Talk:Moses and Monotheism

Detractions? Criticisms?

I would be great to see some arguments by scholars on this work. I'm sure the arguments again abound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.228.93 (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

An ISBN number would be a nice addition. Arguments against Freud's theory would also be good to have here, but only if they can be referenced (no original research). Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, one criticism would be that the sons of Abraham and hence the people of Israel existed before Moses with their culture and pre-Moses history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:C102:BA70:53C:9D91:981F:A3BD (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Link to PubDom text?)

This must be in the public domain now, if anyone finds it online, the link would be a nice addition to the article. – Alensha ^talk 23:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is available at archive.org. I tried to add the link but it gives an error message. 69.249.55.6 (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Moses Jewish?

"Freud hypothesizes that Moses was not Jewish" Shouldn't it say Israelite, instead of Jewish? Moses was Israelite, but not from the Tribe of Judah, but the Tribe of Levi. I have not read the book, but I'm almost certain Freud knew this, and would have used the term Israelite instead, causing me to consider that the article itself is wrong. Of course, it could be that Freud did not know this, and that the article thus presents the book accurately.

Ben Ammi (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• For what its worth, "Jewish" means more than "from the Tribe of Judah". Technically speaking, Benjamin was carted away with Judah into Babylon, where the term "Jew" originates -- there were just way more Judeans than Benjaminites. And since no one can pin point their ancestry for the other 10 tribes, any left in Israel after the return from the Babylonian exile, still following the Hebrew religion, also became globbed into "Jews". I don't know what Freud actually wrote, but had he said "Jewish", it would have been used in a highly colloquial sense. Most accurately, Freud should have said "not a Hebrew". Hebrew is the "racial" term (Descendants of Abraham, from whose name is the root of the word Hebrew) . Israelite is the nationalistic term. Jew is the cultural term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.228.93 (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, mostly.

• How the term "Jewish" was used in Freud's time period during which the book was written, I don't know. But today in the USA, it can mean any of the above, depending on the context of usage. PLUS it can and often does refer to the religion of Judaism, and it often does. All of this is confusing to people, but that's the way it is.
• A reader and listener may always needs to be thinking about which an author means: Race, Religion, Culture, or Tribe (of Judah).
• As with the word "Jewish", how the term "Israelite" was used in Freud's time, I don't know. Israel became a nation again after the book was initially published, but the term Israelite could have been used for the Jews at any point in time during or after Jacob (in the Bible).

"Jew" vs. "Jewish" – As to usage in the USA today (NW coast):

• The term "Jew" often refers to a person's race, and seems to not be used as much in reference to the religion. In much of contemporary literature/writing, it may occasionally refer to a Tribe distinction – meaning, being from Judah and not another of the 12 Tribes – but that is more likely to occur when the topic of Tribes itself is being discussed. It is also used in reference to the Nation of Israel (more below).
• The term "Jewish" seems to regularly refer to either religion or race, depending on context. It is also used in reference to the Nation of Israel.

Other terms – As to usage in the USA today (NW coast):

