Talk:Torah

Title

It seems to me to be quite arguable that "Torah" is a sectarian term, and that Pentateuch is the proper generic term for these five books. While a great deal of this article deals with the specifically Jewish context of Torah, other parts of it more generally refer to the five books as books, rather than as the basis for Jewish law. It might make sense to split the article, so that details on the books as such go in Pentateuch, and details on their place in Judaism stay here. What do people think? john k (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Torah is the first name, and the proper name. Pentateuch is just a Greek term for the Torah that is used by non-Jews. Serendi^podous 10:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, almost. The "five books" are called Chumash", which means "five" [the ch is a soft gutteral]. When compiled into a single work, they are referred to as "Torah", or teachings/Instructions. Actually, more correctly, it is "Sefer Torah", which means Book of teachings/instructions. To explain, at the time there were no books, only scrolls and tablets of stone or clay. The Torah is written by hand on a scroll of parchment. The person who does this is often called a "Sefer Schreiber", which is Yiddish [not Hebrew] for "Book Writer" [scriber = writer or scribe], where "book" means THE book [Torah].It takes about 1 year, and must be devoid of any errors, omissions,corrections or blemishes, as they are the words of God. The Torah is reproduced in book form for usage in prayer by the public. These books are always referred to as Chumash, and never as Torah. In a Synagogue, the congregation uses the book form, the ministers use a Torah. Historygypsy (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We seem to revisit this about once a month. The consensus has been that making a distinction between "Torah" and "Pentateuch" is misleading and invites sectarian misstatements. Also, it has inevitably come to the fore that the distinction between the distinction between the books and "law" as a general subject (and yes, I realize that "law" is in some ways a defective translation) is not as sharp as some people would like to make it. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well next time you revisit this add me to the Pentateuch camp. That's the term of choice in the scholarly and secular literature. (That's something of an understatement, I virtually never see Torah, even in scholarly literature written by Jews.) Plus, "Torah" has several meanings in Jewish parlance, as the article notes. This is not an issue I want to take up at this point, but here's comes my two cents:

Reading some previous discussion of this point it seems the problem is that we want 1) to have an article on the Jewish "Torah" concept given how enormously influential that text in its Jewish context is to Judaism, 2) to have generic information about the text, the Pentateuch, and 3) to have only ONE article. I trust we all see the tension :) I think we should have one article, very similar to the one that exists, but with the title as Pentateuch and the intro framing the subject in a generic way. One (large) section would be on Jewish use and the larger "Torah" context. So in summary what I think we should 1) change the article's title, 2) dramatically thin the two enormous paragraphs in the introduction reflecting Jewish use of the Pentateuch and move it to the Judaism section, and 3) move the Torah terminology/scroll stuff of the first paragraph to the terminology section. The new introduction should be along the lines of ". . . an ancient Near Eastern document written in Hebrew . . . "Carneadiiz (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's pushing it. Call it the Torah or the Pentateuch, it still is a purely Jewish document written by Jews for Jews. How other religions subsequently interpreted it has no bearing on how and why it was originally written. Serendi^podous 05:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should primarily be presented in the way it was written. But I feel you are conflating later forms of Judaism with earlier Israelite religions. Usage of the term "Torah" in the Bible, particularly in the Pentateuch is different than in Talmudic/medieval Judaism. So in a sense I agree that the article should be framed in what the histories say about ancient Israelite religion contemporary to the authorship, but stuff like the number of commandments, the terms "Chumash", its writing on a ritually prepared scroll, oral tradition, midrash, etc. wouldn't make the cut. Those are later Jewish developments. So framing it as an ancient Israelite Near Eastern document I think would result in a very different intro than framing it in Judaism as we have it today. There is quite a bit of scholarship on ancient views of the Pentateuch, and that should be followed for the introduction. THAT is what I have in mind by generic and neutral, as that's the common source from which other views spring. Carneadiiz (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "earlier Israelite religions". The 70 rabbis who translated the Septuagint were not members of "earlier Israelite religions"; they were Jews. As was Jesus. The Torah already had a significant place in Judaism before Christianity was invented, let alone Islam. Serendi^podous 12:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can see you don't know what I mean. And I'm surprised you would cite the legendary Letter of Aristeas concerning the Septuagint that contradicts all modern research, which in any event post-dates the period I'm referring to. The talk page isn't the place for a historical argument, in any event. I hope other editors will weigh in.Carneadiiz (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Flame writing

