Talk:Torah/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Definitions

I am looking for an article which concisely explains the similarities and differences between the following terms:

• Torah
• Talmud
• Pentateuch
• Bible
• Mishnah
• Old Testament
• New Testament

Something like:

• A & B both mean the first 5 books of the Jewish Bible
• C & D are the same, except that the "minor prophets" are all in one "book" in C while D gives them each a separate "book".

If someone will give me all the info, I can edit this into an article, or make at a section of Books of the Bible. I'm just not clear on the relations and definitions and I don't want to get sidetracked into comprehensive lists and deep significance. I want to have a handy quick reference. --Ed Poor

The terms Torah, Chumash, Pentateuch and five books of Moses are all absolutely identical. They all mean precisely the same thing. The Mishnah is a commentary on the Hebrew Bible; the two Talmuds are commentaries on the Mishnah. The Old Testament is a name that Christian gave to the Hebrew Bible when they added the New Testament. Chrisitans also accepted a version of the Hebrew Bible that was slightly different from the ones that most Jews ended up using. Therefore some of the material you find in Chrisitan Hebrew Bibles and Jewish Hebrew Bibles is different; most is the same. The New Testament is a set of new Christian writings made many centuries after the books of the Hebrew Bible were written. You can think of it as a sequel. RK

Thanks, RK. You've helped turn a mishmash into a mitzvah :-) --Ed Poor

Names of books

Let's continue this discussion on the talk page for Names for books of Judeo-Christian scripture, which I just created based largely on RK's info. --Ed Poor 16:26 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)

The Torah

65.83.40.130 18:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I did nopt realize the Torah is made up of the first 5 books of the Bible . Matt Mummert

I do not think that it has ever been the accepted Christian view that the Torah was a word-for-word dictation by God to Moses. I have unspecific recollection of a number of fairly early statements which contrast a dictation theory with the Christian view of inspiration, and I can think of a few Christian scriptures that would be hard to reconcile with this view. Is there support for the claim that dictation has been the view of inspiration to which Christians subscribe, now or at some time in the past? About the Jewish view, I'm ignorant, but I'd be surprised if this theory has ever been only one, at any particular time, that was considered orthodox. Is there support? — Mkmcconn

The view that the text of the Torah was verbally dictated by God to Moses has been the predominant one in rabbinic Judaism from the time of the Mishnah (redacted around 200 CE) up until The Enlightenment. Most Orthodox Jews still hold by this understanding today.

Orthodox Rabbi Norman Lamm says that "I believe the Torah is divine revelation in two ways: in that it is God-given and in that it is godly. By God-given, I mean that He willed that man abide by his commandments and that will was communicated in discrete words and letters. Man apprehends in many ways: by intuition, inspiration, experience, deduction and by direct instruction. The divine will, if it is to be made known, is sufficiently important for it to be revealed in as direct, unequivocal, and unambiguous a manner as possible, so that it will be understood by the largest number of the people to whom this will is addressed. Language, though so faulty an instrument, is still the best means of communication to most human beings. Hence, I accept unapologetically the idea of the verbal revelation of the Torah." [ "The Condition of Jewish Belief", Macmillan 1966]

Rabbi David Novak (Union for Traditional Judaism) writes that "not only do people experience a Presence when God makes himself manifest, they also hear the word. The denotion of the word is initially intelligible, and thus the word can become a matter of discourse in the community." [ From "A Response to 'Towards an Aggadic Judaism'" Conservative Judaism Vol.30(1) Fall 1975 pp.58-59]

The great majority of non-Orthodox Jews (Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism and the small Reconstructionist Judaism movement) reject the idea of verbal revelation outright, for both historic and theological reasons. However, this has never been the only official view. Other ways of understanding revelation have always been allowed.

Since the medieval era another way of understanding revelation has also received widespread acceptance; this is the rationalist view made popular by Maimonides. To quote a summary of this view, "Maimonides holds the intellectual preparation of man as a conditio sine qua non for reaching the truth. This highest level of human perfection can only be reached after intensive studying: 'Consequently he who wishes to attain to human perfection, must therefore first study Logic, next the various branches of Mathematics in their proper order, then Physics, and lastly Metaphysics.' So it depends on man to transform his potential intellectual faculty into real action. Then, and here Maimonides speaks the language of Aristotelian philosophy, the active intellectual faculty of man can reach the lowest level of the mundus intelligibilis, i.e. the 'active intellect'. Through this active intellect, divine emanation will reach man after intensive study of all disciplines and thus man can reach the level of a prophet. As a result he will be able to understand the divine attributes, which are expressed in the mundus sensibilis as the laws of nature, without, and this must be emphasized, knowing something positively about the essence of the Divine. This is because all biblical divine attributes have to be understood in the sense of a negative theology. Moses, as the 'father' of all prophets, is distinguished, in this philosophy, from all other levels of prophecy, in so far as he is a prophet-philosopher sui generis. Maimonides goes on to claim that the people of Israel only heard the 'sound of words' on Sinai (with the exception of the two first commandments about the existence and uniqueness of God). Due to his extraordinary intellectual faculties, Moses functioned as the instructor of the divine commandments." [Quoted from Shear-Yashuv, "Jewish Philosophers on Reason and Revelation"]

However, most Ultra-Orthodox Jews today, due to their view of philosophy as heresy, are totally ignorant of Neo-Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic philosophy; they forbid the study of such subjects. As such, most of them have no idea of what Maimonides was talking about. In their publications they have created a fantastic - and utterly wrong - caricature of Maimonides as an Orthodox Jew who held Orthodox beliefs. They find it impossible and heretical to understand him in any other way. This phenomenon of rewriting the works of past rabbis to make them appear to fir modern-day Ultra-Orthodox beliefs has been discussed by many scholars of Orthodoxy, including Modern Orthodox historians and theologians, such as Menachem Kellner. Thus in their (erroneous) view all the different ways that rabbis in the past understood revelation are really just different ways of teaching the same thing. Modern Orthodox theologians are more forgiving on this topic. RK

In Christianity, verbal inspiration is not the same as dictation theory. Although the Scriptures teach verbal inspiration, they do not teach the idea of mechanical dictation. The mechanical dictation theory of inspiration teaches that God used the writers ############ as robots, only writing as God dictates, and their personality was not a factor in the Scripture's composition. The Scripture, however, teaches the Divine-human authorship. Every word divine; and every stroke of the pen human. It is rare to find an essay by a Christian defending "verbal plenary inspiration", which doesn't also emphatically reject "dictation theory". Is this different from the Jewish view? — Mkmcconn

In agreement with SJK, I wish to point out that there is more than one Jewish view. But to keep things short and simple, both in the past and present Jews always held that the Torah was different from the other books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). While most rabbis traditionally held that the Torah itself was a verbal, mechanical dictation, the other books of the Tanakh were not. The traditional Jewish view is that the books of the Prophets were a joing product of God and man; "Every word divine; and every stroke of the pen human", as you say. To a lesser extent the same is true of the Writings (Hagiography) of the Bible and the Mishnah and Talmud. It is the Torah alone that is held as the exception; it is treated as a direct quote from God. RK

As for Jews today, most religious Jews reject the idea that the Torah is one long direct verbal quote from God. Many agree with the writings of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. He wrote that "As a report about Revelation, the Bible itself is a midrash. To convey what the prophets experienced, the Bible could either use terms of descriptions or terms of indication. Any description of the act of revelation in empirical categories would have produced a caricature. That is why all the Bible does is to state that revelation happened; How it happened is something they could only convey in words that are evocative and suggestive." ["God in Search of Man", Heschel, p.194]

Heschel also wrote "It was not essential that God's will be transmitted as sound; it was essential that it be made known to us. That sound or sight is to the transcendent event what a metaphor is to an abstract principle. The prophets bear witness to an event. The event is divine, but the formulation is done by the individual prophet. According to this conception, the idea is revealed; the expression is coined by the prophet."

