Talk:Book of Deuteronomy/Archive 1

Archive 1

90% of scholars...

Where did this number come from? Does this discount evangelical scholars? If you want to say "many secular and liberal Biblical scholars..." that is fine, but 90% is just a made-up numberBenjaminmarsh 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that. The majority of biblical scholars are believing jews and christians whose knowledge and understanding of the Torah far surpasses that of the secular scholars. If you count scholars of the past it's not even close.Benignuman 20:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds do you claim that biblical scholars have superior understanding and knowledge? Additionally, I would think that being a believing Jew or Christian would tend to bias someone in this particular field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.85.236 (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This sentence: "liberal biblical scholars see it as the work of many authors..." which I assume used to be the "90%" that the commenter took issue with, is fishy. I think changing "liberal" to "secular" would be more accurate in describing the difference that is trying to be represented here. The link to "Liberal Christianity" is a good clue to the fishiness. We should be talking about schools of scholarship. Liberal Christianity doesn't fit into that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovularity (talk • contribs) 07:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This: "modern biblical scholars" remains a seriously misleading statement.

The term "modern" in this context is referring to "modernist", rather than "recent", but will easily be misunderstood.

"modern biblical scholars see it as modern biblical scholars see it as the work of many authors, with its origins in 7th century religious reforms carried out under king Josiah"... really? All of them?

The sentence, in its current form, implies that all scholars who are currently commentating will agree with the late authorship hypothesis, whereas previous scholars did not necessarily.

A different phrase is required. Something along the lines of "liberal" is actually closer to what is intended because the current wording implicitly denies that there are any modern biblical scholars who disagree with late authorship.

"Liberal" and "Conservative" is the best dichotomy I can identify. Are there other suggestions?

Kevin Bennett ekv (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The word "modern" means current, contemporary, not "modernist." It's referenced to John Rogerson's entry on Deuteronomy in the Eerdman's biblical commentary, published 2003 (therefore "modern"). It summarises a rather long passage, but it begins: "A broad consensus has emerged that describes the origin and growth of Deuteronomy in the following general terms..." The phrase "broad consensus" supports the inclusive language in our article ("modern biblical scholars see..."). The rest of the sentence ("... the work of many authors, with its origins in 7th century religious reforms carried out under king Josiah") is a summary of the following 3 paras in Rogerson's article, which are too much to copy here.

Note that our article isn't summarising all of this "broad consensus" (although the revelant section lower down does), just the part that relates to date and setting.

Since you question whether Rogerson is right about this consensus, in the bibliography section you'll find three commentaries listed. You might like to look at what they say on the subject. (Rogerson is an Anglican priest, by the way, and Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield). I regret that none of the three are really recent - this is simply because the most recent ones simply aren't available on google books. All three are respected scholars. (Craigie is ultra-conservative, his personal belief is that it preserves the words of Moses, but he says that this is a minority view and he sets out the majority view). PiCo (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Although the characterisation of Craigie's views as "ultra-conservative" appears to support my own suggestion of the liberal/conservative divide, perhaps I am focusing on the wrong part of the sentence after all...

The sentence states that the origins of the contents of the Book of Deuteronomy are found "in 7th century religious reforms carried out under king Josiah". This is certainly not the "broad consensus", and is probably an unfortunate result of the distilling process of a much more detailed commentary.

Whether or not the Book was compiled in the 7th Century (or the 6th...), it's "origins" run much, much earlier. I'm not aware of many scholars who see all, or even most of the various traditions represented in Deuteronomy as having originated under Josiah. I would suggest that the broadest "concensus" here is that it is the flavour, emphasis, and theological implications which are supposed to have been introduced in the 7th and/or the 6th centuries, under Josiah and/or during, and/or after the Exile. It is "compilation" and "redaction" which is broadly seen as occurring during that period.Kevin Bennett ekv (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the idea is that the basic traditions of covenant, Egypt and Moses are first identifiable in the works of 8th century northern prophets - writings from the same period from Judah don't mention these things; the first version of the book was composed in Jerusalem under Josiah (late 7th century); and final revisions were made in the mid-6th century. Anyway, I've revised the sentence to make this clearer - still based on Rogerson. PiCo (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kevin Bennett on this. And you, PiCo, are not citing any RSs (or good arguments) for your view. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 07:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Kevin Bennett and I are not in any great disagreement I don't really see your point. And do you say Rogerson is not a reliable source?PiCo (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A book-- without a page number or quote-- is not even a source. Please include one or the other-- or both. You, PiCo, seem to be saying that the entire Torah and Judiasm itself was created wholesale by a priest in the time of king Josiah. I would be very surprised if John Rogerson, or any other RS, hold this view. If you have a different view then feel free to clarify. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 01:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Go to the lead of the article, to the paragraph beginning "Traditionally ascribed to..." The statement in the last part of that para is what we're discussing. There's a footnote at the end directing you to a source (Rogerson). In the Bibliography you'll find a clickable link to that source (we're using citebook format - it combines a references section with a bibliography section). Read what Rogerson says, and then come back. PiCo (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate the deeper clarity of the current form of the sentence, it still categorically denies the possibility that the traditions could have originated earler. Wenham clarifies the points of argument from the conservative side: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_deut2_wenham.html. Essentially he criticises some of the evidence that is commonly used to assume a wholesale late authorship. He is defending the early origins of the essential traditions. Wenham is certainly authoritative in the debate, so even if his views are 'minority', they can't be dismissed altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Bennett ekv (talk • contribs) 13:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You (and Wenham) raise a very good point. Before going into it, I want to note that we're talking about the lead to a Wikipedia article, not a learned paper - we have to be very brief, and just get the major points across, and to an audience that we have to assume doesn't know what a Deuteronomist is and would be hard-put to identify Babylon on a map. Given that, we need to represent, here, in the lead, the most basic information, which is that a "consensus" exists about the Josianic origins of Deuteronomy. That's what Rogerson says, not what I say. If you can find a reliable source that says Rogerson is wrong, we'll add that pov, but if there's a consensus, then there's no room, in the lead, for the minority view.

Which, of course, doesn't rule it out in the body of the article. I'm dubious about putting it in there, though, because Wenham is writing in about 1985 I think, and Craigie even earlier - we need to know what's going on now, in the last ten years, or at least contemporary with Rogerson. (1985, after all, is a qurter of a century ago).

Now for what Wenham says: Deut keeps talking about God selecting the place where he will set his name, but never actually names Jerusalem. You'll find that every modern study mentions this (or every one that I know of). The best answer, and one's that increasingly popular, is that the book isn't talking about any particular place when it says this, but rather it's making a statement about God's transcendence - the gods of other nations are limited to a particular temple, city, region, but the God of Israel has no limits, he can set his name anywhere. Note also the idea of God's "name" - I think the article already deals with this, but it's a difficult concept and it probably doesn't explain clearly. Anyway, the idea is that God exists in heaven, but places his "name" in the Temple, where it has power - and that's why there's no image of God there.

The idea of God's "name" developed during the Josianic reforms (which were intellectual as much as anything). But when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple and took the priests and prophets off to Babylon, it meant that, for them, their God could go with them. The gods of other people couldn't do that, but Israel's god could. So that's what "the place" means - it's a statement of God's transcendence, and the place itself is wherever he chooses.

Look in the Bibliography - open the books in the General section one after another and search under "name" or "place his name". PiCo (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to Rogerson's single volume commentry but it only tells me I have exceeded my allowed number of pages already. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 17:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised, but try this direct link.PiCo (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the current wording - thanks for the revision. To my mind this is radically different from "modern biblical scholars see it as the work of many authors, with its origins in 7th century religious reforms carried out under king Josiah", and was worth the clarification. Cheers.

Kevin Bennett ekv (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Book of Deuteronomy

Is there a reason why the name of this article does not start with "Book of"? All the other articles in the Old Testament category start that way, except for four of the five books of the Torah. If there are no objections, I'll have it changed.

The reason the other articles start that way is because Kings, Chronicles, Samuel, Judges, Joshua, Isiah, Amos, etc. all mean other things more than they do the books in the bible. That is unlike Genesis, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, which fairly uniquely refer to the bible. Note that Numbers is Book of Numbers. --francis 20:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Death of moses should that be an article, along with death of Aaron?

Is there a reason the shema` is neglected?

Deuteronomy 6.4|9 is hugely important in both Jewish and Christian theology (the source of Jesus' 'Greatest Commandment'). Is the focus of this article such that the inclusion of information on the shema` would be inappropriate? If not, I think that it's sorely missed. Tmargheim 03:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, because "God is One" the shema is used often in Acts to discuss how the gentiles were included in the christian church, when they were not previously. Also in the Hebrew Bible because god calls pagan nations ie Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar as his "annointed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.4.227 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The other side of the Jordan??

Someone has written in the modern critical analysis section: "Similarly the language within the discourse refers to the land east of the Jordan as being on the other side of the Jordan, implying the author is on the west of the Jordan, a location that Moses supposedly never entered as punishment for smashing the first set of tablets to hold the Ethical Decalogue." I can see no proof of this in reading the book itself and indeed the phase "other side of the Jordan" can I find nowhere and any time "east of the jordan" is used it refers to where they where at the time not in referece to where they were not. Eleutherius 23:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The phrase is "beyond the Jordan": specifically, Deuteronomy begins with words to the effect: "These are the words spoken by Moses to Israel beyond the Jordon." (That's a quote from memory, but the general sense is thus). This implies that the writer is currently on the opposite side from where Moses did his speaking (or else that the children of Israel were on one side and Moses on the other, speaking across the river - which is hardly likely to be what the writer had in mind). Personally, I abhore language like "discourse" and feel that the whole sentence is barely literate, not to mention horribly wrong about the reason for Moses being forbidden to enter the Promised Land; nevertheless, the point it makes is a very old one, identified several centuries ago when the tradition of Mosaic authorship was first being questioned. The usual explanation given by those who wish to preserve the tradition is that these words were written by Joshua, who acted as secretary to Moses on his deathbed. The Joshua-secretary argument isn't accepted by modern biblical scholars - and hasn't been since the time of Spinoza - but it brings comfort to those who find textual criticism confronting, and I wouldn't like to take that comnfort away from them. The problem was well-known to our grandfathers, and in consequence many English-language bibles use phrases such as "on this side of the Jordan" instead of "across the Jordan": but "across" is what the Hebrew says. PiCo 11:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you for clarifying. Im still a bit confused though. why is "beyond the jordon" imply the writer is not? i guess i understand why , but i dont see the certainty..Eleutherius 11:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

removing Apologetics section

I removed the section headed Aplogetics. I'm pasting it in here, with an explanation of why I removed it. The section is:

Most Orthodox Judaism scholars and Jews and many evangelical Christians believe, despite the ideas raised by the Talmudic rabbis, that the original author of the book was Moses, and that the book really was lost and recovered (e.g. [1]). Their apologetics argues that:

• The book itself claims to have been written by Moses (Deuteronomy 1:1; Deuteronomy 29:1; Deuteronomy 31:1; Deuteronomy 31:9–11, etc.), and, as everyone agrees, was obviously intended to be accepted as his work.