The article incorrectly states that the Hebrew alphabet is called "the flame alphabet" because of a Kabbalistic idea (or maybe folk etymology?) about the torah being written in fire.

The Biblical Hebrew language is sometimes referred to as "the flame alphabet" because many devout Jews believe that the Torah is the literal word of God written in fire.

Only the k'tav ashuri / k'tivah tammah is called "flame writing," and that is because of the "flare" on the top corner of each letter, which is diminished or absent in the cursive script. "Instead of the little ornaments at the upper ends of the stems, [in the cursive script] a more or less weak flourish of the line appears." (Jewish Encyclopedia). In fact, a Kabbalah site even states: "The 22 letters are called flame letters because they are each drawn with a flame coming out the top." ([1]). Please remove the incorrect sentence from the article. Thanks. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Bump... 24.243.3.27 (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who is right in this, but since that line is uncited and contentious, it can go. Serendi^podous 12:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Tawrat and Torah

The Tawrat and Torah are not one and same thing that is why should be written seperately.Tawrat of Quran is an attribute of Al-kitab like Quran and meaning of this word is Law. This law is written in وَكَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ فِيهَا أَنَّ النَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسِ وَالْعَيْنَ بِالْعَيْنِ وَالأَنفَ بِالأَنفِ وَالأُذُنَ بِالأُذُنِ وَالسِّنَّ بِالسِّنِّ وَالْجُرُوحَ قِصَاصٌ فَمَن تَصَدَّقَ بِهِ فَهُوَ كَفَّارَةٌ لَّهُ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ

[5:45] And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and (that there is) reprisal in wounds; but he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unjust.

.At-tawrat of of Al-Quran is given to all prophets , including prophet Mohammad saw إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَا التَّوْرَاةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُواْ لِلَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالرَّبَّانِيُّونَ وَالأَحْبَارُ بِمَا اسْتُحْفِظُواْ مِن كِتَابِ اللّهِ وَكَانُواْ عَلَيْهِ شُهَدَاء فَلاَ تَخْشَوُاْ النَّاسَ وَاخْشَوْنِ وَلاَ تَشْتَرُواْ بِآيَاتِي ثَمَناً قَلِيلاً وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ

[5:44] Surely We revealed the Taurat in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets who submitted themselves (to Allah) judged (matters) .... 5:44 where as Torah is refered to Moses pbuh. Tawrat of Al-kitab is the ayats having order of Allah 5:43 and the order of Allah is in ayats of alkitab called mother of the Book.هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الألْبَابِ

[3:7] He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the mother of the Book, ..... Please read and think this word is different from the word Torah meaning instructions/teaching...thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes and Citations??

Sorry, but where did all the footnotes go? Clicking on any of the footnote links does nothing, and there is nothing at the bottom of the article in the way of notes or citations. 131.183.92.217 (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I have put it back. shirulashem (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias from the start!

