Talk:Law of Moses

Creating article

Surprising, to say the least, that this only existed as a REDIRECT to a badly sourced short paragraph in Moses' bio article. The intention here is to umbrella-tree and wikilink this out to all the various Jewish sacrifice/purity/feast articles. The material from the Moses article has been copied over, but this isn't a merge/move. Those are placeholders to be replaced with better WP:IRS. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Content of the Law section, what's missing?

Hi Debresser, For some reason this tag didn't show up with the reason.

+

Yeah sure, why not. But there's no "dispute" by all means edit away. Why would these be considered part and others not? Because those are easy and obvious. What others should be added, add them :) In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge

This article should be merged into the much older and better-sourced Torah article, or perhaps the article on Moses as a second choice. There is no need for a separate article on the name "Law of Moses". See Talk:Torah#Merger_proposal and please add your comments there to keep them all in one place. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree. I think this article should simply be deleted and turned into a redirect to Torah. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons on merger discussion page - Please see discussion on Merger discussion the problems (more than 1) with that approach are listed there. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge or deletion This article is a clear content fork from Torah. PiCo (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

PiCo, there's nothing wrong with umbrellas and content forks, hence we have Unitarianism and History of Unitarianism, and hence the rename suggestion Law in ancient Israel came out of above. That's the second issue here, the first issue is whether Five Books of Moses and Mosaic law are the same thing and should be 1 article. These two issues are separate of course. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Article blanked and restored

Lisa tried to blank the article here, and was reverted here by Debresser. The basic issue still remains. There are two subjects here:

• Torah (book), Five Books of Moses, Pentateuch - a physical collection of paper
• Law of Moses Joshua 8:31-32 first use, a Law, a historical concept / corpus, not a physical collection of paper. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

in the KJV.

This change was reverted by me, and then restored. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law_of_Moses&diff=prev&oldid=718569237 I believe I am entitled to remove it, and ask that it be justified. I will do that and we can discuss here whether or not the addition is appropriate. I do not see any justification that the source was appropriate. If the argument is that other translations of the Bible give different views then we can include that. At the moment the addition needs to be justified. The addition is not an improvement to the article.Maureendepresident (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless the article would indicate why, there is no reason the precise translation is relevant. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

But since the text in the article is a direct quote, we do indeed need to specify which translation it is taken from, per MOS:QUOTE. As the original restoration of the edit clearly put it "Reflects the specific Biblical version being quoted; not all versions may have precisely the same text." The reader should not have to click through the links to discover which translation is being quoted. There is no reason to remove the attribution, and per WP:BRD the removal of the attribution should not have been redone without discussion. I am restoring the attribution pending any consensus here to remove it. Meters (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

So this sentence needs to add English Standard Version (ESV)? Another mention of the "Book of the Law of Moses" is found in Joshua 8:30-31 . This sentence needs to say KJV? "And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words, for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel;" and Leviticus 26:46 And all of this needs to be attributed to a version? The Law of Moses or Torah of Moses (Hebrew Torat Moshe תֹּורַת מֹשֶׁה, Septuagint Greek nomos Moyse νόμος Μωυσῆ) is a biblical term first found in the Book of Joshua 8:31-32 where Joshua writes the Hebrew words of "Torat Moshe תֹּורַת מֹשֶׁה" (translated as "Law of Moses") on the altar at Mount Ebal. The text continues "And afterward he read all the words of the teachings, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the Torah." (Joshua 8:34 The all contain quotes.Maureendepresident (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Then don't quote, just paraphrase. As a matter of fact, there are no quotation marks, so not a quot at all. Debresser (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