*The frequent references to it in the later books of the canon (Joshua 8:31; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Chronicles 23:18; 2 Chronicles 25:4; 2 Chronicles 34:14; Ezra 3:2; Ezra 7:6; Nehemiah 8:1; Daniel 9:11–13) prove its antiquity. *Orthodox Jews point to testimony, within the Mishnah and Talmud, that Moses authored nearly all of Deuteronomy. *Christians identify further testimony of Mosaic authorship from the New Testament. Matthew 19:7–8, Mark 10:3–4, John 5:46–47, Acts 3:22 and Acts 7:37, and Romans 10:19, all establish the same conclusion.

The problem with this is that it's unscholarly, and spoils what is essentially quite a good and informative article. But to explain what I mean by unscholarly: Leaving aside the question of Orthodox Jewish scholars, the beliefs of "most Jews and many evangelical Christians" are immaterial when it comes to deciding whether or not Moses wrote Deuteronomy. If they haven't studied the scholarly debate, their opinions are uninformed. The problems of uninformed opinion are apparent from this section. It says, for example, that the book "claims to have ben written by Moses": it doesn't, in fact. What it does say is that Moses wrote a "scroll of torah" which was kept beside the Ark of the Covenant. This scroll is presumably the law-code contained in Deuteronomy, not the whole collection of 5 scrolls making up the modern Torah. And what weight are we toi give thios statement in Deuteronomy? This is where the whole scholarly debate begins: is Deuteronomy telling the truth or not? Maybe yes, maybe no, but to say that Deuternomomy must be telling the truth because it's in the bibler is a religious argument, not a scholarly one. Similarly, it says there are frequent references to the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy in "later books", and then cites Joshua - quite unaware that the scholarly view is that Joshua is by the same author as Deuteronomy. That view may be right or wrong, but the person who wrote this section was obviously unaware that it existed. Worse, it cites the views of New Testament writers as authoritative - but this is a religious argument, not a scholarly one. (Matthew may be authoritative on early Christian theology, but not on matters of OT scholarship). So for all these reasons and more, I'm deleting the section. PiCo 10:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

PiCo -

Deleting this is somewhat presumptive - it does need to be cleaned up, agreed, but that does not necessarily mean that the beliefs of Jews and evangelicals are immaterial when deciding whether or not Moses wrote Deuteronomy for it is exactly those people that claim to be inheritents of that religious tradition. This is a broader question of the value of traditional interpretations versus later scholarship and is not one to be addressed here by deleting the section. Why is it that when we look at the validity of early manuscripts (ie Homer, Roman religious manuscripts), scholars will look down the road at later translations and interpretations within the tradition to decide how an earlier manuscript might have been read or used but the same sense of the value of the internal traditional understanding is completely rejected when it comes to Christianity and Judaism. If Christ, himself a Jew, ascribes the words he cites as belonging to Moses, is that not a form of internal validation that should be accounted for in scholarship?

This section should be retained in some form - even if it is listed as "religious arguments for Mosaic authorship" or something similar.

Also, you say that "the scholarly view is that Joshua is by the same author as Deuteronomy" which is funny seeing as there is a great deal of scholarly contention about this. You have to be careful in your presentation as well, as the scholarly disagreement about the authorship of the pentateuch is as widely divided as are religious views about the pentateuch. Benjaminmarsh 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added an admittedly rough section on Evangelical scholarly views. It bears noticing these arguments given the great deal of writing done on the issue by evangelical and jewish authors. Simply removing the arguments is not warranted. Benjaminmarsh 23:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjaminmarsh, I must apologise for not answering your post - I don't have this page on my watchlist and simply didn't look at it agin after my visit back in February. Anyway, to come to business: My feeling is that there's no need to put Evangelical views in a separate section - they belong logically with traditional Jewish views. I'd be inclined to put all this discussion on authorship into a single section, titled Composition (or whatever you might prefer), with two sub-sections, one titled "Mosaic authorship", the other "Modern views" (taking 'modern' to mean anything after Spinoza, more specifically the development of the DH through Wellenhausen to contemporary times). It also needs to be shortened considerably. The Evangelical position can be mentioned within the first subsection - their arguments are not new, and the sentence can simply say that the Mosiac tradition is still held in Orthodox Jewish and conservative (Evangelical if you like) Christian circles. I do see a need to mention the Deuteronomistic history idea, but no more then a sentence or two. Cheers. PiCo 11:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Documentary Hypothesis has been in decline and there are many version of the theories, but Mosaic Authorship is still alive in many universities, and is not dismissed entirely. The Critical Scholarship section (which i've renamed) should be reduced to 1 paragraph

Not sure who wrote this, but it's wrong. First, the material deleted doesn't relate to the documentary hypothesis. Second, even if it did, the author is incorrect in saying that the DH is in decline, at least in the sense used here - the Wellhausian hypothesis is certainly questioned, but the idea of documents is still the dominant paradigm. PiCo 10:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Well, several months later & this section is still a steaming heap of completely OR and/or mis-cited crap. I'd suggest immediate cleanup or removal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Structure

Why was the section on structure removed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deuteronomy&oldid=152440076

Davinci616 06:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

One people two worlds

Unfortunately I don't own a copy of the book but I know that the orthodox rabbi gives a extensive argument against the possibility of the Documentary Hypothesis. I gave a summary of the argument as I remember it. If any one has more exact quotes feel free to adjust.Benignuman 01:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of arguments have been made against the DH, the most important being R. N. Whybray sometime in the 70s - the article Documentary hypothesis gives an overview. There's now no univerally accepted theory on Torah origins, although miportant theories are those put forward by John Van Seters, Rolf Rendtorff, and perhaps one should mention the Copenhagen School. See also the article on Mosaic authorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 10:17, 26 September 2007

Yahweh and Israel

I've deleted this edit from the subsection Israel and Yahweh: "This however is contradicted by verse 4:35 "You have been shown to know that the Lord is the God, there is none beside him" as well as a similar 4:39 which seem to clearly and unambiguously state that there are no other gods." : yes, they express monotheism, more or less obviously (4:39 more so than 4:35): but it's not what this paragraph is about. It's about one specific verse, which is definitely monolatrous, and it's relevance to Deuteronomy's concept of Yahweh as the god of Israel. History, not theology, is the point. PiCo 06:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the section was dealing with only one verse. I thought it was bringing that verse as an example of the theology of Deuteronomy. I was especially taking issue with quote saying there is no unambigous statement of monotheism in Deuteronomy, when such a statement does in fact exist. This issue still stands with the current version of the article.Benignuman 02:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The point I was trying to get across is the relationship Deuteronomy sees between Yahweh and Israel: Israel is Yahweh's own people, they can have no other god; they are bound together by covenant, (Deuteronomy is cast in the form of a covenant-treaty); they must love the Lord because they are his. This verse expresses that relationship better than any other in Deuteronomy (I think). As you can see, I keep changing the heading of the section and the inclusion of the shema in that section or in a section of it's own, because I can't make up my mind.

As for the lead quote, "[T]here is no clear and unambiguous denial [in the Hebrew bible] of the existence of gods other than Yahweh before Deutero-Isaiah in the 6th century B.C. … The question was not whether there is only one elohim [god], but whether there is any elohim like Yahweh," it does represent the current state of scholarly thinking - which is that Israelite religion emerged out of Canaanite culture, and only gradually became recognisably Judiasm over many centuries. There are many differences of opinion over the details, but this is the consensus on the broad picture. Unfortunately, of course, this is the viewpoint of secular scholarship (although many scholars are devout Jews and Christians): Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians take a supernaturlaist approach to scripture, holding that there is but one God and that He revealed his nature to mankind through Moses, who wrote Deuteronomy. If this is your view, I have no objection to adding it to the article, but I'd rather not try to integrate it into this section - integrating a secular worldview with a supernatural one is beyond my powers.PiCo 08:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Are saying that since this quote reflects the secular scholarly consensus, you are putting it in the article even though it's a lie. Wouldn't it be prudent to find another quote which also reflects the consensus but isn't obviously not true?

I'm also confused about how this fits in with the composition section. There it says that Deuteronomy was "discovered" by King Josiah. He lived after the time of Isaiah so even according to the secular theory of the evolution of judaism, it makes sense that Deuteronomy would be monotheistic.Benignuman 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a lie to say that there's "no clear and unambiguous" statement of universal monotheism (i.e., one god alone over all the world) before Deutero-Isaiah. Dtr 32:8-9 is a very unambiguous statement of the Deuteronomic position: Yahweh is the God of Israel, but other nations have their own gods. The shema describes the same position but without the background of the "heavenly council": "Hear O Israel" (i.e., it's addressing only Israel and making no statement about the rest of the nations), "the Lord our God" (Israel's god, no reference to other gods) "is One" (Israel has only one god). The verses you note, Dtr 4:35 and 4:39, can be read as monotheistic, but are not unambiguous and clear. 4:35's "Yahweh is God, there is none beside him", is still addressed to Israel, and can be read as saying that there is none beside him in Israel - the basis of the Josaic reform was that Israel should worship Yahweh alone (and, of course, in one place alone). 4:39 is much the same: "Yahweh is Elohim in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other." Again, this is addressed to Israel, and although it can be read as saying that only one god exists in heaven and earth, it can also be read as saying that Yahweh is identical with Elohim (unlike Dtr 32, which draws a distinction between Yahweh and El Elyon) and rules over Israel: there is no other elohim for Israel.