Jewish beliefs about the Torah

I think that when questioning "Jewish belief" there are two distinct issues: what did ancient Hebrews believe, and what do Jews believe today? However distinct, these two questions are hard to answer separately because Jews today base their views in some way on texts written at least 2500 years ago (even Jews who reject Biblical theology are defining their position in response to Biblical theology). But this does not mean that those texts are transparent; although some believe that a literal reading of those texts results in a clear understanding of what Biblical Hebrews believed, they are likely wrong. A literal reading of the Bible does not produce a consistent picture, as in some cases God is quoted directly; in some cases not.

There is a Midrashic tradition that the Torah is eternal, and thus existed long before Sinai, long before Abraham, inded, long before the creation of the universe. In this tradition, the Torah is not the record of an encounter between Hebrews and God, it is a gift God gave to the Children of Israel. To me, this suggests literal dictation.

Today many non-Orthodox Jews take one of two other views: that there was an encounter with God at Sinai that directly inspired the authors of the Torah, or that the Torah and the rest of the Bible is the expression of the Children of Israel's love for God, but is "inspired" only in a very vague way.

In all of trhese examples, and the Christian example, I see a more important underlying issue (one that may be tangential here, and more appropriate to the article on differences between Jews and Christisans -- but it is also my own personal observation and may not help improve the articles). All theistic religions must grapple with the paradox of a God that is simultaneously immament and transcendant. I think one consequence of this paradox is a conviction that God can reveal "Himself" to people, but not clearly. I think different religions express this paradox, and the kind of revalation that it engenders, through different kinds of metaphors. On the most general level, for Jews the gulf between God and people is mediated through Torah (words), and for Christians, through Jesus (a life and death). But more specifically, what has always struck me about the difference between our different Scriptures is that in the Hebrew Bible, God talks -- and in the NT God is pretty silent. I know this is not an academic text, but this also struck me iin the popular movie Dogma -- at the end, God appears, but her voice is a destructive shreik humans cannot berar to hear. As a Jew, this just seemed wrong toi me, as I grew up with the idea that people can indead hear God's voice, which in fact is "still and small," but that people could never see God; even Moses got only a glimpse of God's tush (as it were). I do not think the real isue is whether the Torah was mechanically dictated or not; I think the issue is how different religions have different metaphors to express the ways in which God is both immanent and transcendant, and for Jews, the imanence is through our ability to hear his voice, and the transcendance is through our inability to see the speaker. Slrubenstein

Sorry, RK, most Orthodox Jews do believe that the Torah is one long quote from God. Danny

actually orthodox jews belive that God dictated the torah to moses, who wrote it all down--69.114.174.131 20:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess my point above is that although most people use the notion of direct verbal revalation to give the Torah authority, I am more intrigued by what it says about the nature of God. By the way, I have to say, I don't understand the idea "verbal inspiration." Language is language, whether written or spoken. If I spoke the preceding sentence to you would I have been more inspiring than had it been written down? Slrubenstein

The question seems pointed in my general direction, so I'll answer. I think that the phrase doesn't express how "inspiring" the words are, but how "inspired". An equivalent and more poetic phrase is, "God-breathed words". By the Spirit of God, what a prophet says (or writes) is more full of truth than even the prophet is able to understand, because the movement of thoughts and the choice of words does not ultimately originate from the prophet, but from God. Mkmcconn

Sory, I still do not get it; it now seems to me that you are eliding two distinctions: between the sender and receiver, and between two types of media (written and spoken). When you wrote "verbal inspiration" I assumed you meant "God spoke (verbally) which inspired those who hears His words." I still do not se how it matters whether Moses wrote down what God said, or simply repeated, verbally, what God said: the real question has nothing to do with verbal vs. written, it has to do with whether God spoke to Moses or whether there was some more vague "inspirational" event. Maybe I misunderstood you when you first posed the question. I trust that between what I wrote and what RK wrote, though, you have your answer: Virtually all Orthodox Jews believe that God spoke to Moses and other prophets.

My own view is that even if many Jews today find it hard to believe in that, and have turned to a model of "inspiration," what is important is that our people privilege the metaphor of speech for understanding our relationship with God; our God is a "talking god." I think the crucial point here is that the people Israel have an unmediated relationship with God. People do not ned an intermediary, whether Jesus, a priest, or a prophet, to speak "for" God, although sometimes God does speak to some people and not others. I know this is a vbast oversimplification of both Biblical poetry and theology -- I simplify only in order to make what many Jews perceive to be a stark contrast between themselves and Christians. Slrubenstein

What you and RK have written answered my question. Thank you. I hope you consider putting some of that material into the entry. I don't understand your contrast, above; and, I don't believe that we are using the same meaning of "inspiration". But, maybe this in itself points out the difficulty of trying to sum up the views of Judaism and Christianity on this issue, side-by-side. Mkmcconn

Danny writes "Sorry, RK, most Orthodox Jews do believe that the Torah is one long quote from God."

That wasn't me! I agree that the great majority of Orthodox Jews hold this way. In fact, see what I said (above) about how many Orthodox Jews inappropriately rewrite Maimonides to make him out to be Orthodox, because they just can't imagine that a great rabbi would ever have a point of view that was different from their own. I tried to make clear that it is only the non-Orthodox Jews who don't hold this way. RK

The Torah in in Judaism

In Judaism, the Torah in its strictest sense is the collection of five books said to have been given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai.

It would be another surprise to me to learn that Judaism has ever had the idea that the entire Pentateuch was written by Moses on Mt. Sinai -- Deuteronomy 5:22 "These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me." (ESV) "These words" were those written on the tablets, "and he added no more". I was unaware that Judaism taught that more than the words of the stone tablets were written on Mt. Sinai.

Practically all of rabbinic Judaism has always held, from well before 200 CE up until recently, that 'all of the Torah was verbally dictated by God to Moses. (The exception would be rationalists like Maimonides, who held that th method of revelation was intellectual and not verbal; however they also held that Moses wrote all of the Torah, and wrote it in such a way that it perfectly represented the will of God. RK

I understand from answers to my previous question, that some denominations of Judaism might have taught that every word of the five books was dictated to Moses - in contrast to the traditional Christian view that every word of Moses was given through him by the Holy Spirit, not limited to the record of audible words spoken by God.