How is it that a Wikipedia page about the Torah begins it's description with the word Islam? It is totally outrageous an an example of the pervasiveness of Islamic disinformation. If I look up Jesus, is the description of the page going to be from the viewpoint of Islam? Gimme a break.9lilmonkeys (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're on about here, mate.... RavShimon (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Duh, whaddya talkin' about. Uhhh, Islam is da greatest, i'n't it? 'Specially since 9/11. Yup. Yup.Lestrade (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

References to stars and planets discovered in Torah

Hi there, please take note that new discoveries were made that show where and how the Old Testament / Torah contains direct references to stars and astronomic cycles. There are those stars all over the Torah which we can find using four different approaches: comparing the life spans and ages at childbirth of patriarchs to risings and settings of stars; comparing the sum of the total ages of patriarchs to known astronomical cycles; calculating planetary visibility cycles by the total verse count when taking a verse as a day; arranging the verses of Genesis and Leviticus in concentric circles and then looking for gematric word values. The last approach yields reproducible star maps, 10 in number. Not nine, not twelve, not 26. Ten like ten Sephiroth. Note that those four approaches are not necessarily connected and can be applied independently. Three of them are introduced at length in the post linked below. Please go to http://theoryoftorah.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-are-there-references-to-stars-and.html I believe that this data should be part of the article. If you have a different opinion, please post it here. --Herrengedeck (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems like it's still fairly new. Needs to gestate a while and get commonly accepted before it gets included here. Serendi^podous 12:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to make a Wikinews entry then? I'm not so good with HTML. --Herrengedeck (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a fairly fringe theory at the moment. It's not like a new archaeological discovery; the words of the Torah have been known verbatim for thousands of years. This is just someone's specific interpretation of these words, which, I assume, have been interpreted many other ways in the past. This idea will need to gain academic acceptance before it ends up here. Serendi^podous 13:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

the Torah has central significance to Christians

"However, in both religions they lack the central significance that they have in Judaism." that's wrong. it is much more significant to Christians than to muslims (who Israel belongs to, the characteristics of the messiah, the inneracy of the word of God, even the existence of the Jewish temples and their locations, show real love and respect to the Jews). if the messiah of the Torah (accepted by Judaism) came tomorrow Jews would treat the Torah the exact same way Christian do now. the purpose of the messiah is to give us a better covenant, priest (dealing with our sin before God). orthodox Jews would worship the messiah.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.238.116 (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Orthodox Jews would worship the Messiah? Absolutely not. Orthodox Jews declare every morning and evening "Listen, Israel: the Lord is G-d; the Lord is One". This fundamental statement of belief declares that G-d is indivisible and all-encompassing. Messiah (literally the annointed one) will be a human being, a descendant of the line of David, who will lead the Jewish people out of their 2000 year exile. The divine concept of Messiah is a strictly Christian one and quite alien to Jewish thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apsidal (talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're getting the Torah confused with the Old Testament. The Messiah isn't in the Torah.Serendi^podous 02:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition

"The word "Torah" in Hebrew "is derived from the root ירה which in the hifil conjugation means "to teach" (cf. Lev. 10:11). The meaning of the word is therefore "teaching," "doctrine," or "instruction"; the commonly accepted "law" gives a wrong impression."[12] Other translational contexts in the English language include custom, theory, guidance,[13] or system.[14] The term "Torah" is therefore also used in the general sense to include both Judaism's written law and oral law, serving to encompass the entire spectrum of authoritative Jewish religious teachings throughout history..."

I see your point, but in this article it means just the Five Books. The definition needs to be restricted a bit. PiCo (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Torah" includes "written" and "oral" Torah. That is, "Torah Shebichtav" and "Torah Shebe'al Peh." In fact the article already says this. Another sense in which Torah is used is to refer to a physical object. You are probably just referring to the physical object, often existing in a scroll form, though also bound into books (codices), which contain the "five books." Bus stop (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to add a "see also" line at the top of the article for some of the other uses. John Carter (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

'Indefinite article'

I believe the talk of 'indefinite article' in the following is misguided for a number of reasons. 1. This page is on the Torah, so quirks of English language usage are non appropriate. 2. This is true of most words in English. Without an article, a noun generally refers to an ideal, with an article it refers to a specific example of it. This same comment could be said of cat, carrot, beer or any other concrete noun in English. 3. It is non even entirely accurate, as definite articles can also be used to refer to Sefer Torah.