As for your second point, the (secular again) scholarly consensus is that Isaiah is made up of at least two parts, the original 8th century work which saw the Assyrians as the enemy of Israel, and a 6th century Exilic work, Deutero-Isaiah, which changed the enemy into the Babylonians. Deutero-Isaiah is dated to the late 500s on the basis of its reference to Cyrus the Persian king (plus, of course, the switch from Assyrians to Babylonians). This book review gives an overview of the scholarly argument on the origins of Isaiah. This article (I have no idea who the author is) gives an argument against.

Incidentally, there's a lot of ambiguity in that word "ehad", one. It can mean "single", but it can also mean "alone" - so the shema can be rtanslated as "the Lord is singlular" (only one god), or "the Lord is alone" (Yahweh stands alone in the Temple in Jerusalem). There's a further intriguing touch of ambiguity which isn't often noticed: the Song of Songs contains this line: "My dove, my perfect one, is the only one, the darling of her mother". This suggests that there may have been an idiomatic expression in which "one" meant "beloved" ("you're the only one"), which would be a fitting way for the verse to express the sentiment of love between Israel and Yahweh made explicit in the verses following shema.

So, I'd like to keep the current quote, as it does express the scholarly viwe on Deuteronomy's underwstanding of the relationship between Israel and Yahweh, which is what I'm trying to explain. The question of when monotheism appears in Israel is another matter, which I'd rather not go into in the article on Deuteronomy. Please bear in mind that Wiki is an open forum, and your views count as much as anyone's - don't feel I'm trying to crowd you out. PiCo 04:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

32:8-9 as quoted in the article is a mistake. The verses actually read (I transalated as literally as possible) as follows: "When Supreme alotted nations, when he spread out children of man, he set the borders of peoples (or nations)to the number of Children of Israel. For the portion of The Lord (yhvh)is his people, Jacob the rope of his inheritance". This poetic verse makes no mention of other dieties at all, are we using a different text? It also uses the term Elyon not El Elyon.

While tortured reading can ignore the significance of 4:35 & 39. I think that the plain reading of the text (as well as the traditional understanding) indicates monotheism. In both verses the original hebrew is "Lord he is the God" "Yhvh hu HaElokhim". I agree that the echad in shema is ambigous. Traditionally it is understood to mean both singular and alone. But not alone in the temple which didn't exist yet rather alone in that it has no peer.

My knowledge of Isaiah is weak but I've always thought it weird that the mentioning of Cyrus garnered it a later date. Isaiah claims to be a prophet, the secular assumtion is clearly that prophecy doesn't exist. In other words (secular) biblical scholars have a priori dismissed the possibility of divine authorship.Benignuman 21:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your literal translation of 32:8-9 is correct, but only for the standard modern Hebrew text, based on the Masoretic text-tradition. The Dead Sea Scroll and LXX texts are different: they say "sons of God" or "angels of God" instead of "children of Israel". Biblical scholars believe that the DSS and LXX are more accurate than the Masoretic at this point, as the "sons of god" reading makes sense in the context, while "children of Israel" doesn't. It also makes sense in terms of what's known about Near Eastern mythology of the period (1st millenium BC, and also late 2nd millenium): El (the Canaanite supreme god) and his sons made up a divine council. The word for this council was "elohim", the gods. As monotheism developed in Israel/Judah the plural meaning of elohim was lost and the word merged with El - and the council was, after all, singular (one council).

The secular assumption always has to be that prophecy is impossible, and that any accurate prophesy must ipso facto have been written after, not before, the event. To allow supernatural explanations would destroy the basis of logical deduction - any argument about history or meaning could be cut short with the statement, "But it must have happened that way/must mean that, because the bible says so and the bible is the word of God." As an example, one of the big arguments in the last century has been over exactoly this question, of the origins of Judaic monotheism. According to the bible itself, god revealed his unique nature to Moses "I am that which I am", a nature which is also his name (YHWH); and after that, his law. 19th century scholars saw problems: God says to Moses in Exodus that he is revealing his name and nature for the first time, yet in Genesis we find many uses of the word YHWH. Then Julius Wellhausen wrote his book Prolegomena to the History of Israel, tracing a history of Israel based entierly on the OT itself, from polytheism to montheism. Other scholars attacked this: William Albright decided, on the basis of archaeological evidence, that Israel had been monotheistic from the earliest times, totally distinct from the Canaanites; and a famous Jewish scholar whose name I forget (sorry - but was it Kauffman?) argued that the ancient Jews were incapable of even understanding the concept of multiple gods (an idea which Albright found far-fetched). The current positoin is closer to Wellhausen: the Israelites were originally Canaanites, sharing the Canaanite mythology, and full-blown monotheism didn't arrive until after the Exile; yet even now the argument isn't settled, and Ziony Zevit has published a well-received book arguing that that the Israelites were not Canaanites at all. And so it goes on. To my mind it's a bit dry - I'd prefer to talk about meaning rather than origins. PiCo 04:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I should have added: This is what I'm trying to do in this section headed Themes - discuss the meanings (pluraol intentional) of Deuteronomy. What the original author/s meant, what it means to later generations - the call to Israel, the shema, the idea of the Chosen People, and whatever else needs to be discussed. PiCo 04:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert but I was under the immpression that there were various different versions of most of the books of the bible in the dss. I also recall reading that the majority were proto-masoretic. If only some of those scrolls have your version it makes your case a good deal weaker. Furthermore "angels of G-d" makes sense too and is still monotheistic (and fits 4:35. It also happens to be part of the tradition that each nation has an angel governing it and argueing for it before G-d. That being said ancient jewish commentaries have given explanations for the verse (which is poetic in nature) as well as explanations for the question Wellhausen raised about prior knowledge of G-d's name.

I wasn't advocating that everyone except without question that the bible is the word of G-d, but it sure makes a difference if it is or isn't and therefore an honest truth seeker should investigate both possibilities with an open mind and not just disregard one side a priori.

You might find it iteresting that our tradition views the idolatrous views of the Canaanites and the other middle eastern nations as being a corruption of the montheism that was originally known. Origins must come before meaning, it is the bedrock upon which rests everything else.Benignuman 20:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've re-checked my on-line sources and found that they actually conflict, slightly. I've therefore revised both subsections (i.e., the shema subsection also), relying more heavily on Mark Smith, who I believe is a more widely-quoted scholar. I also, personally, feel that the whole section now makes more sense than it did before - those sections of Deuteronomy certainly look monotheistic to me. But, please have a look at the sources yourself and see what you think. PiCo 14:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Does it strike anyone as odd that "Deutero-Isaiah" doesn't mention "covenants" any more than "Proto-Isaiah" does?

Scholars use an assumption of "two Isaiahs" to support the "Deuteronomical" invention of covenant theology, and then use those very assumptions about covenant theology to support the "two Isaiahs" hypothesis. If covenant theology was an invention of the 6thCBC Deuteronomical school, and Deutero-Isaiah is of that school, then why is Deutero-Isaiah so silent about the "covenant theology" that he is supposedly preaching...?

The reference to Cyrus could be a mere scribal update (or outright prophecy, of course, but if we are denying prophecy...). Isaiah could have prophesied about a "great king" or something similar, and a scribe has substituted "Cyrus" after the event. The "late innovation" of Monotheistic Yahwism, and of covenant theology, along with the "two Isaiahs" proposal, is essentially one scholarly hypothesis largely supported by internally circular arguments. Some of it could have merit but its a bit of a house of cards.

Kevin Bennett ekv (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Of Deuteronomy

There Is No Section of criticisms of deuteronomy.I Mean Like Rules Of War.For Example,Qur'an Criticism Is There Of It Being 'voilent' But There is nothing about Deuteronomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Actionfury199 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would there be a section on criticisms of Deuteronomy? Critisms of the Koran seems pretty pov too. PiCo (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I second Actionfury199's note. Deuteronomy 20:16-18 is quite ethically unbalanced; genocide in order to secure their own beliefs... that's NPOV, unless you find genocides ethical.

• Deuteronomy 21:10-14 : God promoting sexual relations with female prisoners of war.
• Deuteronomy 21:20-21 : God promoting stoning of rebellious male offspring.
• Deuteronomy 22:13-21 : God promoting stoning of female "prostitutes" (those who have sexual relations with more than one male).
• Deuteronomy 22:23-24 : God promoting stoning of women who do not cry out when they are being raped by engaged men.
• Deuteronomy 23:1-2 : God forbidding worship from worshipers with deformed genitals (born with it or not), as well as those ten generations after him.
• Deuteronomy 25:11-12 : God promoting hand amputation for woman who aid their husbands in fights by grabbing opponents' genitals.

A few others I've found.Ericleb01 (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced viewpoints

From Chronic2 (talk) Except in one instance, this article is written with the viewpoint that all 'scholars' accept the Documentary hypothesis or some form of it for the origin of Deuteronomy. Just now (7 April 2009) I entered some alternative scholarship, but there is much more in this article that is from a biased POV and does not properly cite sources. Much has been published that refutes the ideas of Wellhausen and De Wette advocated in this article; where is there any representation of this scholarship, except in the one instance (uncited) of a scholar named Meredith Kline, who is condescendingly said to have "wished to restore the case for the book's Mosaic provenance," as if that had not been adequately defended by the highest level of scholarship ever since De Wette and Wellhausen promoted their theories? These theories were based on the presupposition that either God does not exist, or, if He does, He never intervenes in human history and the Pentateuch is one set of lies after another. Will the position of the abundance of alternative scholarship that does not agree with this viewpoint be allowed in this article, or will it be deleted by an unscrupulous editor as "tendentious"? Chronic2 (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Chronic2. Yes, as you suspected I would, I have deleted some of your edits - but not all. Your addition of an explanation for the "tassels" was a good one, for example. Unfortunately, the main deletion has been your long insertion about De Wette, and I know this will cause you pain. Believe me, causing you pain is not my intention or my wish. Like all of us, I'm simply trying to produce the best possible article, and I do recognise your commitment to that common goal - your good faith, in other words.