• The term "Israel" is often used in the Bible in reference to the whole Nation, but sometimes as a distinction between the Kingdoms when they split into the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. It may be at times used interchangeably with other terms here. It is also used in reference to the Nation of Israel.
• The term "Israelite" is common but hasn't taken over the word "Jew" entirely in usage, especially in speech. It usually if not always refers to the Nation Israel or to Race. I have not seen it used in reference to religion. It may sound funny, but it may at times be also used in reference to the Nation of Israel, or to the people of the Nation of Israel.
• The term "Hebrew" seems to hardly ever be used in colloquial speech to refer to race or ethnicity. It is, however, sometimes used in this way in literature related to the topic and to the Bible. In reference to it being from Judah, I very rarely have heard anyone use it in this way in colloquial speech, but it is sometimes used in this way in literature related to the topic and to the Bible. The Bible itself seems to use multiple terms; though, "Israelite" isn't one that I recall seeing in the English versions that I am most familiar with. I do not recall seeing it used much in reference to the Nation of Israel, but it may be.
• The terms "Jew" and "Jewish" are regularly used – in speech and in writing – to refer to any of the above. Even a single author or speaker may use the terms in multiple ways. This is not uncommon, and may help lead to confusion at times. Unless religion is specifically being discussed, these two terms may more often refer to race/ethnicity, or to the Nation of Israel, or to Culture (food, etc.); they seem to be seldom used to refer to someone as from the Tribe of Judah. In the Bible "New Testament", my recollection is that they are often used in reference to the people as a whole, or to a single person, or to the Nation of Israel, and on occasion used in reference to religion, depending on the English version being used.
• Usage of these various terms almost certainly depends on the region, the people using it, and on various contexts. Some of them are used interchangeably; though some might sound odd in certain contexts where usage is less common.
• Often a term that is being used can be understood by its context of usage. And I think that in this case, this may be one of the best ways to determine its intended meaning (other than asking).
• I think that confusion over the usage of these terms added considerably to the ability of those promoting antisemitism etc. to succeed in their efforts. I see more consciousness of these issues being brought to the fore, but I don't see clear resolutions becoming prominent. Therefore, it seems a worthy topic to discuss and resolve in international affairs, and for the sake of all involved. I did not consult any usage references for this discussion here, or any experts for their opinions. If there are any mistakes herein, my apologies, as this was in large part based on my own observations – and previous discussions – and was off the top of my head.

"Honor all"!

Misty MH (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

reception and significance

I'm thinking of reverting this recent addition. I read the cited article by Meissner and it is interesting, but it's rather polemical and claiming that it represents the totality of "modern scholarship" doesn't appear to be well-founded. Also, the summary of the Meissner article itself is pretty slanted. There's a ton of secondary literature about Moses and Monotheism, a lot of which is cited in the "Further reading" section, so the best thing to do would be look at some of that and summarize it. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense, it's a standard Biblical studies reference work and standard reference works consider Freud's theories fantasy that says more about Freud. Find a modern reference work that doesn't say exactly the same in different words. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Biblical studies is just one narrow field in which to look for responses to a work of such wide ranging influence. It's not reasonable to claim that the "biblical studies" reaction, even if you've summarized it neutrally, is necessarily representative of the big picture. I liked this quite a lot. It's written from a comparative literature perspective and is mostly about the relationship between the book and a famous essay by Octavio Paz, but it also surveys some of the other literature about M&M. It mentions several full-length books about M&M that I haven't looked at, but which have secondary literature of their own. If it could all be summed up with the word "fantasy", nobody would have written those books. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's completely reasonable for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia which aims to represent WP:reliable sources. We've just had User:Oh My Volcano pushing Freud's ideas as significant in modern scholarship at Talk:Yahweh. This article's reception section needs to state how Biblical studies views Freud's ideas. @Editor2020: who wasn't involved at Yahweh but is an experienced editor for a second opinion. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

just a second, sorry but are you the blocked user Oh My Volcano? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I commented on the ANI thread relating to Oh My Volcanoes, and I also posted some advice to his talk page which he seems to have ignored. I'm fine with the Meissner citation in the M&M article, but 1) I think the description of Meissner's article should be expanded a bit to convey more nuance, and 2) biblical studies shouldn't be represented as conveying the entirety of "modern scholarship" on the book or even more than a small part of it. Most of the cites I'm finding seems to come from literature, philosophy, psychology, and even politics (Edward Said's book "Freud and the non-European"). Frida Kahlo even did a famous abstract painting based on the book. So there's a lot of stuff out there. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but I think the reception section needs to be 100% clear on qualified scholarly reception (rejection, ignoring) of Freud's ideas as today nearing "fantasy" and completely irrelevant to Ancient Near East studies, and on the other hand unqualified artistic responses who like the idea for art's sake. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope you'll forgive my skepticism but that raises concerns that "qualified" means anything you agree with, and "unqualified" means anything you don't. If you mean historical studies, you're probably right—I don't think anyone including Freud himself considered the book to be a historical work. But most of the sourcing is from other disciplines, so that's what what's supposed inform our articles, without our getting to decide whether they are "qualified". Meissner himself as a psychologist seems to have written quite a lot about Freud, FWIW.[1]

Regarding current scholarship, [2] ("New Perspectives on Freud's Moses and Monotheism" published in 2006 with articles from around 15 authors) looks interesting. The introduction claims:

Moses and Monotheism was regarded for many years as a marginal, strikingly bizarre text within the Freudian corpus... During the past two decades, however, there has been a radical change in the book's status. It is now defined as one of Freud's finest achievements, a text whose importance to the understanding of cultural phenomena... cannot be exaggerated.