No quotation marks? Take another look. Wikipedia is taking a direct quote from the King James Bible version of Deuteronomy 31:26, and correctly uses quote marks. The Bible may not be using quotation marks, but we are quoting the Bible, and a specific version of it. Meters (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that if it were paraphrased we would not need an attribution, but so long as it is a direct quote we do need the attribution. Meters (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Meters:, my reasoning was the same as the one you set forth above (that so long as what follows is a direct quote we do need the attribution to a specific translation). General Ization ^Talk 18:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This is very likely a larger question that should be dealt with by using the resources at WikiProject Bible (which may already have some guidance to offer on the topic). General Ization ^Talk 18:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see also {{Bibleverse}}, which provides a mechanism to specify not only a specific book and verse, but the specific translation being cited and/or quoted. If this template is used, I don't think it's necessary to specify the translation in the text. General Ization ^Talk 18:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The {{Bibleref}} links that precede the quote do in fact use the SOURCE parameter (KJV). However, I still don't think it hurts to specify in the text that it is the KJV that is being quoted, for those who don't know how to use the links to see this. Many things on Wikipedia are not necessary, but are provided as a convenience for our readers. General Ization ^Talk 18:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yup. As I said, I don't we should require that readers click through on the link to see what source is being quoted. Meters (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that says we must specify the translation. If a template is used, and it is, that is more than enough. Adding the translation inside the text looks very amateurish, and is not customarily done on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a completely different argument. You have been reverting by incorrectly saying that we are not using a direct quote with quotation marks, which we clearly are. I suggest that you self-revert while we discuss whether a template is sufficient to say that we don't need to follow MOS:QUOTE. As I've said, I don't like forcing readers to click through the link to find out what is being quoted. I was quite surprised to discover that the link took me to a direct quote from a particular version of the Bible, and I'm sure I'm not the only reader who would be surprised. Still, I'm not familiar with this and if this is our standard usage then I'll withdraw my objection. Meters (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I do apologize for the slightly incorrect edit summary, but pending your research, which will lead to the conclusion that we do not add the precise translation (and in addition the argument that it looks amateurish), I think we can do without me self-reverting a correct edit just to spare your feelings. Debresser (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to do with my feelings, and I would hardly call a completely bogus edit summary with an inappropriate warning after two different editors had clearly pointed out (via edit summaries, your talk page, and this talk page) that we were using a direct quote a "slightly incorrect edit summary". Someone else has undone you, so I guess it's up to you to show why we should ignore MOS:QUOTE. Meters (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: Please stop reverting other editors with threats such as "Do not repeat edit that is not customary, or you'll be reported as well." Whether or not something is "customary" has nothing to do with whether other editors are editing appropriately and/or according to policy, and you have yet to show us any evidence of what is or is not "customary". At this point all you have shown is that your preference is different than that of Meters and myself, but your preference does not determine what is and is not appropriate here. The only violation of Wikipedia's core principles and policies in evidence thus far is your tendency to engage in ownership behavior bordering on tendentious editing. I'm quite confident your "report" would boomerang if you were to make it at this point. General Ization ^Talk 22:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone provide links to any previous discussions of whether direct quotes attributed via the bibleversefinder tool require attribution? I have not been able to find any, but I really don't know where to look for this. Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Bible is obsolete and never reached any conclusions. Its talk page page is bit more recent but still does not answer the question. Meters (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The contested content was added May 4, 2016. That means that reverting to a consensus version means removing it. Which is what I did. Combined with the arguments above, I repeat my warning to all involved, that further reverts can lead to sanctions by the community. WP:OWN allegations are pretty ridiculous, since I have hardly been involved in this article. Tendentious editing is another fancy word that has nothing to do with what is going on here, because I am not involved in any even remotely related issues on other pages. In short, please spare me the Wikilawyering, and stop adding information that is not added in such situations. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. The initial undo by Debresser was to the stable version. My second reason for undoing, MOS:QUOTE still seems valid though. There's no consensus here yet that MOS:QUOTE can be ignored here, and no evidence of any previous decisions or discussions. Again, if anyone can link to such discussions please do so. I've looked without finding any. Meters (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Since the quotation is sourced with the {{Bibleverse}} template, with indication of the source, KJV, why do you think there is a problem here? Debresser (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly said, it is a direct quote, and I don't think readers should have to click through a link to find out which Bible version is being quoted. There is no indication in the visible text as to which version is being quoted, just a link. For example, the following seven links all display identically, but each takes the reader to a different Bible version, with different versions of the quoted verse:

1. Deuteronomy 31:24–26
2. Deuteronomy 31:24–26
3. Deuteronomy 31:24–26
4. Deuteronomy 31:24–26
5. Deuteronomy 31:24–26
6. Deuteronomy 31:24–26
7. Deuteronomy 31:24–26.

The links are not even all to the same website. Hovering over the links does bring up the text of the template calls but only someone familiar with the Bibleverse template and the source codes used in the template will understand the initials that appear ("BBC", "HE", "KJV", "NIV", "NLT", "NRSV", and "YLT" for the preceding examples). We cannot assume that readers will know to hover over the link to get the attribution, or understand the resulting codes if they do.

Inline external links are not normally used in Wikipedia. If one is not aware of the significance of the slight difference in display compared to a Wikilink (or simply does not notice it, as I didn't) it is surprising to find that the Bibleverse link leads to an external website rather than to a Wikiarticle on the particular Bible verse as expected.