Now let me explain the reasons for the main deletion. You go into great detail about De Wette, as if he were the lynch-pin for the acceptance of the idea of a Josaic origin for Deuteronomy. But he's not - in the two centuries or more since De Wette there have been many, many developments, and today, the idea that Deuteronomy originated in the reign of Josiah - let us say 620BC for convenience - is universally accepted among mainstream scholars, but with only distant reference to De Wette. In other words, it's pointless to single out De Wette.

Again, you refer in your comment above to this idea as being the "documentary hypothesis", but it's not - the DH connects solely to the origins of the Pentateuch, and the theory this article is talking about is a different one, formulated in the 1940s by Martin Noth. Noth's DtrH deals with the books from Joshua to Kings, and is quite unconnected to De Wette and Wellhausen. This is important because we need to get our terminology straight: the Documentary Hypothesis has nothing to do with Deuteronomy or this article, but the DtrH has a great deal to do with it.

You refer to Meredith Kline as "a scholar", as if you had never heard of him - but he's one of the very leading modern biblical scholars, respected and quoted by all other scholars - and he's a conservative scholar at that. And it's not "condescending" to say that Kline wished to restore the idea of Mosaic authorship - he said so himself.

You are correct in saying that this article is based on the idea that the Bible was written by men rather than by God. I suppose this could be called a point of view - but it's the dominant point of view among Biblical scholars, and we have to reflect that dominance. But the article doesn't exclude conservative scholarship - Kline is in there, for example. But, to repeat, the fact is that the dominant view among scholars is that the book of Deuteronomy was a product of political developments in the age of King Josiah, and we have to refect that fact.

I repeat, I'm not trying to cause you pain, or denigrate your views, and I welcome your contribution to this article. PiCo (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphan material

This paragraph was added a couple of years ago and didn't fit my rewrite. Maybe someone could rework it and integrate at a later stage for the sake of NPOV. --Knobbly (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Polytheism was a feature of Israelite religion down through the end of the Iron Age. "[T]here is no clear and unambiguous denial [in the Hebrew bible] of the existence of gods other than YHWH before Deutero-Isaiah in the 6th century B.C. ... The question was not whether there is only one elohim [god], but whether there is any elohim like YHWH.". The theological position underpinning Deuteronomy, according to this interpretation, is that YHWH is the patron god of Israel, as Chemosh was the patron of Moab and Marduk of Babylon: "When the Most High ("El Elyon") apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods, the Lord's ("YHWH's") own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share" (Deuteronomy 32:8-9).

I'm not sure how to go forward on this section because John McKenzie isn't making a direct comment about the book of Deuteronomy and Mark S. Smith is only making a general comment about Israel and not about the theological theme of YHWH in the book of Deuteronomy. So how about these two paragraphs?

Wright says "Deuteronomy is uncompromisingly, ruthlessly monotheistic." The focus of most of the book is YHWH. Throughout Deuteronomy either his actions, attributes or purposes are in view. To the exclusion, notes McConville, of other deities. However some scholars assert Polytheism was a feature of Israelite religion down through the end of the Iron Age. For example John McKenzie writes; "[T]here is no clear and unambiguous denial [in the Hebrew bible] of the existence of gods other than YHWH before Deutero-Isaiah in the 6th century B.C. ... The question was not whether there is only one elohim [god], but whether there is any elohim like YHWH.".

--Knobbly (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think your proposed new para is a bit too cut-up, lacks fluency. As for the material itself, the focus should be monotheism as a theme of the book of Deuteronomy. Certainly Wright is right (I like that!) about the essential monotheism both of Deuteronomy and the entire Hebrew bible. But I think he'd have a hard time maintaining such a hard-line statement as D. being "uncompromisingly, ruthlessly" so - Smith and others have demonstrated the polytheistic roots of Jewish monotheism from textual analysis, and archaeologists have done the same from the physical record (see Dever, for example). Even the text of the Shema is no clarion call to One God For All: "Hear O Israel (the words are addresed to Israel alone, nobody else), the Lord our God (Israel's God, not the Egyptians or the Syrians et al) is One (and even this word "one" is ambiguous - as used in the Song of Songs, albeit not about God, it means "beloved" - we have a similar nuance in English, as in "you're my one and only"). But anyway, all that aside, the para on YHWH needs to get the nuance right - D. isn't uncompromisingly monotheistic, pace Wright, it's uncompromisingly monolatrous - Yahweh is the only God of Israel, and it minces no words about that. PiCo (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, while concise it lacks depth. I still think we need commentators who comment directly on on the book of Deuteronomy. So somehow we need to balance Wright's comments about the monotheistic nature of Deuteronomy with other commentators who say Deuteronomy is polytheistic, we just need to find them. Mark Smith isn't commenting on Deuteronomy itself but making a more general comment about the history of Israel. Furthermore John McKenzie, at best, misrepresents the evidence. While the focus of the Old Testament is on the exclusive nature of YHWH and avoiding the idols of other natures, even these idols of other gods are seen as fake. For example ""Of what value is an idol, since a man has carved it? Or an image that teaches lies? For he who makes it trusts in his own creation; he makes idols that cannot speak." (Habakkuk 2:18 NIV)--Knobbly (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody argues that Deuteronomy is polytheistic. The argument is that Deuteronomy represents an attack on polytheism in existing Israelite culture - all those asherahs that had to be cut down, all those high places that had to be reformed. Deuteronomy is a reform document: it says, Ok you lot, you've been worshiping all the wrong gods, now get your act together and start worshiping the One True God of Israel, or else He'll kick some ass! (And the One True God is to be found in the Temple in Jerusalem, and only there - the Aaronid priests get a monopoly on the sacrifices and all that goes with them, and the king gets a monopoly of God's favour). This, of course, supposes that de Wette et. al. are correct and Deuteronomy and the DtrH were written about 620-610 BC, and not in the deserts of Sinai about 1440 BC. Maybe you could ask tonicthebrown for a hand? (And on style, I think you need to work at linking your sentences into a paragraph - as it is, each sentence sort of sits there without any relationship top the next - if you're a student and you're going to be writing papers and sitting exams, this will be important. as you can't construct an argument without these links). PiCo (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess this a classic question of POV. If one's POV is that Deuteronomy is pretending to be Moasic, the polytheistic approach makes more sense of the book. However, if your POV is to accept an earlier dating then the presupposition of polytheism seems out of place. (Regarding my writing style so far, I've deliberately focused on laying down as much as possible clear and well sourced tracks. This has meant a bit of fragmentation but I'd prefer that to a unsourced mish-mash. Hopefull though people will come along and smooth it over with out loosing the sourced material and keeping it interesting.) I'll see if tonicthebrown can help.--Knobbly (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but consider Judges 9:13, which includes a reference to wine as cheering “both gods and people.” That's what the Hebrew says. But many translations can't come at this, and change "gods" to "God". This solves the problem of polytheistic Judges in ancient Israel, but leaves us with the picture of Yahweh enjoying a glass or whatever of of whatever passed for Cab-Sauv in 1100 BC. PiCo (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not polytheism in the Old (or new for that matter)Testament that is a problem. There are plenty of references in the Hebrew Bible to other "gods." It's the assertion that because evidence exists for polytheism in second millennium, Deuteronomy or the Old Testament must therefore contain a pro-polytheistic theme, that is the problem. It's interesting that these discussions and the wider scholarly debates about composition depend on a person's underlying philosophical presuppositions.--Knobbly (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's arguing that Deuteronomy or any part of the Hebrew bible is pro-polytheism. The argument is that (a) it has remnants of an early phase of Israelite polytheism, and (b) Deuteronomy and many other passages aren't talking about one God for the whole world, but just for Israel (monolatry rather than monotheism). PiCo (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(A great discussion.)

a) If your presupposition is to take the Bible as it presents itself, then your not going to see polytheism prior to monotheism in Israel. Those arguing for Israel being polytheistic before being monotheistic, have at some point decided to reject the tradition of reading it monotheistically. So it ends up those favoring monotheism all the way interpret the evidence according to their own view and those favoring polytheism before monotheism interpret the evidence according to their own view. (For example the the different views about composition.)

b) Sure, most of the biblical account is focused solely on God and his relationship with Israel. However when other nations and their gods come into view the assumption is one God for the whole world. For example Genesis 1-11 claims to speak theologically for the world. Or when God responds to Job, he describes his actions in global terms. Another example is that when other nations are condemned, they are judged by YHWH's standards and not by their own standards which implies that while they may worship other gods, for the Hebrew Cannon, these other gods don't matter and only the YHWH's standards matter. Knobbly (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoy the discussion :). Getting back to the passage itself and how it fits into the overall article, I'll just paste it here so that I can make some comments:

(1) While some scholars such as Mark Smith assert polytheism was a feature of Israelite religion down through the end of the Iron Age. (2) The book of Deuteronomy presents only YHWH as the God of Israel and speaks against the worship of other gods. (3) For example in chapter 17 Israel is warned against worshiping the gods of other nations. (4) This focus on the exclusive worship of YWHW has lead some scholars such as Wright to say "Deuteronomy is uncompromisingly, ruthlessly monotheistic." (5) The focus of most of the book is YHWH. (6) Throughout Deuteronomy either his actions, attributes or purposes are in view. (7) To the exclusion, notes McConville, of other deities.

The first sentence seems to me to relate to composition rather than to theology and themes, which is the title of this overall section (the subsection is YHWH).

Sentences 2 and 3 could be combined - sentence 3 is simply restating the last part of sentence 2.

Sentence 4 I'm uneasy about - I believe Deuteronomy is about monolatry rather than monotheism. But I leave it to you - just look into the question of whether Wright represents the mainstream of modern thinking on the subject (he sounds rather evangelical to me, which is not a fault, but is certainly partisan - can you look up Wenham, who goes to considerable pains to be impartial despite his evangelical roots?)