Not just some; All denominations of Judaism, before the enlightenment, held this way. Could you explain what you mean by this "every word of Moses was given through him by the Holy Spirit, not limited to the record of audible words spoken by God." I am not precisely sure what this means. RK

Here, another difference between the traditions is suggested - because Christians have never believed that the entire Pentateuch was written on Mt. Sinai, although they have believed that the whole Torah is from heaven. The Christian understanding had always been that the Pentateuch was given through Moses at non-specific times after the events recorded, during the lifetime of Moses and shortly after his death through anonymous scribes, and it was only the stone tablets that were written on Mt. Sinai (not by Moses, but by ###########). Is this an accurate description of the difference? Mkmcconn

I'm not sure. Jews don't necessarilly hold that all of the Torah was given at Mount Sinai. Many agree with the view that the Pentateuch was given through Moses at non-specific times after the events recorded, and during the lifetime of Moses. The rabbis held that this revelation was verbal, and recorded precisely, but not necessarilly all at once. As for a small number of later additions by anonymous scribes being in the Pentateuch, that too is an accepted viewpoint within traditional rabbinic Judaism. RK

SLR writes: When you wrote "verbal inspiration" I assumed you meant "God spoke (verbally) which inspired those who hears His words." I still do not see how it matters whether Moses wrote down what God said, or simply repeated, verbally, what God said:

Aren't both the same thing? In both cases God verablly gives a message to Moses, which Moses writes down word-for-word, and passes this direct quote from God down to the Israelites. The fact that it is audible, or through some other precise and accurate mode of revelation, is of little relevance. What is relevant, in this traditional view, is that our record of God's will is accurate and word-for-word. RK

SLR writes : the real question has nothing to do with verbal vs. written, it has to do with whether God spoke to Moses or whether there was some more vague "inspirational" event.

Agreed. People interested in this topic should look at the article on revelation to see other non-verbal ways in which God is said to have communicated His will to Moses and to other prophets. RK

Not just some; All denominations of Judaism, before the enlightenment, held this way. Could you explain what you mean by this "every word of Moses was given through him by the Holy Spirit, not limited to the record of audible words spoken by God." I am not precisely sure what this means. RK

Please grant me tolerance for the following explanation, which probably belongs under Talk:revelation more than here, and is from a particular, overtly Christian understanding. Christians appear to make a difference which Jews do not necessarily make, between "dictation" and the usual manner by which the word of God is enscripturated. Those who hold to the latter would agree that there are dictated words, which Moses was instructed to write (Exod 17:14; 24:4; 34:1, 27, 28; Deut 31:9, 19, 22, 24; 32:1, for examples). But, if you were to color these dictated "words of God" in red (as some publishers do to the "words of Jesus" in the Christian scriptures), there would be large blocks of black print running for pages. The black print also is the word of God, in the traditional view, although not dictated. Conservative protestants call this "verbal plenary inspiration". It does have a fully compatible counterpart in Catholic teaching.

Verbal means, even the very words are of God, and not just the thought behind them. Plenary means, all of the Scripture is the word of God, not just "the words in red" - every stroke of the pen is true (every "jot and tittle" as Jesus said). Inspiration refers to the spirit of God as the direct influence in guaranteeing the truth of every Scripture. Inspiration of the scriptures is often likened in Christian thinking, to the "inspiration" of Adam: God's breath is in Adam's nostrils, making him a living soul -- God's breath is in the prophet, so that what he speaks and writes is a living word. The phrase refers to 2 Peter 1:20,21 "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy ############ comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.". But, it doesn't only apply to prophecies, following 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,". As a result, "God says", "the Spirit of God says", "the Word of God says", "the Scripture says", or "it is written" are all exactly equivalent, regardless of which sentence is being quoted of anything "Moses says" or "the Law says". — Mkmcconn

Hi, Mkmccon. I'm going to come in here with my $0.02. I think part of the problem is that you are trying to interpret Orthodox Jewish theologucal concepts by finding a parallel Christian concept, which may not necessarily be possible. I think the underlying basis of you query does not apply to a Jewish (and by this I mean a contemporary Orthodox Jewish, though other groups will certainly agree with some of this) perspective. In a nutshell, the Jewish perspective is not that the words are the message but that they are indicators of a far greater message that extends beyond them. For instance, the "jot and tittle" you speak of is actually a poor translation of the original term, which was kotzo shel yod, quite literally, the serif of the Hebrew letter yod (which happens to be the smallest letter), which the rabbis said can teach countless scores of lessons. This is regardless of whether that yod appears in the phrase "I am the Lord thy God," or whether it appears in that oft repeated, rather tedious "And God spoke unto Moses saying." In a similar vein, Rabbi Akiva, who died in 135 A.D., is said to have learned a new law from every et in the Torah--the word et is meaningless and is simply used to mark the direct accusative subject of a sentence. In other words, the Orthodox view is that "And God spoke unto Moses saying..." is no less important than the actual statement--in fact, if we were really to delve into the statement, we might find that the preamble is even more significant. This might provide some bbetter insight into the idea that the Torah is believed to have been dictated bverbatim by God, including all the introductions and preambles, and even including the final death of Moses himself. One kabbalistic interpretation is that the Torah constitutes one long name of God, and that it was broken up into words so that human minds can understand it. While this is effective since it accords with our human reason, it is not the only way that the text can be broken up. For Orthodox Jews, the Torah is that rush of letters and sounds that can mean so many different things. As for prophecy, the Jewish view of that is very complicated and has nothing to do with an ability to foresee the future. What distinguishes the prophecy of Moses from other prophets is that, according to Jewish tradition, he was the only one who spoke directly to God as a person speaks to a friend. Danny

Terms used

Who uses the terms Tetrateuch and Hexateuch? Ezra Wax 05:04, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Edits war

EDIT WAR Rickyrab 19:55, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed from the article:

Recent research (AD 2003+) has revealed, that the Torah has been built upon (or later aligned onto) a 16-year period of astronomical cycles. See Torah Cosmos for details.

Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly the part about original research. -- The Anome 19:52, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sihan, I have protected this page because you continually add your information without discussing it on this page. I have also left a message on your talk page. Please address ongoing concerns about original research and NPOV before posting here again. Thank you. RadicalBender 20:04, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sihan: According to the rules of this site no content hast to be discussed before it can be added. Hence, removing my content until "discussion" is not fair. Leave it there except someone proves it to be nonsense, what indeed never can happen. The "nonsense" claims and deletions are just religious motivated vandalism.

You are perfectly free to add it; and others are perfectly free to delete it, or restore it. However, when there is a repeated set of reversions and counter-reversions, as in this case, we then move to discussing the merits of the material prior to further editing. Please read Welcome, newcomer for a guide to the whole Wiki-process, and in particular how the community can help you work with other contributors. -- The Anome 20:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. Content does not have to be discussed before it can be added. But if you add the content and someone reverts the content and you add it back and it gets reverted again and so on, a good strategy might be to use the talk page to ask why and discuss others' concerns. Content is not reverted without purpose. And, please, don't say it's religious-motivated because it's not. I have no motivation whatsoever in regard to your religion or what you believe. Frankly, I don't care. What I do care about is that your articles are not tempered with a Neutral Point of View and that they are considered what is known as Original Research. Please read up on that information and ask about others' concerns here before we move forward. Thank you. RadicalBender 20:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Once more, they are NOT "orginal" and they are indeed neutral and based on evidence. Who can claim he understands everything what is presented in Wikipedia may he judge what is crap? There is no reason to support religious vandalism because any investition of power into a senseless discussion is wrong. As I see it, Wikipedia, when it places polls over what is evident and waht is not, is far from being serious at all, so I rather leave than supporting a blindfolded act.Sihan 21:09, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

OK, now we can begin to resolve things. You claim that your article describes concepts that are not original to you. Can you please give cites to other, independent, sources that share these views? -- The Anome 20:38, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Further, as a lesson in psychology you shall know, that by REMOVING a content and protecting the article rather than LEAVING it within the protection, you suggest that revert-wars are successful. Here is how democracy works: when people feel my content is wrong, they may not start an effective war to get rid of them (as you support them to do). THEY who want something to be lastingly reverted, need to discuss first. Not me. Hence you act unfair.