When used with an indefinite article, "a Torah" usually refers to a "Sefer Torah" (סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה, "book of Torah") or Torah scroll, written on parchment in a formal, traditional manner by a specially trained scribe under very strict requirements.

Ashmoo (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got the issue the wrong way round. The sentence refers to the Torah, not the indefinite article, and the important distinction between the Torah and a seifer Torah. A seifer Torah is not merely a copy of the Torah, but a very specifically prepared version of it. I think the line is informative and should stay in. Serendi^podous 20:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I definitely believe the explanation of sefer torah should stay. I'm just questioning the focus on the mention of 'indefinite article'. Ashmoo (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What else are you going to call it? an "a"? Serendi^podous 07:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Salvation

Would people please comment here? I may overstate the case or oversimplify in saying that there is no idea of salvation in Judaism. My real point is that whatever Jews mean by salvation is so different from Christianity they are not well-served by being in one article. Perhaps Wikipedia could use a good article going into the long history of the concept of salvation in Judaism, but right now the current Salvation aricle is NOT "it" and I think the differences between Christianity and Judaism here are so great that it makes the intro an NPOV nightmare. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no concept of salvation in Judaism. There is no original sin to need salvation from, and there is no concept of a savior through which one may have salvation. It simply doesn't exist. 24.47.151.139 (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the "authorship" section

I've made a large edit to the authorship section to bring it into line with modern biblical scholarship. The major changes are: 1. Mosaic authorship. I've deleted this entirely and replaced it with a single sentence noting its existence. It has no following at all among modern scholars - this can be checked from authoritative sources such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary - and due weight means that it shouldn't be treated as if it does. I've kept a link to the article on the subject, since it does have some historical interest. 2. Modern scholarship. This was as much out of date as the subsection on Mosaic authorship - the description given was of the Wellhausen version of the documentary model, which has been abandoned since the 1970s. There was nothing at all about contemporary theories, which tend to belong to the supplementary model (fragmentary models aren't actually very influential). PiCo (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

First you have no references, second the other does so either supply them or I will revert it back. As the other version is referenced. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The lack of references for such a major change is a big problem. I'd expect citations specifically documenting the change of opinion within the field. There's also some regional bias in that there's no particular reason to prefer a European theory over an American one. Mangoe (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The changes aren't really so major. The last para of the subsection on Mosaic authorship already says this: "Mosaic authorship was accepted with very little discussion by both Jews and Christians until the 17th century, when the rise of secular scholarship and the associated willingness to subject even the Bible to the test of reason led to its rejection by mainstream biblical scholars. The majority of modern scholars believe that the Torah is the product of many hands, stretching over many centuries, reaching its final form only around the 6th and 5th centuries BCE." In other words, Mosaic authorship isn't accepted by mainstream modern scholarship. Giving it this large section, as if it were still important, is therefore misleading our readers. I have no quarrel with mentioning it in a single sentence with a link to the separate article on the subject. (Material from this subsection mi9ght usefully be moved into that article, which is a little thin in some regards).

The section on modern scholarship is simply wrong. The documentary hypothesis it describes is that of Wellhausen, and is now over a century old - the modern documentary hypothesis is somewhat different, as the Wiki article on the subject makes clear. Things have moved on. In my first post in this thread I mentioned the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Please have a look at that. PiCo (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you were Bruce Metzger all these words would have some weight. As it is, we're still at the "no citations" stage. Quite beyond the (in my opinion) excessive reduction of the material, you've given no proof that this change of opinion has taken place. Mangoe (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Pico, we have no arguement with what you are saying, it is the fact that you have not supplied evidence for your case, when the other version had some. Please discuss this further with references for your argument. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm trying to give up Wikipedia :). I'll let it go. PiCo (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be like that, the fact is anyone can write crap, I learn't the hard way about referencing my work, and no mostly do not write anything without a reference. 09:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Pentateuch and Torah