Sentence 5 is true, but perhaps glosses over the way in which YHWH is the focus. YHWH is actually speaking! These are laws from God's own mouth (or whatever it is that equates thereto). Sentence similarly glosses over some interesting material - what exactly are these actions, attributes and purposes? The reader would like to be informed.

I'm not sure what sentence 7 and McConville are getting at - I'm not at all surprised that other gods don't figure in a book about YHWH and his laws and plans for his elected people, so why is this worth mentioning?

Hope this helps - don't feel obliged to change anything just because I've written here, I'd like to be at least as humble as Moses...a pride in humility, very dangerous! PiCo (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moving per logical requested move with unanimous support.-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The Book of Deuteronomy → Book of Deuteronomy — Wikipedia:TITLE#Avoid_definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_the_start_of_names. NeonMerlin 00:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - the definite article is not part of the name (nor is "Book of..." for that matter but I can live with that). PiCo (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree and also Leviticus and Exodus. This also brings them into line with Book of Revelation, Book of Baruch, and even Book of Genesis. Andrewa (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree To all three. Arlen22 (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree To all three too, Dan ☺ 16:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - It makes absolutely no sense (I was actually about to 'be bold' and move the page myself before reading the talk page) --Fjmustak (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Move, no good reason to ignore this rule, and every reason to have it consistent with the rest of the Bible. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Authorship

I have added a short, one line sentence stating the traditional view of the authorship of Deuteronomy. This is the second major view today, certainly a minority view, but I would estimate held by 25% of scholars. I also edited the critical scholarship view and made it to be about 4 times longer in content, than the traditional view. This is proper because it is more widely held today. SAE (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be so long getting back on this, as I promised to do so on your talk page. I just have two comments for you to consider. First, these two sentences in the lead: "Conservative Bible scholars are united in their conviction that Moses wrote this book.[1] But much of modern critical scholarship..." should be one - sentences don't normally begin with a conjunction, not in formal English anyway. (Yes, Shakespeare and many others have done it, but it still jars for me). In addition, I suggest the first of these sentences be changed to read: "Deuteronomy presents itself as "the words spoken by Moses beyond the Jordan". I think this is better than referring to Conservative scholars, as it refers to the text of Deut. itself, and can't really be denied. Second, the section on Composition in the main body of the article is way too long and unbalanced (I mean out of proportion to the other sections, as well as unbalanced in the length it gives its own four points). If you have the patience you might try to re-write it down to something more readable. Anyway, up to you :) PiCo (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Significant Verses

This quote follows the statement that the shema yisrael is a significant verse.

"Another significant verse is Deuteronomy 22:20, which promotes the stoning to death of any woman who has sex before marriage: "But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought a wanton deed in Israel.""

The poster doesn't identify what makes this a significant verse. Do they mean that it is widely used or quoted verse, or that it is central to the message of the book or the identity of the Jewish people? Neither of these things is true, to the best of my knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.218.14 (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Deuteronomy 22:20 is significant because it shows a glossing over by establishments which use Deuteronomy as an authoritative code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuzzletop (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

RomanHistorian

I was forced to revert your recent change, as you gave no explanation or citations, and made no attempt to get consensus despite the controversial nature of your proposed change. This is your chance to explain and defend your view, but if you edit-war, I will report you and have you blocked from further editing. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

These changes are too minor to fight over. I changed 1 word. I think it should be the way I had it, otherwise this is too minor and I'm not going to fight this one anymore.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Weekly torah portions

I moved this from Contents (meaning the contents of the book) because it doesn't describe or summarise the contents of Deuteronomy. Nevertheless, the weekly torah portions are very important in Judaism, so I've moved it down to the Judaism section and given it a new subsection, under Shema. It needs some explanation - what are the portions, and why are they important in Judaism. PiCo (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Deuteronomy 22:29 for real?

I found a part of Deuteronomy in the net, the english version is like this:

'She must marry the rapist, because he has violated her. And so long as he lives, he may not divorce her.'

but the portuguese version is diferent, and don't use the word rapist or rape, but is ambiguous enough. Any thoughts? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.241.255.250 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 2 October 2007

This Wikipedia talk-page is only for discussing ways to improve this article. -- -- -- 21:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"Modern scholars"

"modern scholars now see its origins in traditions from Israel (the northern kingdom) brought south to the Kingdom of Judah in the wake of the Assyrian destruction of Samaria"

Saying that "modern scholars" believe something, is like saying "however top scientists now believe that this technique is no longer feasible."

On wikipedia I want to see sources, not "experts say" "top scientists agree" "according to modern scholars" and similar. --67.247.20.71 (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The Book of Deuteronomy itself references stones upon which it would have first been written down, displayed on a hilltop. It mentions blessings and curses to be spoken aloud by those hearing Moses's statements. This article solely posits the view that the whole thing is made up, and was created by ruling elites at a much later date to serve their purposes. This is the prejudicial, even bigoted perspective of militant atheists. There is no proof that the book is a falsehood. That it may have been written down or revisions made later does not preclude the possibility that it was passed down through the generations, whether orally or in writing, before the earliest manuscripts that are available to modern "scholars". The article is highly prejudicial and biased, and other articles on books of the Bible follow the same agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.146.143 (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

@Misconceptions2, the material is relevant to history, and is included in the relevant article(s). Deuteronomy is relevant to that history. But the history is not relevant to Deuteronomy. The point is that this article is about the book itself, its origins and writing, not about subsequent history, especially so long after its writing. That history also alleges a use by Muslims. Why is that relevant, when the Muslim scripture is the Quran? There is no material under a section "Influence on Islam", as there is for Christianity and Judaism? Is this material supposed to show that influence? Do Muslims continue to be influenced by any of the Pentateuch? These are questions that might fit into this article, but this material does not address them.

Why "alleged use"? The authors Peterson and Lings are prominent enough, but Peterson is a Mormon apologist; Lings was a Muslim himself. What is it about their writings that are merely allegations here, and how is this article to remain neutral or balanced? Yet for all of that, Peterson and Lings are mentioned in only one sentence out of three paragraphs on Muslim history, which is presented without further connection to Deuteronomy. As I have said, the material has its place, but as written here, its place is not in this article. Its relevance and connection to the book is not sufficiently supported or explained to merit anything like the volume presented here. Evensteven (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Biased Coverage

This article only included the positive aspects of this Biblical text. A lot of negative contents of this book has been left off. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 12:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

pinging @Elmidae: who removed the tag jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor is welcome to present material that they think is missing, and ways to incorporate it into a balanced article. So far their modus operandi has been widely scattered Twinkle tag-bombing, most of which was promptly removed as inappropriate, so I'm not expecting much.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The POV in the Structure Section

The "Structure" section notes the opinion of Meredith Kline that the closest extrabiblical analogy for Deuteronomy is to be found in second-millennium Hittite treaties. This is a minority view (possibly a fringe view, but I'm not certain if it's quite fringe), and should be treated as such in the article. I may get to it, but I have other priorities here at the moment, especially given that pushing back against the POV expressed in the "Structure" section is likely to require very time-consuming discussion.Alephb (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: Problem looks solved to me now.02:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC) [This is my line, forgot to sign it earlier. My bad.Alephb (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)]

There is a consensus on Deuteronomy's authorship

After an unexplained edit by an IP address, a sentence in the lead reads as follows: "Traditionally seen as the words of Moses delivered before the conquest of Canaan, some modern scholars now see its origins in traditions from Israel (the northern kingdom) brought south to the Kingdom of Judah in the wake of the Assyrian conquest of Aram (8th century BC) and then adapted to a program of nationalist reform in the time of Josiah (late 7th century BC), with the final form of the modern book emerging in the milieu of the return from the Babylonian captivity during the late 6th century BC." Where it now reads "some scholars," the page previously read "modern scholarship." So the question is this -- do we characterize the modern interpretation described as something on which scholarship is unanimous, or as simply an opinion of some scholars? Only one source is cited to support this sentence, which is a commentary by Rogerson. I looked up the appropriate place in Rogerson's commentary, and he describes this modern view as a "broad consensus." Se we should not downgrade the view to a mere "some scholars" unless there is some compelling evidence given, in the form of a citation, which shows that Rogerson is overestimating scholarly support for the position. On the other hand, there may be something legitimate in the anonymous editor's concern about this modern view being described as unanimous, when Rogerson does not quite describe it that way. I will make an edit that conforms the sentence as closely as possible to the source it cites.Alephb (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

All right. I made my edit, and gave a summary directing people to this talk page, but the anonymous user simply ignored the talk page, and inserted the "some scholars" language again without so much as an edit summary. We're not supposed to edit war, and we're supposed to attempt discussion instead. So what do we do with an anonymous IP address that refuses to engage or document their reasons, but simply must have a Wikipedia page phrased according to their particular POV?Alephb (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb You bring it to the attention of an admin and ask if they think the ISP should be blocked.PiCo (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@PiCo. Gotcha. The problem is solved for the moment, but for the future, that's good to know. On a lot of these relatively unused talkpages (not so much the one for Deuteronomy, but even lesser-used pages) there's not really enough editors hanging around for consensus-based discussion, so I figured there had to be some kind of chain of command here on Wikipedia. Next time I run around such an IP address and I'm unable to coax it into a discussion, I'll try that route. Thanks! Alephb (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Dating Deuteronomy: the treaty structure

User Korvex wishes to add a paragraph on the view that Deuteronomy reflects a Hittite (15th century BCE) treaty structure. He ascribes this view to Meredith Kline, which is fair enough though Kline wasn't the only one to hold it. Nevertheless, it doesn't belong in our article. Kline's book came out in 1963, which is to say getting on for half a century ago. Scholarship has moved on since then, and it's now accepted by the majority of scholars that the closer parallel is to Assyrian treaties of the mid-1st millennium.

Kline's conclusion back in 1963 was that Deuteronomy was evidence of a historical Moses, and that this Moses, living in the mid-2nd millennium, was indeed the author of Deuteronomy and of the Torah. In this he was arguing against the conclusion of source criticism, which was that the Torah had many authors and that its composition took place over many centuries. It was, in short, an ultra-conservative position. Today the standard theory (and I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it's standard) is that the Torah began with the Book of Deuteronomy and that the preceding books were written substantially in the post-Exilic period (although with sources reaching back to the monarchic period). Deuteronomy itself, the first book written, had a long and complicated history, but began with some form of vassal treaty in the period of the kingdom of Israel in Assyrian times. One reason leading to this conclusion is that the structure resembles Assyrian treaties more closely than Hittite ones.