Not original, but i ideed am the reseracher. I am the one who has published them before elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with that. You may see

http://otaku.onlinehome.de/torah.html or http://otaku.onlinehome.de/tken.html .

Science has never needed at least two (or however you claim it must be) researchers for the same thing. Such would be scizophrenic.Sihan 21:09, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with you publishing this on your own website. However it does not seem to fit in with our editorial policy for Wikipedia. Have you tried the Internet-Encyclopedia or the Meta-Wikipedia?

what do you mean "does not SEEM to fit in" because of some semi-religious "we know everything" hubbubb. Thanx for the encylopedia info and howto sign info but are you sure you are not just tossign the responsibility away? Sihan 21:09, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

Unprotection

I'm about to unprotect this page (because I hate leaving things protected), but I don't want to see anything more about Torah Cosmos on this page until the concerns have been worked out here. If I see it again, it's going straight back to protection. Capisce? RadicalBender 21:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Polish translation

Sacha Pecaric has started a translation of the Torah to Polish - Can anyone explain why this sentence should stay in the article? There are thousands (literally!) translations of the Torah, and I fail to see why Mr Pecaric's work should deserve special mention. JFW | T@lk 15:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Two weeks later, no response. Good luck, mr Pecaric. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Scientific vs. Orthodox

Jdwolff, I removed your paragraph for the following reasons:

• There should be symmetry here: if you add a paragraph to the scientific view that the orhodox view differs, you should reciprocally add a paragraph to the Jewish view that the scientific views differ.
• Stylewise, I think here none is better than both.
• It seems you relate only to the documentary hypothesis. In this case it should probably be discussed on its page.

Gadykozma 19:22, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gadykozma, I would have preferred if you hadn't reverted this edit. There has been no "resistance" from the scientists to the Orthodox view, but there have been many Orthodox scholars who have fought the scientific approach. Also, they fought more than just the documentary hypothesis: they fought the suggestion that the Torah was not given by God (see Jewish principles of faith, where this is stated quite explicitly). Examples of traditionalist detractors of the scientific view are Rabbis M.L. Malbim and D.Z. Hoffmann. I will reinstate my edit, and await a slightly more even-handed approach from you. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JFW, I honestly don't understand your claim that 'there has been no "resistance" from scientists'. What would you call the DH? Or for that matter, cosmology, evolution and archeology? So again I ask: if the section about "scientific views" states that Rabbis disagree, shouldn't the section about "orthodox views" states that scientists disagree, just for symmetry's sake?

My favorite solution is still to simply remove this text but I won't do it just yet. The ball is in your field now. Gadykozma 01:10, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's await the others to comment. JFW | T@lk 11:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's give it 5 days. Gadykozma 12:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unsurprisngly, nobody stepped up, so I erased this text again. I have a suggestion, though, how about adding to the "orthodox views" something like this:

Some orthodox rabbis have explicitly tried to respond to scientific arguments which contradict this view (see below). Among those one may count .... Their main arguments were...

Again, if you want to add this or something like it, please do it in the orthodox views section. That's where it belongs. Gadykozma 01:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Under protest. I still feel that reactions to critical theory belong with the theory, not with the people from whom they originated. JFW | T@lk 16:48, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jdwolff, I've added a comment to that paragraph — is this any better? Gadykozma 17:27, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus

Does "There is scientific consensus that the Torah was written by a person." mean anything, given that the premise of [most] scientific investigation allows for no alternative? I move for striking this sentence or noting its basic limitation. Anyone object to "The premise of scientific investigation into the Torah's authorship is that it was written by a person."? MOE37x3 12:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree. This is simply not true. Take a basic course in the philosophy of science. It will do you good. Gadykozma 13:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please clarify: Are you saying that scientific investigations into the Torah's authorship do pursue the question of whether it was written by a person or not?MOE37x3 15:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is The Bible Code if not exactly that? Gadykozma 16:26, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Bible Code is to Divine Authorship as the spare wheel is to a car. Divine authorship is an axiom of Orthodox Judaism, with or without the Bible Code movement, and by treating the Torah as a document written by a human being, scientists are perceived to act in a heretical fashion.

More importantly, The Bible Code is to scientific investigation as... Oh, I'm no clever enough to come up with a good analogy, but I hope you don't think that that book described a scientific investigation.MOE37x3 16:54, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think MOE37x3's version is really not bad. A scientist only approaches the Torah in this fashion if he/she believes that it is human-authored. Scientists totally bypass the question whether there is such a thing as Divine authorship - they see this question as an oxymoron. JFW | T@lk 16:48, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was not relating to the book, I was relating to the paper (see Bible code). And yes, this is a scientific paper. It may be all wrong. The authors may have had extraneous motives. They may not be experts in statistics. But they still used the scientific method. So yes, science is always ready to check all its premises.

There is nothing inherently unscientific about the assumption of divine authorship — it's just that the evidence against it is overwhelming... Gadykozma 17:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gady, you disappoint me. How on earth do you prove scientifically that the Torah was not written by God? JFW | T@lk 19:56, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, what (studies that look for) evidence against are you referring to? I concede that there has been an attempt to demonstrate scientific evidence of Divine Authorship of the Torah, but I have yet to see reference to a body of scientific literature that directly addresses the question of divinity/personhood of authorship and comes to a consensus on it. There does exist a large body of literature that starts with the assumption that one or more people wrote it and then tries to determine characteristics of those people, but that doesn't ask or answer whether it was written by a person in the first place.MOE37x3 21:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, slip of the tongue. I meant that the lack of evidence to the contrary despite so many attempts to prove otherwise (even Descartes tried this!) is overwhelming. Now let's go back to the article. I agree that the first paragraph will not come as a surprise to many. As far as I am concerned, you may remove it completely. All I ask is that you do not replace it with MOE's text which is just plain wrong. Gadykozma 23:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do you consider the stuff in Bible Codes to be "many attempts to prove otherwise [within the world of scientific discourse]"? Did Descartes attempt to prove the authorship of the Torah or simply the existence of a Deity? I don't think the consensus that the Bible Codes findings are inconclusive and flawed of method constitutes consensus that the Torah was written by a person. It barely even approaches the latter.MOE37x3 23:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I think we can reach a consensus to delete the paragraph. The real meat of the section follows it, anyway.MOE37x3 00:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not really related to the article but: A) No, the Bible codes stuff is one attempt. There were others. B) I think Descartes went on from the proof of the existence of Deity to prove stuff like that, but I might be wrong C) I definitely agree with you on the last point. As JFW noted, there is no way to prove that God does not exist or that he didn't write the Torah. Gadykozma 01:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Box

Gady, you can really leave the article series box in place. It links all the books. Boxes very often contain redundant stuff. JFW | T@lk 08:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But JFW, look at the text! It has precisely the same links in the main text and in the box! Doesn't this strike you as strange? Gadykozma 11:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Christian View of the Torah"

Can someone explain to me why the christian view is even included in this article? This content is extremely inflammatory IMHO. I ask rhetorically if we should include the views of Satanists in the christian bible wiki? It doesn't make any difference what christians believe about the Torah, their opinion is irrelevant to this article about the Torah.