That looks like a direct claim about the status of the book in "modern scholarship" that I think has to take precedence over conclusions synthesised by Wikipedia editors. I don't know that I'm up to a research expedition about something like this (it's way outside my area) but it looks like I can get that book through my library, as a source of citations if nothing else.

More generally, I have a concern that you seem to be attacking a culturally important and highly sourced topic in a narrowminded way, similar to how obnoxious atheists like Oh My Volcano like to attack articles about Christianity etc. I'm not religious myself but I don't like that approach to editing and I hope you're not doing that. There were a series of editing conflicts in the past few years where among other things we lost a pretty informed editor, so I may still be reacting to that. I'm not terribly well versed in this topic but I keep being surprised at how many places it turns up in, which makes me conclude that it's still relevant, something I didn't always think. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"that raises concerns that "qualified" means anything you agree with," - is that a personal attack? You're accusing me of bias because I think an academic author is qualified? No wikt:Qualified means "qualified", i.e. with academic tenure, qualified, as opposed to having no qualifications. As regards qualified in Ancient Near East history that means an academic with university tenure in a relevant field. Until you have one there's nothing further to discuss here. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay responding. No personal attack was intended and I apologize if anything I wrote came across as one. However:

1. I can't agree with your contention that "the reception section needs to be 100% clear on qualified scholarly reception (rejection, ignoring) of Freud's ideas as today nearing 'fantasy'". That viewpoint simply doesn't reflect the state of the published literature as far as I can tell. I posted a quote further up from a book about the subject, that says just the opposite. If you want to insert such a sweeping statement, even as a viewpoint much less than as a supposedly objective truth, it really has to be supported by RS, specifically WP:RS/AC which explains how to document claims that an academic consensus exists about something. Something backed by such a citation is much more useful than your unsourced opinion at this point. I can believe the claim more easily if it's limited to a specific field like Ancient Near East studies. When applied to the whole corpus of scholarship as you are trying to do, I think it is just erroneous.
2. I don't even believe that the person you cited, William W. Meissner, rejected Freud's ideas as fantasy, if you mean the totality of Freud's ideas. Meissner published a lot about Freud (cited further up) and according to his IPA obituary, he was a professor of psychoanalysis and a training analyst. Someone who thought Freud's stuff was all bunk would not have entered such a profession or tried to propagate it to new practitioners. I'm probably more of a Freud skeptic than Meissner was.

   I would agree that Meissner published a critical article about Freud and the Bible (including the book currently under discussion) and that we can cite it, which you did. I still think your summary of Meissner's article is oversimplistic and non-neutral, but that can be fixed by fleshing it out. We can ask at the NPOV noticeboard if more eyes are needed about this.