The current consensus is described in Rogerson's contribution on Deuteronomy in Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible, edited by James Dunn. This is the one we quote in our article, so I won't repeat it, but I want to point out that Rogerson does explicitly describe this as a consensus. So Kline's (quite old now) identification of a Hittite model is outside that consensus. I believe that our article reflects the current state of scholarship, and that mention of Kline's suggestion (with its overtone of a historical Moses) is therefore unwarranted.PiCo (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a consensus now, and there has been a consensus for at least one hundred years, that Deuteronomy was not written by Moses in the mid-second millennium. Even if Kline's book has come out last year, it wouldn't make any difference. Since it's part of an argument pushing Mosaic authorship, it's a fringe view. We shouldn't devote nearly half the "Structure" section of the article to arguing for a fringe view. That's not what wikipedia's for. (See WP:UNDUE). Alephb (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Deuteronomy is supposed to be the oldest book in the Biblical canon? Curious. I was aware of its central significance, but most sources associate it with the reign of Josiah (c. 641-609 BC). Some of the Books attributed to prophets seem to be older. For example, part of the Book of Isaiah (the first 39 chapters) may have been written in the 8th century BC and it describes Assyria as an enemy power.:

"the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria."... "behold, the Lord brings upon them the mighty flood waters of the River: the king of Assyria and all his glory. It will come up over all its channels, and go over all its banks" Dimadick (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Dimadick, the word "Torah" in this case refers to the "Five Books of Moses," not to the whole biblical canon. As for myself, I try to use "Pentateuch" or "Hebrew Bible" so people don't get the two mixed up.Alephb (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The oldest book would probably be Hosea, early 8th century (there have been recent arguments for a post-exilic date but I think the 8th century date is still consensual). Isiah was begun in the later 8th century but as it stands is a composite work from the post-exilic period containing pre-exilic and exilic material. I doubt that any book is entirely by one hand and of one period. See our article on Dating the Bible. (Better still, see the books in the bibliography there :) PiCo (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

PiCo, you criticize me for using an "outdated" book -- although the book you quote to describe the "consensus" falls into a similar trap -- published in 2003. I've read an enormous amount on the scholarship of the Assyrian/Hittite treaty influences on Deuteronomy, and I can say for a fact that this "consensus" does not exist anymore, it is by ones best interpretation, a majority view. In recent scholarship, the Hittite treaty influences have once again gained traction in scholarship, whilst the Assyrian influences have been heavily attacked. The most significant recent works on Hittite treaty influence on Deuteronomy are Joshua Berman's CTH 133 and the Hittite Provenance of Deuteronomy 13 and Ada-Taggar Cohen's Biblical covenant an Hittite ishiual reexamined -- both of these were published into highly renowned journals (Journal of Biblical Literature and Brill). Berman's paper also attacks the supposed Assyrian treaty influence on Deuteronomy 13. As for some of the recent works that attack the supposed Assyrian treaty influence on Deuteronomy (specifically Deut 13, 20:19-20 and 28), is a paper from Jacob L. Wright titled Warfare and Wanton Destruction: A Reexamination of Deuteronomy 20: 19-20 in Relation to Ancient Siegecraft, a paper from Michael Hasel titled Assyrian Military Practices and Deuteronomy’s Laws of Warfare (both published in 2008), and a book by published in 2014 by C.L. Crouch titled Israel & Th Assyrians: Deuteronomy, the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon, & the Nature of Subversion -- in contrast, since 2003, I've only read a single work (by Bernard Levinson) that attempts to address the Hittite parallels. Out of all these works I've referred to you, I've read almost every single one of them -- and it is very clear that any supposed "consensus" no longer exists, and that the idea of Assyrian influence in Deuteronomy has come under serious fire whilst the support for the Hittite influence has been bolstered in scholarship. So, although I am in fact aware that between 1960-2000 the Hittite parallels have lost traction, the last decade of scholarship has certainly seen a revival. By the way, these are only the works I am aware of -- no doubt are there more papers supporting the Hittite influence since 2003.

In fact, Meredith Kline's book has been cited almost 60 times from works published in 2003 and beyond, which definitely shows its strong grip on modern scholarship. The Hittite influence on Deuteronomy is held by some of the giants of modern scholarship, including names such as Alan Millard, Eugene H. Merrill and Kenneth Kitchen. For example, in Kenneth Kitchen's book Ancient Orient and Old Testament he says "The valid and close parallels to the social customs of the Patriarchs come from documents of the nineteenth to fifteenth centuries BC (agreeing with an early-second-millennium origin for this material in Genesis), and not from Assyro-Babylonian data of the tenth to sixth centuries BC (possible period of the supposed ‘J’, ‘E’ sources). Likewise for Genesis 23, the closest parallel comes from the Hittite Laws which passed into oblivion with the fall of the Hittite Empire about 1200 BC. The covenant-forms which appear in Exodus, Deuteronomy and Joshua follow the model of those current in the thirteenth century BC - the period of Moses and Joshua - and not those of the first millennium BC." -- he clearly rejects the Assyrian/Babylonian influences in preference of Hittite influence, which is much more demonstrable from the evidence, and also accepts a second millenium BC origins for these works. Kitchen's book I just quoted has been cited over 200 times, with almost 100 of them coming from 2003-2017. So in other words, Hittite parallels are accepted in numerous considerable publications since 2003, as well as held by some of the top scholars of the world (Merrill, Millard and Kitchen just being three), and Kline's book has received almost 60 citations from 2003-2017 alone. Not only that, but recent scholarship is extraordinarily critical of the supposed Assyrian influence. Like it or not, the Hittite influence of Deuteronomy is extraordinarily mainstream in contemporary scholarship -- PiCo, there is no doubt about this. I have proven this case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Some guy named Aleph also says Kline's book is "fringe", but as we've seen with almost 60 citations from 2003-2017, it's nothing less than hardcore mainstream scholarship. Dimidack hits the head on the nail when he points out Isaiah (the entire thing, I reject the deutero-isaiah mess) was written in the 8th century BC -- aLthough I'd like to give him better references for his dating of Isaiah to the 8th century BC, rather than a passing reference in Isaiah to Assyria. He should reference a passage like Isaiah 7:1, where Isaiah tells us he is writing contemporaneously to the reign of King Ahaz, a king we know to have died in 715 BC, and who is also mentioned in the annals of Tiglath Pileser III (who reigned 745-727 BC), as well as the fact that we have found Ahaz's personal bulla, and it dates to the 700's BC. Just saying.Korvex (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to clear a something up, Korvex. First, I recognize that Meredith Kline was an important figure in biblical studies, and I don't consider him a kook. However, he did use parallels with Hittite treaties to argue for Mosaic authorship, which (as of right now) definitely meets the definition of Wikipedia's definition on wp:fringe, that is, that is views are outside the scholarly consensus. Secondly, let's take the very first publication you cited, Berman's paper that you've cited as one of the two "most significant recent works" on this Hittite business. If anyone has access to JSTOR, I invite them to carry out the following exercise. First, find page 26 in the article by Berman in the Journal of Biblical Literature, and search for the word "consensus." You'll find it smack-dab in the middle of a sentence in which Berman admits that the "consensus" (his word!) in biblical scholarship holds to a Neo-Assyrian provenance for Deuteronomy 13, and that Berman is attempting to buck that consensus. That is, Berman places his own arguments outside the consensus. Then turn to page 33 of Berman's article, in which he repeats the claim that the "consensus" (he uses the word again) of scholarship sees Deuteronomy 13 as dependent upon the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon (from 672 BC). Your citation of Berman supports the view that tying Deuteronomy to Hittite material is outside of the scholarly consensus. So hopefully we can lay this question to rest. Alephb (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Aleph, you seem to think that everything is either consensus or fringe -- this is not at all true. There is a huge difference between fringe and minority, and there is a large difference between minority and majority, and a large difference between majority and consensus. The Assyrian influence does not have any consensus today, nor is it even close -- in fact, "majority" may not even work since it has lost significant traction in recent years, as Hittite parallels have become taken more seriously by scholars. The Hittite treaty influence is without question, mainstream -- all the works I cited heavily establish that, and some of the works I mentioned have a significant number of citations themselves, and were published to very, very respected journals. Not only do I have access to JSTOR, I've read Berman's entire paper and already know of this reference to "consensus", and again, I have shown the consensus has collapsed with a wave of published papers. The very fact that Berman's work has already become authoritative in the field establishes precisely that. Secondly, you need to look at what fringe is -- fringe is not anything outside the consensus, fringe is a view that 1 or 2 scholars have that is vastly rejected by virtually every scholar on the planet, and has no significant experts maintaining the view. Hittite treaty influence is, hate it or not, a mainstream view of modern scholarship. Wikipedia's policies say that the following can be allowed on a page: 1) majority views 2) minority views with renowned experts who hold to them in the field -- only fringe views are rejected, but Hittite treaty influence is hovering between majority and minority with significant supporters, including Kitchen and Merrill. As for Meredith Kline's book -- her book is not even close to fringe, considering the number of citations it has received since 2003 to now alone. The average published paper would be happy to get 5 citations, Kline's work on this has received about a hundred, and since 2003, it has received more than another 50.