The popular wisdom says the christian bible has somehow superceded the Torah, therefore we should allow this viewpoint to stay in the wiki.. that may be the opinion of some, but not mine. This inclusion of the christian perspective only serves only to cast doubt on the veracity of torah (and subtly tries to raise suspicion about the faith of Jews as well.)

Transliteration

Actually I am glad to see someone on English Wikipedia revising transliteration of Hebrew. I hope the article romanization of Hebrew interests you.

I would say that (for example) the existing link to Deuteronomy is sufficient without a separate link to the transliteration "vayikra", which is a synonym.

Comparing "bereishit" with "berashit", the transliteration "bereishit" roughly agrees with prominent traditions of Hebrew pronunciation: the "ei" combination represents the vowel tsere in an open syllable. In comparison, Google counts fewer instances of the spelling "berashit". Does the letter A represent the long a as in "take" there? I'm not sure that readers can figure that out. --Hoziron 03:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Some of the transliterations used on this page do not have Wikipedia pages or redirects, specifically בראשית, which is why I made the change. My thought process was different than your Google approach, but still as valid: if it didn't exist on Wikipedia, and the alternative did, then that's what should appear. I'm not wedded to either spelling.

<opinion>Personally, I think transliteration is a crutch, and should only be used to teach letters, and not words. This goes for all languages.</opinion>

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     01:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I wanted to stick with linking to Genesis because it identifies the same concept, it's English (no form of בראשית is in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary Ninth Edition), and it's easier than dealing with varying ideas about transliteration. I realize that it could be considered an anachronism in a discussion of Torah. I'll just add a couple of words to make it absolutely clear which names are appropriate to the Hebrew text (no worries about what's appropriate to Judaism -- Septuagint names such as Genesis are A-OK). See if you like it that way. I'll add a redirect from Bereishit to Genesis for good measure. Also, I notice now that the Genesis page doesn't mention the Hebrew-language origin of the text, and the Hebrew Bible = Tanakh page features an image of an Aramaic translation (Targum). Odd. --Hoziron 17:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Misleading edits by 167.6.245.98

There's an anon. who has made some edits in the 'Islamic view of the Torah' section which are very misleading. Can I urge everyone who knows about such issues to make sure that we don't confuse Tawrat with Torah - they are not the same from an Islamic viewpoint, one is not just a translation (transliteration) of the other, neither is one just another way of spelling the other. ---Mpatel (talk) 16:13, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Would it be OK to say that the Islamic view is expressed by the concept "Tawrat" and leave a fuller discussion to that article? And perhaps that discussion should attribute views to a particular text, tradition, scholar, or cleric. A naive observer (such as I am!) wouldn't expect a billion Muslim believers to all form the same opinion independently. --Hoziron 17:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Islamically, the belief is that Moses was given revelations by God (later collated in book form) called the Tawrat. Also, the present day Torah is regarded as a corrupted version of the Tawrat (= original revelation given to Moses). On this issue, people who call themselves muslims share this belief exclusively - it really is a core belief of Islam (the Quranic reference to this issue is enough to convince any muslim believer) - believe me! Hope this clears up any misconceptions. ---Mpatel (talk) 17:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I was the anon, I hadn't logged in yet. (Please excuse my newbeeness.) Please see disccussion on Talk:Tawrat --JBJ830726 18:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Title

Isn't this page title POV? The Torah is specifically the Jewish term for the first five books of the Bible. "Pentateuch" would seem to be to be the generic term. Obviously, the Pentateuch is more important to Judaism than it is to Christianity. But still, there's a lot more Christians in the world, and Pentateuch isn't a term which is specifically Christian in any way. I don't see how the common name rule comes into play here - both Torah and Pentateuch are common names. john k 18:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"Torah" does not merely indicate a text. It also indicates a substantial context. I think the article "Christ" is a very similar case. It seems like a good article to have. As you can read in the article, the word "Christ" is a translation of the Hebrew word "messiah", sharing the literal meaning "anointed one" and connotation "a messenger who ushers in the end of history". Up to that point, Judaism shares the concept. However, Judaism does not have "the Christ" (allowing Messianic Judaism as either an exception or a distraction). Rather similarly, Christianity does not have "the Torah". As far as Britannica and Encarta (and I) are concerned, Torah refers to the Jewish understanding of holy scripture. That understanding owes much to rabbinical literature, known as the "Oral Torah". Rabbinical literature is exactly the Pharisee tradition that Christianity has often used as a defining contrast. --Hoziron 03:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I can understand the purpose of having a lengthy article to deal with the role of the Torah in Judaism. This article should be at Torah. But it seems to me that it's problematic to deal with generic information about the Pentateuch in the same article. The sections on translations and on the secular view, at the very least, are not really about the Torah (as a Jewish phenomenon) at all - they are about the Pentateuch, as a group of Biblical books. Having a section on the Christian view of the Jewish law seems appropriate. But the section we have seems to be partially that, and partially a section on the Christian view of the Pentateuch. Perhaps the answer is to split into two articles. One, Pentateuch, would be about the five books themselves. It could discuss the scholarly and traditional views of their origins, their structure and contents, textual history, translations, and so forth. The other, Torah, would deal with the stuff you talk about - the position of the Torah in Jewish tradition, and perhaps, to an extent, the attitude of Christianity towards the Jewish idea of Torah. Each article would have to briefly touch on the subject matter of the other, but it seems to me that it could be separated without extraordinary difficulty. Does this seem like a sensible approach? BTW, it is to be noted that we have separate articles on messiah and christ. john k 06:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I agree that "Pentateuch", meaning the objective or interfaith aspects of the Five Books of Moses, should have its own article. Let's feel free to create that. Just go to Pentateuch and click on the link "Redirected from Pentateuch". In fact the objective aspects of the entire Tanakh (that is, "Torah" in one of its wider senses) already have a separate article at Hebrew Bible. --Hoziron 18:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I see no problem with splitting off Pentateuch and leaving Torah for the "Jewish" definition. JFW | T@lk 07:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I have begun a Pentateuch page and removed the redirect. I think this is important because the Torah article does not start with a mention of the Pentateuch being part of the Christian Bible as well, which is important to include off the bat, but doesn't quite seem to fit the Torah article, for reasons stated above. Please add freely to it. 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Christian View of the Torah

It is asked below: "Can someone explain to me why the christian view is even included in this article?" The simple answer is that most people who view the books of the Torah as Scripture are Christians rather than orthodox Jews. Furthermore, more readers of this article are more likely either to be Christians or secularists than orthodox Jews. To include the Christian viewpoint is not inflamatory as such, but educational. Whether the Christian view is right or wrong is not the point. To exclude it the way Izak does is what is inflamatory. The analogy with Satanists is not germaine since there are hardly any of them. Christians, on the other and, are in fact major players in the history of the interpretation of the Torah. But if there were a large number of Satanist readers of the Torah who have made a significant impact on how the Torah is to be read, then they would rightly deserve be included too. This is meant to be an objective work, not a sectarian one, so limiting the article on Torah to just the orthodox Jewish viewpoint is not in keeping with this work's purpose.