3. I agree with you that reliable statements about the scholarly reception of a topic will generally come from academic sources, though there might be exceptions. For example, if someone like Janet Malcolm published something about M&M's reception or impact, I'd want to use what she wrote. (Malcolm is a journalist who has written extensively about the world of Freud scholarship and about psychoanalysis).
4. I do understand that multiple sources including Freud himself saw problems with the book's historical arguments about Moses (Freud originally described the book as "a novel"), if that's what your're concerned by. That criticism should indeed be in the article. It's just inappropriate to summarize the entire scholarly response to the book that way, if most of that response concentrates on other aspects (psychological and cultural analysis or whatever.). An analogy might be writing the reception section of the Star Wars article as "critics universally panned the movie since explosions in space should be silent". Yes, some critics did mention that problem and maybe a few hated the movie because of it, yes the article should cite one or two of them, but ignoring everything else ever written about Star Wars or calling it "unqualified" doesn't give a neutral or accurate article.
5. The Octavio Paz essay I mentioned, The Labyrinth of Solitude, is not "art for art's sake"; it's an analysis of Mexican culture that (according to Gallo and other authors) was influenced heavily by Moses and Monotheism and had wide influence of its own. The essay is noted as a "fundamental study of Mexican identity" in Paz's Nobel Prize biography[3] so I don't see how to claim a lack of relevance.
6. I don't agree that the author having/not having tenure makes something an RS or not, and Wikipedia's WP:RS page doesn't support that claim. RS results from the editorial processes that go into selecting works for publication, with added notability inferrable by the presence of secondary sources discussing the published work. There is also some reliability presumed for self-published sources by recognized experts (WP:SPS) and being a professor can certainly help with that, but we're not talking about SPS here. At least in physics, I can think of multiple examples of Nobel Prizes being awarded for work done while the prizewinner was still a graduate student. If their stuff got accepted to the relevant refereed journals then it's RS whether or not they had tenure.
7. When I spoke of "narrowmindedness", I was referring to what sounded like a presumption on your part that some fields are more "relevant" or "qualified" than others, e.g. that Ancient Near East studies should take precedence over (say) psychology in assessing the impact of Freud's book, even if there are 100x more publications about it in psychology than in Ancient Near East studies. (Freud was best known as the founder of psychoanalysis and most works citing M&M in Google Scholar[4] do seem to be in psychology). If you didn't mean something like that, then I misinterpreted you and I'm sorry about the confusion. In any case, it wasn't about academic vs non-academic sources, where I think we are in agreement or fairly close to agreement.
8. More generally, the relevance of an academic field for something like M&M doesn't seem like something we Wikipedia editors should get to decide. As the New Perspectives book (linked above, p.2) puts it:

   The current interest in Moses and Monotheism is distinguished by its interdisciplinary character. The study of this text (and this is true of the Freudian corpus as a whole) is no longer confined within the realm of psychoanalysis. Scholars from highly diverse fields—history, literature, philosophy, Jewish studies, religious studies, Egyptology, and gender studies—have come to regard Moses and Monotheism as a vibrant research topic.

   So I don't see how Ancient Near East studies or Biblical studies should have special status among these fields if we're talking about overall scholarly sentiment toward M&M. If any field had special status, it would have been psychology. But "modern scholarship" as you wrote it means all modern scholarship, wherever it is. M&M criticism is an amorphous humanities topic with a scholarly literature crossing many fields and having quite a lot of latitude for interpretation. So if some field has publications directed at the book, ISTM we should generally treat those publications as relevant by definition.

Sorry about the length and I hope this helps. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Not having heard anything back, I went ahead and reverted the section. I've been doing some source research for a rewritten version, but I've been busy IRL and there's a lot of material that I'm not that comfortable navigating. I may end up just dumping some notes here. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC) i have a question where is all this evidence of this because if you can't provide evidence as to whether this is true or not well your kind of missing the point. I found that the bible is historical accurate so if what you are saying is true then the bile is not acurate and u better talk to the jews because they adore moses so yeah2601:283:C200:3A6A:283E:CE52:E489:58C7 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Rowan Williams

Clifford Mill, I removed the addition you made here, which mentioned Rowan Williams among others, for a simple reason, which is that the article is about Moses and Monotheism and it was not clear that the content you added was specifically about Moses and Monotheism. Rather, it appeared to be material about Freud's views on religion in general. As interesting as this subject may be, this is not an appropriate article for it. Content that does not specifically address Moses and Monotheism is only indirectly relevant to the topic of the article and may be removed per WP:UNDUE. My removal of your addition was not vandalism. It might help if you could rework your addition so that it focuses more clearly on Moses and Monotheism, mentioning the book by name. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I've slightly amended my contribution. Williams wrote those words and he is a widely respected scholar so, although you may not agree with him, I hope you will now call a truce to unnecessary guerrilla warfare. Clifford Mill (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Did the monotheism kill, or hurt people that didn’t support or believe in there beliefs

Did they? 73.239.220.64 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a lot of debate about that subject but this isn't the place to discuss it. We have an article Criticism of monotheism that has some references you could follow. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)