In other words, considering all this data and previously cited data, it is without question that Hittite treaty influence is mainstream -- I have read an overwhelming amount on this and know such without a doubt. Anyone who thinks Assyrian influence is the consensus view needs to take a look at the last decade of scholarship, where more works in favor of Hittite treaty influence have been published in exchange to Assyrian treaty influence. That makes it undoubtable.Korvex (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

BremanBerman wrote in 2011. You're telling us that his work has become authoritative in the field since then? Surely you have some citation stating that Berman has managed to sweep the field in some overwhelming way in the last six years, and you don't expect us to take your word for it, however "overwhelming" you keep telling us your reading is. Also, Meredith Kline is a "he," not a "she," which suggests that these citation-counts you keep giving us are to works that reference Meredith Kline in some way, but which you haven't read.Alephb (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I get less than 30 mentions of Kline's book in this century from Google books[2]. I haven't looked closely at any, some I can't anyway. There's no way to claim that they are all favorable. At least one seems to be citing her as an example of Covenant theology, which isn't an endorsement. Then there's the lack of mention at Google scholar.[3]. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Aleph, you have made a great, great blunder. NOWHERE did I say that Berman's paper has "SWEEPED THE FIELD" that there is an utter consensus on Hittite treaty influence because of Berman, but it HAS without question become an authoritative paper with strong recognition. Out of all the criticism I've seen in the last decade against the Hittite treaty influence on Deuteronomy, it's been a response to Berman's paper (from top scholars like Bernard Levinson, no less). So it is without question a very important paper, and I have already shown, with countless references above, literally countless, that the "consensus" on Deuteronomy being influenced by Assyrian treaties has in fact collapsed. As I initially explained, there are now two mainstream views in academia that both receive significant support on this: Deuteronomy parallels from Hittite treaties and Deuteronomy parallels from Assyrian treaties. This is a fact. I have given countless references above to a wave of rejection on Assyrian influences and papers in support of Hittite influences in recent years. This is entirely undebatable. As for me messing up Kline's gender -- who the heck cares? I care much less about the author of a book then what is actually in a book. So this is irrelevant.

Doug, I don't know how you're finding "no references" from Google Scholar -- the name of Kline's book "Treaty of the great king: the covenant structure of Deuteronomy: studies and commentary" -- it shows up pretty easily for me, and Google Scholar notes of a full 90 citations to the book. If you count which ones come 2003 or later (like I did), you'll find about 60-70 of them. If you really can't find it, here's a link that will give you the results I'm talking about -- https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=treaty+of+the+great+king&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= -- Kline's book has been, to anyone with any familiarity on this issue of treaty influence in Deuteronomy, been quite considerable in scholarship. Nothing I'm stating here is an opinion -- I've already noted of many grand scholars, like Millard, Kitchen, Merrill, etc, who fully accept the Hittite influence. Again, zit, zero, nein of this is up for question. I gave all the references already. Questioning the mainstream of Hittite influence on Deuteronomy because you somehow can't conceive that the Assyrian treaty is NOT the main influence of Deuteronomy, is like questioning that many scholars think there is an offset in radiometric dating before 1400 BC. I will re-add Kline's structure of Deuteronomy tomorrow.Korvex (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's what you've said, Korvex. "I've read Berman's entire paper and already know of this reference to "consensus", and again, I have shown the consensus has collapsed with a wave of published papers. The very fact that Berman's work has already become authoritative in the field establishes precisely that." In other words, there was a consensus on the Assyrian parallels being closer in 2011. And now you say that the "consensus has collapsed" and Berman has "become authoritative in the field" in a mere six years. That's what I'm referring to when I paraphrased your claim as being about Berman "sweeping the field." That's a mighty big claim, and so far you're asking us to take your word for it. What would help you right now is if you can point to a scholar or two who says something to the effect of "Berman is now authoritative in the field" or "Look how the consensus around Assyrian parallels have collapsed in just six years!" Of course, even if you finally decided to provide references to demonstrate that Hittite parallels are back in a big way in scholarship, this wouldn't make Kline's quote acceptable for this Wikipedia article unless you could also show that the people promoting Hittite parallels are also promoting a return to the idea of Mosaic authorship. Because that's what this whole discussion is about -- whether about half the structure section of the Wikipedia article on The ExodusDeuteronomy should promote a Mosaic date of composition on the basis of Hittite parallels. Alephb (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Google is odd. See this where the 90, after searching in cites, becomes 27. Still,, something. Went wrong with my earlier search. None of this show The acceptance of Bergman Korvex claims. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Not only is the acceptance of Berman missing, but there's also something Korvex has failed to mention. Most scholars who attack Assyrian parallels to Deuteronomy are arguing for a later date to Deuteronomy. In other words, they are moving away from Kline, not back towards him. Now, I don't know if these minimalists will eventually triumph. But as of 2011 (when Berman called the neo-Assyrian provenance a consensus), they hadn't yet, and if they do succeed, it'll mean that it's time for Wikipedia to add some minimalism into its Book of Deuteronomy page. Even Joshua Berman, who is the best example of a semi-Kline-ish character getting published in mainstream venues at this point, acknowledges that he's departing significantly from the mainstream, and in the paper cited Kline does not make any explicit pro-Mosaic theory, but rather makes some vague noises about maybe Deuteronomy being older than the consensus believes. Alephb (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't really understand Doug's latest response -- is he acknowledging the 90 citations? They are more then obviously there, and I gave the link to the search (Doug's search from the link he gave seems to not be well-worded). Anyways, Aleph continues mentioning Mosaic authorship -- when on planet Earth did Mosaic authorship become a part of discussion? If I wanted to include Mosaic authorship for Deuteronomy, I would have actually made a section talking about specifically that and cited something like D.K. Stuart's 2006 commentary! But I have no interest in currently discussing Mosaic authorship on Wikipedia, I'm specifically talking about treaty parallels to Deuteronomy and the view of academia on them, and Kline's structuring of Deuteronomy. So let's clear that up before going forwards.

As I previously noted, the "consensus" of Assyrian treaty parallels has in fact collapsed. I cited a number of recent works, many of them having a considerable amount of citations and recognition, that attack and dismiss Assyrian parallels. Furthermore, I then showed a number of well-considered works recently published that argue for Hittite parallels. That means the consensus has collapsed when you get a large wave of work attacking the previously held consensus position from a large number of credible scholars. So these Assyrian parallels simply cannot be considered a consensus anymore. That is number one. Number two is the fact that the numerous papers and academics I referenced also show that Hittite treaty parallels to Deuteronomy are mainstream in scholarship. One of the paper's I quoted earlier, authored by Ada Taggar-Cohen (and published to Vetus Testamentum no less) notes in the beginning of the abstract that "Ever since the literary comparison of the biblical covenant and Hittite treaties came under strong criticism, most scholars have avoided this area of study. However, the textual similarities have recently drawn scholars to reconsider this comparison again" -- clearly noting of the revival of this position, which should, for all practical purposes, completely end the idea of consensus here. So, we have two mainstream positions -- one is Assyrian parallels to Deuteronomy, and one is Hittite parallels to Deuteronomy (the growing position). So, because Kline's thesis is now again a mainstream, it has full veracity from Wikipedia's policies to be re-entered after someone reverted my edits.Korvex (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

When did Mosaic authorship become a part of this discussion? It's been a part of it from the beginning, because what we're all disagreeing over is whether or not to include this quote from Meredith Kline:

[begin quote] Meredith Kline has proposed that the Book of Deuteronomy is "a covenant renewal document that in its total structure exhibits the classic legal form of the suzerainty treaty of the Mosaic age," specifically based on the Hittite treaties of the mid-second millennium BC. Accordingly, the Book of Deuteronomy was written in five sections as other Hittite suzerainty treaties of the second millenium BC, the Preamble (Deut. 1:1-5), Historical Prologue (1:6-4:49), Stipulations (5-26), Curses and Blessings/Covenant Ratification (27-30), Succession Arangements/Covenant Continuitiy (31-34).[end quote]

That's why we're talking about this at all. We are discussing whether Wikipedia should devote space to a fifty-year argument in favor of the fringe view that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. As we have seen with the citation from Rogerson, the consensus view of scholars was against such a view in 2003. As we have seen with the citation Korvex provided to Berman, the consensus vew of scholars was against Kline's view as of 2011. In normal circumstances those two references, both using the word consensus and using it recently, would be enough to conclude that Meredith Kline's view is significantly outside the mainstream. However, Korvex then assurred us that something surprising had occurred since Berman's article in 2011 --- the consensus had "collapsed" and Berman's work had been accepted as "authoritative" in its field, and suddenly Kline's views are part of the spectrum of mainstream views. We are now waiting for Korvex to provide one single citation, where, on some particular page of any mainstream work, any mainstream scholar has noticed this post-2011 sea change in views. And no, Cohen's use of the term "reconsider this position" does not indicate that any significant number of scholars have moved Meredith Kline-ward. In fact, Cohen herself, in the work you cited, does not claim that the structure of Deuteronomy reflects the Hittite treaty structure itself, let alone that Deuteronomy was written by Moses in the 15th century. Here's the very last paragraph of Cohen's page that you cited.

[begin quote]The biblical writers did not adopt the ishiul form as such. Instead they recieved the concept that lies at its base, with occasional similar use of terminology and phraseology. Instructions and treaty texts were an inherent part of the legal knowledge of the scribes. Both Hittite and Israelite societies had a divine order that is reflected in their administrative organization.[end quote]

In other words, the most that Cohen (2011) establishes that there is some conceptual relationship between the Hittite ishiul material and the idea of covenant in the Bible. If you wanted to put her quote somewhere in the article at an appropriate place, I can't speak for other editors, but I might not have any objection, as long as you named her and didn't draw any unjustified conclusions from her work. But if you want to include the quote by Kline, then you still need to provide some justification for your surprising claim that Kline is suddenly back in the mainstream as a result of a "collapse" of consensus post-2011. So far, you have not provided a single reference to back up that claim. Alephb (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Aleph, why on planet Earth are you asking me for this "one single quote" when I literally provided it in my last comment? It seems to me that you are either conveniently ignoring it or simply did not read what I wrote -- if the countless papers I referenced were not enough to satisfy without any doubt that the "consensus" has collapsed, then the quotation I had just provided should really end the discussion. It was a quotation of Ada Taggar-Cohen -- and you even note it, however you attempt to reinterpret it entirely by saying "And no, Cohen's use of the term "reconsider this position" does not indicate that any significant number of scholars have moved Meredith Kline-ward" -- this is false, as we can see from Cohen's exact quote: "... textual similarities have recently drawn scholars to reconsider this comparison again" -- and this is exactly reflected by the trend of publications that I have shown in one of my first posts here. This consensus of Assyrian influence is non-existent, and I have simply given too many references to show anything else. An exact quote detailing the state of academia is unnecessary, as quotes anyways tend to exaggerate positions. If someone actually takes a look at the peer-reviewed literature from the last 10 decades, they will find more papers published for Hittite comparison and against Assyrian comparison then the other way around. In fact, as I've shown, Kline's work has received about 60 citations since 2003 -- which is an enormous amount and by itself ends the debate on academias view of Hittite parallels.