Does the Christian viewpoint refer specifically to the Torah or also to the remaining works of the Old Testament? Does Christian theology actually make a distinction between the two? JFW | T@lk 18:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Early Christianity has its roots in Judaism so naturally there is some overlap. Jesus was a Jew and Paul studied under Rabbi Gamaliel who is also mentioned in the Talmud. Jesus said he did not come to abolish "the law or the prophets" (Matthew 5:17), a reference to the first two divisions of the Hebrew Bible as a way of indicating the whole but also making a distinction. The New Testament often refers to "the law" or to the "law of Moses." It follows the Septuagint in translating TORAH as Greek NOMOS (not an altogether happy renderining), though there is no question that it refers to the same thing as Hebrew TORAH. NOMOS occurs some 158 times in the New Testament, mostly in reference to the law of Moses. The N.T. also refers to "the law, the prophets, and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44) in the sense of TORAH, NEVI'IM and KETUBIM. Thus it assumes in the early days the same division of the Bible as found in the Hebrew Bible and it therefore makes a distinction between the TORAH and the other books. There are quotations of many of the laws in the New Testament. It is fair to say that for Judaism TORAH plays a far more central role for religion than it does for Christianity which sees the application of the law as having been complicated by the new covenant. Moreover Christianity sees its roots more in the promises found in the prophets than in the law. But the TORAH (like the rest of the Hebrew Bible) is considered Scripture by Christians and is a part of their "canon" that provides a norm for their religous practices and beliefs. DrJ1m

And yet contemporary mainstream Christians do not, as far as I know, make a distinction between the authority of the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh, but rather between the "Old Testament" and the "New." The word "Torah" isn't even in common use among most Christians. Including the Christian point of view simply seems intrusive.Benami 00:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

True Torah is not a commont term among Christians laypeople. Why should a Hebrew term be? Neither is NOMOS which is the common rendering of TORAH in the Greek New Testament. But the English term "law" is a common term used by Christians and that that is what TORAH and NOMOS popularly translate as. However TORAH is commonly used by Christian Bible scholars who have studied Hebrew. Moreover the role of the law (that is, the Torah) is an important New Testament theme. That Christians do not make a large distinction between the authority of the Torah and that of the rest of the Tanakh whereas Orthodox Judaism does is in fact a point worth mentioning in an article on TORAH as a way of contrasting the two religions. I do not see why that should be a reason for excluding anything Christian in this article. I thus see exculsion of all but the Orthodox Jewish point of view as too limiting. And yet the links to other points of view at the end of the article placates me somewhat. DrJ1m

I think the information on this section is best moved to the Pentateuch article which I started. I put a sentence toward the beginning stating that the term Pentateuch is also used by Christians. That seems to be where the reference to Christianity belongs. The Christian view of the five books themselves, though, seems best placed in an article on the Pentateuch.Giffmex 19:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a great book in English on this subject written by: E. Benamozegh it is available at [Torah Lab http://www.torahlab.org/store/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=496] Joshman62 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshman62 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew naming conventions

Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 17:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Torah does not mean law

Rebbi Adin Steinsaltz explains why. 203.214.153.235 17:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and because of this I think other pages on WP that use this bad translation should be used. Eg, "the Torah (Law) says . . . "

--Ephilei 02:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that the Torah's defenition had something to do with "to aim" such as in archery. I don't have the gramatical proof on me right now, but it can be looked up. Furthermore, a sin-offering in the Torah (Chatat) can be defined as, "to miss", which corresponds with the archer theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.188.247 (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Torah Scroll image

In the section "Torah as the core of Judaism" there's a picture of someone directly touching the scroll, which is not appropriate scroll edicate. It's like an article about America having a picture of someone standing on an American flag. I suggest replacing the piture with one of Moses or Mt. Sinai or something since that's largely what the section is about.

FALSE TRANSLATIONS

Did you ever read The Bible Unauthorized ? in the preface it explains that all translations are false ones therefore all criticism and praise of the bible can not be directed to the true bible (the torah)--Brl 02:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

On Merging

A "merge" template was added here, but hasn't received any discussion yet.

It doesn't seem like a good idea to me. They indeed refer to the same books, but "Torah" has a much wider range of meaning, and an entirely separate history of usage from "Pentateuch". "Pentateuch" is connected with a range of related terms that have nothing to do with "Torah". I think each should have its own distinctive article. But if not, then "Pentateuch" should redirect here, with a short section that explains the term. Dovi 07:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If anything, Pentateuch and Humash should be merged. --Eliyak T·C 20:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't support a merger either. Beit Or 21:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Same Here, A Merge is not nessary

I agree that this article should not be merged. That makes 4 against and 0 in favor. I'm going to be italic be bold and remove it. Someone put it back if you really want it there. -- Eykanal 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Make that 5:0 against Johnbod 03:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph deleted from "Structure"

I took the following paragraph out of the "Structure" section:

The Torah is written by Hebrews and not Jews! Hebrews have nothing to do with Judaism or being Jewish. It is against the law for a Jew to speak Ancient Hebrew in Jerusalem! The Tora was translated from Ancient Hebrew to Greek to Latin and then to English! This is not intended to paint a bad picture of Jews but only to stop the lies being told and to let the truth of God shine through. http://members.tripod.com/jrmoore1958/moors.html

I moved it here since factually and stylistically it really is more fitting as a discussion item.Jerchower 12:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Old Testament...

How can it be that no where in this article does it mention specifically the Old Testament? Kingturtle 03:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Because there is no "Old Testament" in Judaism? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 05:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• The Torah IS the Old Testament. For Jews, this is not the "old" testament because it is the only testament. 68.62.227.73 23:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No attacks on rabbinic literature

I was planning on adding a new paragraph to this article when I noted the following paragraph. Note the text in italics, which I have since removed:

Other classical rabbinic sources (from liberal thought in Judaism that are not recongized by traditional Jews) hold that the Torah was revealed to Moses over many years, and finished only at his death....

That parenthetical quote is false, and seems to be an attack on Orthodox Jews who study rabbinic literature, instead of confining themselves to belief in some ultra-Orthodox yeshiva textbook. There is a trend in which ultra-Orthodox Jews condemn Jews who are aware of philosophical differences as "liberal", "reform" or "non-Orthodox", all of which are very bad things to say in the Orthodox community.

Abraham ibn Ezra and Joseph Bonfils state this belief about non-Mosaic quotes, as well as the Talmud and the Midrash. For all of them to be condemned as "liberal" is quite astonishing. Mark3 22:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Need an article on Torah commentaries

We should have an article that briefly discusses Torah commentaries. Mark3 19:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Torah commentaries for liturgical use in synagogues

These are Torah commentaries that are set up not only for reading and study, but also for liturgical useage. The Torah passages are separated by parashiyot, and they have hafatarah readings for eeach parashah.