Have I missed something? Pentateuch redirects here, but the Pentateuch isn't identical with the Torah - one's in Greek, the other's in Hebrew, there are differences of content, and they have different textual histories. Should there not be separate articles?PiCo (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're willing to create an article that draws those distinctions and draws on proper academic sources, then yes. Serendi^podous 04:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe you are confusing it with Septaguint Octologue (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Octologue

Names of the Books in Hebrew

it is written here that the fourth book of the Torah is 'Bamidbar.' This is the common pronunciation. However, correct pronunciation of the Hebrew is actually B'midbar or Bemidbar. Shall I change it or does someone else want to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.238.62 (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

On 18 December 2009, user 68.197.238.62 did make that proposed edit, which was made in good faith, but has some problems in terms of WP standards. It changed only one instance of the word, creating an undesirable spelling inconsistency. Also, I believe that: (a) the stated intent would have called for "Bemidbar", rather than "B'midbar", per WP:Naming conventions (Hebrew); and (b) the whole concept of that edit also failed the "Conventional spelling is preferred" guideline of WP:Romanization, which I think supports "Bamidbar". I've reversed that edit and would like to see a consensus on the romanized spelling of the Hebrew name for the Book of Numbers. It occurs to me, for example, that there may be a consensus already in scholarly publications that we could reference. We should focus on the Hebrew word that represents the book title, which may well be "Bamidbar" even though the word that appears in the first sentence of that book is "Bemidbar". (P.S.: Perhaps the talk page of the Book of Numbers or Bamidbar (parsha) article would be a better page for this discussion, but we can always move the discussion later, if that is desired.) --Rich Janis (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Years of Talmud, precision, When?

Let's have something more precise, declarative. Early in the article, it says that God handed Moses the Torah in 1312 BCE; later it says that Moses received it in 1280 CE. Which is the most authoritative figure?Dogru144 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to make that clearer, consistent, & with refs for both dates, but w/o claim as to which is more authoritative. --Rich Janis (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Subjective treatment of Authorship

I would assume that most college students, like myself, are bombarded with the JEDP hypothesis and its apologetic concessions. Too often, apparent contradictions are portrayed as absolute, and the documentary hypothesis is portrayed as "What all modern scholars accept". Thus, I would like to point out the subjective treatment of authorship.

This article has a clear preference toward the JEDP hypothesis. While the 'academic analysis' only supports the JEDP hypothesis, the 'Mosaic authorship' is diluted extensively.

Within the 'Mosaic authorship' category, there's a very weak argument that I would like to remove- or at least qualify. The argument begins with a passage that, according to one source, best represents the Torah's argument for Mosaic authorship. Using that single passage, the author begins with an unsubstantiated claim that there exists an anachronism.

"Further", states the author, the word "Torah" is used in Numbers to refer to an individual section of the Pentateuch; thus, it "seems forced" for the passage to refer to Moses writing the Pentateuch. I consider this part of the argument faulty because:

    1) The earlier uses of "Torah" are in a different context in a different portion of the 
       Pentateuch.
    2) The argument suggests that this individual passage may only 
       refer to a portion of the Pentateuch- but it provides no evidence 
       of the broader point.
    3) The combination of this passage and others is what points toward 'Torah' meaning Pentateuch

The third of three points is very cryptic.

My main problem with the argument is that it attempts to belittle a single passage about Mosaic authorship, and in doing so, it attempts to generalize the criticism to every passage about Mosaic authorship.

Like all attempts to disprove Mosaic authorship, this argument is subjective. I hope that my changes will be be maintained.

I apologize for the bluntness- I just dislike the notion that every scholar supports the documentary hypothesis. This notion is false. Most 'Old Testament' classes favorably treat the JEDP hypothesis simply because academic institutions generally require secular treatment of religious topics. Most academic articles on the Torah explore the JEDP hypothesis because source criticism opens up the playing ground for a vast amount of journal articles. The religious scholars who believe in Mosaic authorship typically choose Yeshiva or Divinity school over academic institutions. I believe that our rabbis, preachers, and imams are just as scholarly as the JEDP article-publishing guys.