As for the Moses part -- it seems you have simply misunderstood my post. My statement of "Mosaic age" reflects a time period when something was written -- not authorship. Now, aside from the fact that the idea of Mosaic authorship being fringe is nonsense, it seems to me that we should change my edit to say "Late Bronze Age" (the term also used in Berman's paper) instead of "Mosaic Age", this removes any problems regarding Mosaic authorship with the edit I wanted. And again, simply taking a look at the citations of Berman's paper or Cohen's paper shows that their views have gained traction. Citations are a much better way at tracking the view of academia than quotations, which as I explained, tend to be exaggerated -- if you take a look at the actual peer-review, you'll see that the "consensus" has evaporated long before 2011. Berman was most likely used the phrase to attempt to make his paper look more like a game-changer. As for Cohen's paper -- it tends to show more then just a "conceptual relationship", it goes to show that the Israelite's borrowed from the Hittites one of their main treaty text components -- you should read a paper instead of skipping to the last page to get a so/so understanding. So, now that we have the Moses thing cleared up, and a huge amount of published work clearly telling us the trends of academia at 2017, do we have any other issues to speak of? Or will replacing 'Mosaic Age' with 'Late Bronze Age' do it?Korvex (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

We certainly do not "have the Moses thing cleared up." You have it cleared up in your mind, but I do not think it is cleared up in anyone else's mind. I would appreciate it if you did not accuse me of not reading the whole Cohen paper. I've read it, but we clearly disagree about what it implies vis-a-vis the scholarly consensus. If you continue to insist on inserting arguments in favor of a Mosaic composition, you clearly have a very different understanding of the academic consensus on the Book of Deuteronomy than every other editor who has contributed to these discussions. At this point, the discussion is getting very repetitive, so I don't see any reason to keep repeating the things I and the other editors have been saying all over again. I suggest that we are in wp:filibuster territory, and I really don't want to be involved in a long-term unproductive discussion about this if nobody has anything new to add to the discussion. If you wish to continue trying to convince people that the Meredith Kline comment belongs in the article, I don't think I'll be involved in the discussion going forward unless you or someone else introduces substantially new information that would help the conversation become productive again. In line with the policy page WP:CON, I request that you do not add the Meredith Kline material back into the article unless you can convince a consensus of editors to agree with your position. Alephb (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I already said the word "Mosaic Age" would be replaced with "Late Bronze Age" to remove all references to Moses (not as if mentioning Moses is wrong in the first place). Anyways, if nearly 70 citations in the last two decades isn't enough to convince someone of a works relevance in academia, sadly there is nothing that will convince said person. Therefore, it is like trying to explain chess to a pigeon. The conversation has gone nowhere. Perhaps I'll re-create a talk page on this some other time, but it's evident that I am getting too tired for now.Korvex (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"Therefore, it is like trying to explain chess to a pigeon." See WP:CIVIL.

BC to BCE

Given that this article covers a topic that is of significance to both academic scholars, Christians and Jews, should not the dating reflect the more neutral and scholarly BCE rather than the current BC? BibleScholar (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

constant use of words that are not neutral, standard English. They keep reverting the edit from standard English to non-standard English.

Moved from Special:PermaLink/854606443. 16:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Deuteronomy

This page uses the word 'Yahweh' instead of the neutral, standard English 'God'. The term Yahweh is at best a very inaccurate transliteration of the Hebrew Tetragrammatan יהוה. It is not the standard English word for the monotheistic Deity. Which would be God. When I made the edit, with thorough explanation, I received a response from the re-editor "we can't pander to every religion". I find it odd that the person demanding non-standard usage, presumably because of their religious beliefs, is accusing me or demanding "pandering to a specific religion" by using a standard neutral English word. Personally I would prefer that 'G-d' be used, because I am an Orthodox Jew and that is our usage. But I know it is not standard English, so I don't demand that it is used. Similarly we are not going to write in English language articles; 'HaShem', 'Allah' or any other religion specific terms. The same standard should be applied in this, and all similar English language articles. Thank you, Moshe Kalonymus Fink MosheKalonymusFinkTsfas@GMail.com 185.32.177.161 (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Original diff, plus a courtesy ping to Elmidae as the one who did the revert. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, one reason the article might use "Yahweh" in some instances is because the use of "God" could be taken as implying that the book of Deuteronomy is monotheistic. The article text as it stands does not seem to think that Deuteronomy is an entirely monotheistic work. And the term "Yahweh" certainly is frequently used in the scholarly literature. It's not just some idiosyncratic thing that an editor here thought up. Alephb (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Moshe Kalonymus Fink: This is the page to be engaging with other editors about your concerns. Wikipedia is normally written for the lay public, but when there's a sufficient reason, as there may be here, to deviate from commonplace language, it's certainly allowed to use other terms. While you can re-enable the {{help me}} template if you feel you must, I suggest that you try to gain a consensus here regarding the changes you wish to make, then follow dispute resolution procedures if that doesn't work. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"YHWH" would be acceptable in place of Yahweh. "God" is not acceptable because it carries a baggage of implicit assumptions about the nature of the deity concerned - the authors of Deuteronomy didn't conceive of YHWH as we do of God.PiCo (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) 80.246.137.48 (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "God" is not acceptable because it carries a baggage of implicit assumptions about the nature of the deity concerned What would those assumptions be about the word G-d? Regarding "YH-WH" as acceptable: Within the Book of Devarim / Deuteronomy even the literal "יהןה" which you are transliterating as which is complete incorrect, and the corresponding slightly better "YH-VH" is not the only name of G-d used. Perhaps this is where some people come up with inaccurate claims of polytheism. It is accepted in Rabbinical literature that each of these names reflects a different "aspect" of G-d. Metaphorically, G-d is white light coming through a prism refracted in to the primary colors, in this metaphor the colors ROYGBIV represent how G-d is perceived by people. The aspect of an all giving G-d represented in "YH-VH", and the aspect of strong discipline of "Ado-nai", etc. To give over all of this in this article would be overly lengthy, and unnecessary. To use "YHVH" which makes the assertion that there is one manifestation is equally misleading. The English language word G-d makes the assumption of a monothestic G-d, without the manifestations or G-d being specified. This neutrality serves the needs of this article quite well. @Moshe Kalonymus Fink"

Suggestions of genocide

On the internet there are a lot of suggestions that Deuteronomy involved genocide. In some form the article must be changed to note this claim and deal with it. The current failure to do that is a very serious flawin the article. Therefore i will put up cleanup tag.73.131.211.85 (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Who the what now? Exemplify and provide sources please. In the meantime, don't add tendentious and WP:POINTY cleanup tags to the article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Histrocity

The opening text appears to present the text at face value. Yet the article itself links to a page that casts grave doubt on the text being a historical account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity

92.22.40.187 (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

"Broad consensus" seems dubious and out-dated

While this article does have a couple references for its claim that there is a "broad consensus" that Deuteronomy began to be written in the northern kingdom in the 8th century BCE, and was then fleshed out during the reforms of King Josiah in the 7th century BCE, it seems highly dubious to me that there is actually a solid "consensus" on this as of 2019. I've been doing a lot of research for an upcoming article on the composition of the Torah, and it seems that numerous scholars, possibly a majority, now reject the idea of it having roots in the northern kingdom. The earliest date that is commonly considered for Deuteronomy is during the time of Josiah, with many authors dating it to the Persian period (e.g. Philip R. Davies) or even the Hellenistic period (Russell Gmirkin, Niels Peter Lemche, Philippe Wajdenbaum). As soon as I get the time I'll try to update the page with more recent scholarship. Montgolfière (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Mosaic authorship

@Editor2020: Ah thanks for fixing that, I mistook my source a bit (Van der Toorn, Karel (2007). "Authorship in Antiquity: Practice and Perception". Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Harvard University Press. p. 34.). I feel like this might need an additional citation though since Bos 2013, p. 133 only indirectly mentions Mosaic authorship. Oeqtte^[t] 01:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The Hebrew Bible is not identical with the Christian OT. This article should be careful with definitions.

If this article were called "Devarim", it should be as it is now. But it's called "Deuteronomy". That's Greek, as in the Septuagint, which hasn't been recognised by Judaism for a while now (go ahead, count the millennia), but is the base of the Christian Old Testament. So it's about the fifth book of the Old Testament, or the "Fifth Book of Moses". This I call article highjacking. One can write & edit a humongous article on Devarim, and add a paragraph on Deuteronomy, or exile it to a stub and connect it under "See also". But, shalom haverim, one cannot highjack articles like this. Even if yeshiveh students seem to be by far more active with editing Wiki than the various strains of seminarists of the world. It's called chutzpeh and worse. But this won't stop you. Arminden (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Genocide

@Card-carrying: If we make abstraction of the narrator's voice, the narratives of the Bible are dystheism.

Otherwise, while ethnic feuds were rather common, the genocides described in the Bible are mostly imaginary. And they did not commit genocides for a simple reason: for most of the Antiquity, the Jews were oppressed rather than oppressors. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Translating 'Dəḇārīm' as 'Names'?

Not sure if that's the best translation. 'Devar' is a tricky word to translate, but I haven't heard of it translated as such. Could it be that the author what confusing it with 'Shemot' (Exodus), which is indeed translated as names? I think a better translation would be "Words" or "Speeches", or maybe even "Things". What's important to keep in mind is that readings and books are usually given their names from one of the first words of the first verse of that area, and for Devarim that would be the second word of the first verse of the first chapter of the book. That means that in context (https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9965#v1) it would probably be more accurate to translate it to the words I have listed above. If I'm mistaken here then please excuse me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BytDwd (talk • contribs) 12:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC) --BytDwd (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)BytDwd