolution, is not the same as an outright rejection of Mosaic authorship. Propose we edit the article to reflect what the cited source actually says. Lasati (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Basically, Moses wrote most of the Torah is fundie POV-pushing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The second source (Joel Baden's "Composition of the Pentateuch") actually actually reads: "The traditional ascription of the Pentateuch to Moses ... was already largely rejected by the leading scholars of the seventeenth century." The first source (Adele Berlin's "Poetics") is also actually actually online, and it says: "There is a consensus among modern biblical scholars that that the final text of the Bible is a product of a long evolution...". If you can somehow get from that to a belief that Moses had any hand in writing the Torah I'd be curious to see it. (You might like to start out with the article on Mosaic authorship). Achar Sva (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Purported exclusion of Jewish voices

Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

So, yeah, Wikipedia does not deny that Jewish and Christian fundies believe that Moses wrote most of the Torah. But we sideline their views because of being WP:FRINGE/PS in the worldwide academia. Pick the top 100 universities from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-world and tell me how many of them teach their students as an accurate historical fact that Moses wrote something from the Torah. Does the Tel Aviv University (place 191 on the list) teach that for a fact? Mainstream scholarship is unlikely to change in that respect, short of Mike Pence proclaiming the end of the American Republic and the begin of American Theocracy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Linguistic dating section

This article relies almost exclusively on the work of Young and Ehrensvärd in order to argue that historical linguistics is not a reliable criteria to date the sources of the Pentateuch. However, it should be taken into account that this thesis has not been accepted by the majority of Hebrew Bible scholars. By contrast, it has been critized by many, such as Ronald Hendel and Jan Joosten, who criticize that Young and Ehrensvärd exclusively use the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible to carry out their linguistic analysis of the biblical texts, apart from undertaking another series of errors in the fields of textual criticism and historical linguistics. (Check HERE)

The same scholars also argue in their book How Old Is the Hebrew Bible?: A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study (2018) that the dating of biblical and pentateucal sources can be actually done on the basis of historical linguistics. Can we include their book as a counter-perspective to that of Young and Ehrensvärd? I'll wait for any response.--Potatín5 (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't object to their idea, but:

• some authors purposefully used fake obsolete language in order to give their a veneer of authority;
• AFAIK there was no Hebrew language prior to 1000 BCE.

So, if someone insists e.g. that pieces of the Pentateuch were written about 1200 BCE, that is a patently false conclusion. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Hendel and Joosten do never maintain that pieces of the Pentateuch were written about 1200 BC; what they maintain is that the Hebrew contained in the Genesis-2 Kings saga corresponds to the classical Hebrew of the pre-exilic period [Check p. 45 HERE], which is supported by the linguistic correspondence with the Hebrew inscriptions of that period (mainly in the 8th and 7th centuries BC), so that they consequently date the composition of the main Torah sources to the period of Neo-Assyrian hegemony. [Check p. 113 HERE]. Potatín5 (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Yup, texts were written in CBH till 500 BCE, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/27913754 tgeorgescu (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

So I include Hendel and Joosten's book in the article, then? Potatín5 (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Go, ahead. No objection from me, although I don't know what other editors will say about that. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Potatín5 (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

"there was no Hebrew language prior to 1000 BCE." The dates should be unclear due to a lack of texts from this period. When the Canaanite languages started diverging from each other is not that clear. Dimadick (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I see that Hebrew language puts its beginning about 1200 BCE. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

FHU

Florida Hebrew University is an unaccredited school, having a badly polished website (see e.g. https://www.floridahebrewuniversity.org/dual-enrollment , still having the text of the website template instead of information germane to FHU). tgeorgescu (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)