--After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD : "Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. (Deuteronomy 24-26)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariah62 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The authorship section is obviously biased toward modern scholarship

From the Mosaic Authors subsection: "Still, there are sufficient ways to explain apparent 'anachronisms' and there is much evidence to support Mosaic authorship."

In light of the fact that there is little or no evidence beyond that found in religious texts to support the notion that Moses authored the Torah, the preceding statement is absolutely horrendous. Furthermore, it is linked to three weak references, all three of which appear to be from a conservative religious viewpoint and are not peer-reviewed. The first reference is a discussion from a Bible study website; the second reference is an article in a monthly Christian journal written by a minister and another individual with no formal academic degree; and the third reference apparently is an undergraduate paper that provides support for Mosaic authorship based solely on biblical references. Due to its lack of evidence, I think that the preceding statement should be removed.

Toward the end of the Academic Analysis subsection: "The documentary hypothesis has been increasingly challenged since the 1970s, and alternative views now see the Torah as having been compiled from a multitude of small fragments rather than a handful of large coherent source texts,[31] or as having gradually accreted over many centuries and through many hands."

The preceding statement is confusing and makes it seem as if modern scholarship is more contradictory than it is consistent with the documentary hypothesis. Although it is true the documenatary hypothesis in its original form "has been increasingly challenged," the "alternative views" that are subsequently mentioned both agree that the Torah was written by multiple authors. Thus, according to the large majority of modern scholars, the only matter of debate concerns the process in which multiple authors wrote the Torah, not if the Torah was written by multiple authors or not. Due to its lack of clarity, I think that the preceding statement should be modified to make it clear that modern scholarship is largely in support of the notion that multiple individuals authored the Torah, although this general viewpoint has continued to be refined over time.

76.123.177.103 (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)AntiReligiousBias

I definitely agree with you on the first point. john k (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think it's accurate and balanced, change it. PiCo (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Present multiple views, not just two

This article should present multiple views of the subject, not just two. Earlier versions of this article described the breadth of religious views on the authorship of, and textual development of the Torah. However, acouple of years ago this entire section was removed without comment, and replaced with a few bland lines leading the reader to believe that only two views existed: the right-wing Orthodox point of view, or a secular point of view. As such, this article has misled people as to the true variety of views of the Jewish community. These views were not monolithic, and it unfortunate that the views of major, important Torah commentators were removed.

I have thus restored this section - especially the brief discussion of a book which is written solely by Orthodox rabbis, and shows that even in Orthodoxy they admit that this diversity of viewpoints did exist, and continues to exist, because, in accord with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, editors can not wipe out entire points of view. RK (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the section dealing with authorship. It was rather inadequate, so I've replaced it with something based on modern sources. PiCo (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusing section on "Mosaic Authorship"

The following text, as it now appears in the article, is confusing for a few reasons:

'Modern biblical scholars see no signs of Mosaic authorship, but indications of much later writing:[10]"Here and there in the Pentateuch Moses is said to have written certain things ... but nowhere is it affirmed that the Pentateuch was authored by Moses ... One would therefore think that what calls for an explanation is not why most people stopped believing in the dogma of Mosaic authorship, but rather why anyone believed it in the first place."[11]'

This paragraph does not clearly explain what "Mosaic Authorship" means, exactly. Jews, throughout most of the history of Judaism, and many to this day, have never claimed that Moses was the author of the Torah, but rather that he copied it down the way it was dictated to him - some opinions even including the parts relating to Moses' own death. So the "dogma" of "Mosaic Authorship" mentioned in the above paragraph cannot be traditional Jewish religious dogma - does "dogma" refer to a dogma of secular academic scholarship, or perhaps a religious but non-Jewish dogma? Perhaps by "Mosaic Authorship" the writer means "Mosaic Transcription"? This is confusing and unclear, and may be the product of editing without complete reworking of the idea structure of the article, or of placing an outside quotation within the article without giving adequate background. Additionally, the end of the paragraph seems to be ridiculing whoever believes in "Mosaic Authorship". Is a ridiculing tone appropriate for Wikipedia? Also, is it an academic or a religious position which is being ridiculed? Are Jews being called fools? It just feels wrong. Thanks. 208.54.35.44 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Exodus 34