• Hertz Chumash (Traditional, was/is used by all movements)
• Mesorah Stone Edition of the Torah (Orthodox synagogues)
• Plaut Torah (Reform & Reconstructionist)
• Etz Chayim: A Torah Commentary (Conservative)

Torah commentaries for study

• Torah (and Tanakh) commentaries, in Hebrew only AFAIK, from Mossad Harav Kook, Israel. I have never read these, but I understand that these are the only Modern Orthodox Tanakh commentaries. They even include some modern day archaeology.
• Soncino Chumash, Soncino Press (Traditional, was/is used by all movements)
• Richard Elliot Friedman's Torah commentary (used in study groups in many non-Orthodox synagogues. Is it used by any Orthodox groups?)
• JPS Torah commentary series
• The Artscroll Tanakh series on the Torah
• The Anchor Bible series, by Doubleday. (That is non-Jewish, non-denominational, but occasionally used by non-Orthodox.

Need section on composition?

The article has nothing about the composition of the Torah - who wrote it, when, where, what their purpose/s were. Do others feel this needs to be included?PiCo 01:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Naturally. Leadwind (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding a link?

Can we please add a link to [www.torahforme.com A Site with Free MP3 Classes on the Basics of Torah and Basic Questions and Answers]? Samson Ben-Manoach 12:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Over a month past with no objections, so i am adding the link Samson Ben-Manoach 22:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

2000 years before creation of the world

• I read that Tora was created 2000 years before the creation of the world. Igor Skoglund

Yes that is stated in Midrash on the verse "Hasham Kanani Reishit Darko" and in the beginning of the second chapter of Tana D'bey eliyahu. Samson Ben-Manoach 22:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Tawrat is arabic for Torah. Therefore an article: Tawrat would be about the muslim view of the Torah. That should be merged here.--Sefringle^Talk 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

i think Tawrat should be kept as is, as an article to explain the Islamic conception of the scripture. some scholars also speculated that tawrat and torah may not refer to exactly the same compilations. ITAQALLAH 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Most Muslims deny that the Tawrat and the Torah are the same and that seems enough reason to keep them separate. However, all Islamic scholars until ~1000 CE (I think is the date) believed they were the same. If they were to merge, this little known information would need to be highlighted, but as it is, many lay Muslims that piece of history existed. Further, the Torah contradicts the Qur'an. Therefore, I think merging would take an anti-Muslim bias. (However, I think history has an anti-Muslim bias, but that may be outside the realm of WP's jurisdiction.) Citing precedent, Gospel and Injil are separate and Psalms and Zabur are separate.--Ephilei 02:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

but what is it? what does it do? what is it for?

lots of technical details about torah in this article. but it doesn't come out and say what torah is. what it means, what it does. why it's important.

odd.Wikiskimmer 06:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Textual History

The Textual History section reads like it would be more appropriate in an article regarding Christians and the 1st 5 books. It seems it should either be removed from an article on Torah, in a series of articles on Jews and Judaism, or approached from Jewish scholarship (and sources) rather than Wellhausen and Noth. This is especially true in light of the apparent negative view Wellhausen seems to have taken towards Jews and Jewish scholarship .

Please sign your posts (w/four tildes). As for your suggestion, there's nothing exclusively Christian about Biblical criticism (which is what this section is about): it's a secular discipline, not a religious one, and scholars should leave their faith at the door when they go in. But that, I guess, is exactly the problem: biblical scholarship is secular, and treats the Torah as just another text. (Incidentally, the section gives far too much attention to Wellhausen and Noth - great man in their day, but a lot has happened since).PiCo 00:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm with PiCo. The topic is "Torah," not "Torah (per Judaism)." Leadwind (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Torah is the main center point of there religion

I was wondering how the documentary hypothesis came to be regarded as defunct and what some of the alternative theories are. Could someone point me in that direction? 159.28.60.66 20:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeking a citation that the DH is defunct. For now, I've got a referenced statement on the same general topic. Leadwind (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Torah per Judaism. Pentateuch per Christianity,

Remmo (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

lead should be no more than 4 paragraphs

This one needs trimming. A lead should be no more than 4 paragraphs long. Leadwind (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

THE TORAH

Jewis holy book which is givern the special name the sefer Torah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.90.134 (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

please add info

it is my understanding that the Torah was proved false during World War 2, when six million jews were murdered without any intervention or even acknowledgment by any yahweh/jehovah/similar diety. However, the Torah article doesn't contain any mention of this, so could someone add this fact? I don't have a citation, unfortunately, but I've read many places that lots of jews -- my family included -- stopped believing in God during that time, as this was pretty strong evidence of His non-existence. Of course, it should be a view attributed to a group, not written as though it were a fact. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.20.250 (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Flame writing

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

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

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

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

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

Tawrat and Torah

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

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

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

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

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

sAY THE hababvjhs

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

Thank you for pointing that out. I have put it back. shirulashem [[User tacb c b

References to stars and planets discovered in Torah

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

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

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

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

Definition

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

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

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

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

'Indefinite article'

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salvation

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

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

Bias from the start!

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

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

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

Names of the Books in Hebrew

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

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

Subjective treatment of Authorship

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

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

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

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

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

The third of three points is very cryptic.

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

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

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

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

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

Years of Talmud, precision, When?

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

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

The authorship section is obviously biased toward modern scholarship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Present multiple views, not just two

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

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

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

Confusing section on "Mosaic Authorship"

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

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

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

Exodus 34

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

Pentateuch and Torah

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

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

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

Five Books vs. Seven

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

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

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

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

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was NO CONSENSUS Ignocrates (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

---

I am proposing that the recently created Law of Moses article be merged into this much older and well-sourced article. The new article appears to be little more than a POV fork. Comments please. Ignocrates (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ovadyah,

I did not recognise your new user name. I would have thought that this is a clear case ofWikipedia:Content forking, see also Talk:Law of Moses history:

Creating article

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

Oppose merge - Sorry, but Torah Moshe and Torah are not identical (as the original source of this content in the Moses bio indicates, and please also see Google Scholar). For those that are actually looking for Torah the article clearly and explicitly links to it. The problem is that this article here, "Torah" is about the Pentateuch, which the lede and image of a Pentateuch show. Pentateuch REDIRECTs here, and the lede and content make it clear that this article is about the Pentateuch, the Five Books, including Genesis.