It appears to me that MOS:QUOTE should apply when making direct quotes even when using Bibleverse. Again, has this issue previously been discussed? If the issue of attribution of direct Bible quotes with Bibleverse links has not been discussed, then I think a general discussion is needed. Meters (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hovering over the links is even more confusing, since it actually brings up the text of the Bibleverse template call to the Tools lab Bible Verse Finder at https://tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder/ Meters (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

An attempt was made to raise the general issue one year ago here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible#Bibleref.2Fbibleverse_templates citing WP:CS#Avoid embedded links but there was no response. Pinging the poster User:Marchjuly. Meters (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my opinion is that the template is enough. Attribution serves copyright laws, and for those the template is enough. There is no real reason the average reader should be rubbed with his nose into the source; of he is interested, he will follow the template. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged, so I guess I'll comment. My initial query about the use of such templates was whether it was considered acceptable to embed external links into articles using them. For reference, bible related articles are not the only articles where links are embedded: sports related articles also often do the same for game results. There is also a template like {{NASDAQ}} used in many company articles to embedded an external link to the company's NASDAQ page. To me, the question is whether the link is supposed to serve as an external link or as a inline citation. If it's the former, then embedding it seems to be contrary to current external link policy. If it's the later, then embedded citations is a style that has been deprecated and the link should probably be re-formatted to a more acceptable style, either manually or using a citation template. No information would be lost in converting the links to references and more information about the source could be provided for clarification purposes. As to whether direct attribution is required per MOS:QUOTE, it would seem to me to be helpful for the reader to know which version of the Bible is being cited, especially if there are significant differences between versions. I am not very familiar with the Bible or its different versions so when I see something like "Joshua 8:30-31", I just assume (mistakenly it seems) that it is the same in all versions. I could, however, understand more about the source and possibly the differences between the various versions if it was properly clarified in a citation such as follows:

• {{cite book|url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+8%3A30-31&version=ESV|title=Joshua 8:30-31|work=[[The Holy Bible]], [[English Standard Version]]|publisher=[[Good News Publishers]]|via=[[Biblegateway.com]]}}

or

• {[cite book|url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2026:46-26:46&version=KJV|title=Leviticus 26:46|work=[[The Holy Bible]], [[King James Version]]|via=[[Biblegateway.com]]}}

which would respectively look like Joshua 8:30-31. Good News Publishers – via Biblegateway.com. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) and Leviticus 26:46 – via Biblegateway.com. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) when the footnote marker is hovered over or when shown in the "References" section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Summarizing authorship

Today I changed the intro to summarize the authorship question like this:

Before the Englightenment, these texts were believed to have been written by Moses, but most modern scholars now believe they had many authors.

Debresser changed it back to:

...traditionally believed to have been written by Moses.

with the edit summary "That is not the best summary." The paragraph of Mosaic authorship I was trying to summarize reads:

Mosaic authorship of the Torah was unquestioned by both Jews and Christians until the European Enlightenment, when the systematic study of the five books led the majority of scholars to conclude that they are the product of many hands and many centuries, including the Deuteronomist movement. Despite this, the role of Moses is an article of faith in traditional Jewish circles and for some Christian Evangelical scholars, for whom it remains crucial to their understanding of the unity and authority of Scripture.

Debresser or anyone else: what would you propose as a better summary? -- Beland (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"first five books of the Hebrew Bible. Traditionally believed to have been written by Moses, academics now believe they had many authors." The main problem with the version you proposed is that it sounded as though since the Enlightenment all changed their minds regarding the authorship, while in truth the traditional point of view still exists among many religious people. Debresser (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: Well, I wrote "most modern scholars" not "academics" which implies "all academics"; but you're right, the phrasing is a bit ambiguous. I didn't really distinguish between religious and secular scholars because Mosaic authorship seems to be saying it's not all Judeo-Christian scholars who hold the traditional view. But maybe echoing the original paragraph and emphasizing the minority view would also help clarify. How about:

Though some traditional Jewish and Evangelical Christians believe as an article of faith that these texts were written by Moses, most modern scholars believe they had multiple authors.

-- Beland (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping the word "traditionally", which encompasses both the general belief till the Enlightenment as well as the beliefs of believers today. I also prefer "academics" to "scholars" to make it clear that Jewish scholars are excluded. Another problem I see with your last proposal is the "some". I understand that you have a problem with my omitting "most", so I'd propose "first five books of the Hebrew Bible. Traditionally believed to have been written by Moses, most academics now believe they had many authors." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 13:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I added your wording to the article. Thanks for helping me iron that out! -- Beland (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It was a pleasure. You are officially thanked. :) Debresser (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Correction Update

The Torah was the first five books of the Old Covenant, but in no way included any "oral law." What is referred to as the entire "oral law" is actually called "The Talmud," and its origin is strictly rabbinical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.162.157 (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)