We could use fresh views at this discussion. I hope people who watch this page will be able to share well-informed views. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Five Books vs. Seven

The article states that the Pentateuch is a misnomer because the book of Bemidbar (Numbers)is in fact divided into three parts, and cites a source in Shabbat 115-116 to this effect. I changed it back to five for the following reasons:

1) Individual books of the Pentateuch are called Chumashim/Fifths in the Talmud itself. For example, Megillah 26b, 5th wide line of the standard Vilna edition.

2) At the end of each book, there are four blank lines in the Torah scroll. The Torah is thus demarcated into 5 books. (See Mishneh Torah, Ahavah, Hilchot Mezuzah 7:7).

3) The source in Shabbat discusses a law completely unrelated to the actual structure of a Torah scroll. Rather, the question is how much of a scroll needs to be intact in order to rescue it on the Sabbath. There is a disagreement as why that particular portion of Numbers has signs (either because it is misplaced or because it is in fact its own book), but no conclusion is drawn and it is never directly related to the question of how much of a Torah must be intact to save it. The Mishneh Torah in Shabbat 23:28 does not give a reason for the 85-letter requirement. Octologue (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Octologue

Should Pentateuch be redirecting here?

Talk:Pentateuch per e.g. The Torah: theology and social history of Old Testament law Frank Crüsemann, Allan W. Mahnke - 1996 p331 "As nearly as I can tell, there is only clear evidence for the use of the term Torah to describe the Pentateuch as a whole, including narrative portions, from the second century BCE." how well grounded is this redirect? I haven't looked in detail, I'm just flagging it. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A separate article on Pentateuch would create the risk of a content and/or pov fork. If Pentateuch differs at all from Torah, it's that Pentateuch is used in biblical scholarship because it lacks the religious overtones of the word Torah - nevertheless, Torah is used very commonly in scholarly works. PiCo (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, Yes, it certainly would create the risk of a POVfork - as bad as the Hebrew Bible and Tanakh POVforks (can anyone explain those?). But in fact the way Google Scholar uses the two terms is sometimes the same when both are mentioned together, but more often distinct pentateuch, cf also Samaritan Pentateuch. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for the shape of the article

There's a danger of preoccupying with the origins of the "written Torah", the five books. Fascinating though this subject is, it's just the beginning of what Torah means in Judaism. Discussion of origins can be dealt with in a sentence or two, and then move on to more important matters - how Torah is central to Jewish community life, for example. PiCo (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This goes back to a fairly frequent theme on these Ancient Israel vs Modern Judaism talk pages,Shabbat vs Sabbath, Tanakh vs Hebrew Bible etc, whether any given article term should be (a) what the term means to dead scholarship - typically ANE scholarship, or (b) what the term means in living Judaism. In theory you'd have thought it would/should be possible to accomodate both in the same article as the Jewish Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Judaica do. But evidently "what Torah means in Judaism" is more than "Five Books"... I would have thought the best way to do it would be as the JE does it; but here the JE tries to handle Torah with a hatnote in the first line of lede disamb. back to Pentateuch.

• PENTATEUCH - www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12011-pentateuch "Ancient Jewish tradition attributed the authorship of the Pentateuch (with the exception of thelast eight verses describing Moses' death) to Moses himself."
• TORAH - www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14446-torah "Name applied to the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The contents of the Torah as a whole are discussed, from the point of view of modern Biblical criticism, under Pentateuch , where a table gives the various..

etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)