On the other hand the Law of Moses, what Joshua calls Torah Moshe, is the specific Law given to an individual Moses, it does not include Genesis. In fact it barely covers more than 10-15% of the Pentateuch. This existing Pentateuch ->REDIRECT-> Torah article also has nothing about the comparative Law in the Ancient Near East, it seems almost entirely focussed on the 21st Century rather than the 15thC BCE, and maybe that's as it should be. My problem is that if you merge the actual ancient Law of Moses into this article it will be cramped to a paragraph in among general description of the five books Genesis-to-Deuteronomy and modern application. Wheras it should be the other way round, that someone who is actually looking for information on the Law of Moses itself, not the Pentateuch, should be directed from a summary paragraph and wikilink from here to there. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, Ovadyah, sorry Ignocrates, per Wikipedia:Content forking, the 3 paragraphs from Moses which were broken out to Law of Moses may not have been well sourced (which is why when I broke out I tagged them with , but the actual historical-critical issues are legitimate. I somehow don't think most editors on the Torah article would want those paragraphs/sources, or even the Akkadian, Babylonian stuff, gracing the Torah article. But that is mainstream ancient Near East / ancient Israel scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain the difference. I flagged the Law of Moses article for a proposed merge because an editor on the Gospel of the Ebionites article changed the link from Torah to this new article. Given your explanation above, that change makes no sense in the context of the GE article. Therefore, the editor was probably as confused as I am about what this new article is about. I'll leave it to others more knowledgeable than me to decide if the distinction between Torah and Torah Moshe is significant enough to merit a separate article on the subject. Ignocrates (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, well, yes. The lexical distinction Torah and Torah Moshe are probably not a good starting pointed anyway, as per WP:EN we should be using English terms. I used Law of Moses since it was redirecting to Moses, and those 2 paragraphs, that's all. Was following what was already there. If I'd been choosing my own title I would have taken Law in Ancient Israel as the start, given that many ANE scholarly sources treat Moses as semi-mythical anyway, and regard "Joshua's" name Torah Moshe as a redaction from 100s of years later. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete: This article should be deleted. If there's any sourced content that isn't already in Torah, I suppose that could be merged, but an artificial distinction between the Torah and the Law of Moses is kind of silly. It's certainly no more than a theory about where part of the Torah came from. To have an article treating it as a separate thing is a clear POV violation. I suggest the article simply be turned into a redirect to Torah. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Lisa, with respect, have you looked carefully at the Law of Moses article? Do you really want these sources such as GOD AS 'JUDGE' IN UGARITIC AND HEBREW THOUGHT added to this article here on the Pentateuch? For example from John H. Walton Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context 1994 p233 "The ancient Near Eastern collections do not include cultic law; rather, their focus is on civil law. As a generalization, in the ancient Near East violation of law is an offense against society. In Israel a violation of law is an ..." Do you really want this here in this article? This article appears to be about the Torah in living Judaism? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no Torah of Moses other than the Torah in living Judaism. Okay, and the version the Samaritans have. The idea that there's a Torah of Moses distinct from that is a theory held by a very small number of people. Having an entire article presenting it as fact is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lisa, well its a view taken by academics in ANE studies, who are indeed "few" compared to people who are not academics in ANE studies, I'm sure. Unfortunately the article has sources distinguishing the concept of law in Ancient Israel from Torah in modern Judaism, plus also sources stating that Pentateuch and Law in Judaism are not equivalent, so the article reflects the sources. But anyway, your voice/vote is heard, thank you ;). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's put closure on this discussion. It seems that we have no consensus, or at least there is no consensus to merge. I can't support a deletion of article content. As I see it, the problem, is the name of the article rather than the content. The average reader will look at Law of Moses and see Law of Moses = Torah = Pentateuch. However, while they may be nuanced, the differences are meaningful to an expert-level reader. Therefore, I propose that the article title be changed to Law in Ancient Israel or something similar to avoid this confusion. Ignocrates (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Pentateuch be redirecting here?

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

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

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

the Torah has central significance to Christians

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

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

Please be consistent and change "Torah" (w/ H) to "Tora" (w/o H)

On the Wikipedia pages for Torah and Halakha, why is תורה transliterated as Torah (with the letter H at the end), but הלכה is transliterated as Halakha (without the letter H at the end)? They both end in the Hebrew letter Hei, it's not like one of them ends in Alef or something else that would not deserve a H. The English letter H, although it is derived from the Hebrew letter Chet, nowadays it is pronounced like Hei. Therefore, for consistency's sake, I propose that either Torah should become Tora, or Halakha should become Halakhah - you shouldn't be able to have it both ways! 129.98.153.127 (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Torah" is the usual form in English sources and a quick check of "halakha" seems to show that that is the usual rendition of that word. Therefore, changing either of them would be going against the common usage. English can be and often is contradictory. --Khajidha (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Torah: First five books of the Tanakh. Tora: a "light brown hartebeest" (Oxford English Dictionary), a "large reddish hartebeest" (Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary). 93.182.189.66 (talk)Demian —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC).

Suggestions for the shape of the article

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

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

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

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

I agree with PiCo. Please note also that the section on Documentary_hypothesis covers a lot of the arguments, and these can then be summarised and the detail can removed from this article. Some indication of the range of opinions would be helpful. --Muchado (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Learned69 in August 2012

I am a visitor to this page, but it seems that Learned69 has made some significant edits to the page without explaining why they were made and why they were necessary. The following section seems unclear:

"A most crucial issue that these theories do not address is whether the Torah is true or whether its a work of fiction. If it is true what was the source material that those authors used that recorded all of the dialogue, including the exact statutory language of the laws and commandments, that is the bulk of the Torah. The Torah also has many precise and obscure details, such as the exact number of each of the 12 tribes in the two census' that the Torah tells of, the lengthy family trees of Adam's grandchildren, the exact names of the presidents of each of the tribes, to name a few, that could not have been known thousands of years later without some written record. If it is a work of fiction how did a nation, dating at least to 100 BC, confuse this book, written a mere couple of hundred years earlier, with God's word and subject itself to its commandments. It also fails to account for the existence of the oral law (Section 5 of this article) (ref). "

This paragraph seems out of step with the other ones - both in style and content. It is not clear whether Learned69 is presenting one or two points of view. Please clarify --Muchado (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the theories do not address crucial issues so that they can provide an adequate and satisfactory explanation for the existence of the Torah.Learned69 (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Learned69 in Oct 2012

Orthodox , Sephardic, a majority of Israeli Jews[25] and other Jews, including many whom are not observant[25], reject critical Bible scholarship and the documentary hypothesis, holding to the opinion that it is against what they accept as the historical narrative, and is contradicted by the Torah in Deuteronomy 31:24,25 and 26, and the Talmud (Gittin 60a, Bava Basra 15b), which state that Moses wrote the Torah, as well as by the Mishnah[26], which asserts the divine origin of the Torah as one of the essential tenets of Judaism. L69 keeps restoring this section. Here is the source for these claims. http://jcpa.org/dje/articles2/howrelisr.htm This source does not substantiate the claims above, and makes no reference to biblical scholarship or the doc hypothesis. This is misrepresentation of sources, and i ask that these claims be removed, and be re written to those substantiated by the source only.217.41.234.177 (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That source says that they accept the tradition, people accept a tradition according to the basis of that tradition, distinguishing between an old wive's tale and a tradition with a basis that convinces them to accept it. So by accepting a tradition they are "in general holding to the opinion" of the basis of that tradition. That source is not the basis for the tradition. Another source is cited for that. http://jcpa.org/dje/articles2/howrelisr.htm is only a source for who accepts the tradition and rejects the DH.Learned69 (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have rewritten it208.84.53.129 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

L69. Your comments above do not change the fact that the present wording misrepresents the source. I have re written the para to reflect only what the source says. If you restore claims which are not directly in the source, then i will take this to dispute resolution.Robot wagner (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Robot wagner, you summarized your edit "Following dispute resolution it has been accepted that this should be the version that is used. See talk." I see that you are very new to editing Wikipedia. Welcome! Please be aware the discussion on your and another user's talk pages is not "dispute resolution" as the term is understood at Wikipedia, and that discussion does not establish what "should be the version that is used".

I removed "The Hebrew word for law is din" because Hebrew has at least five words for law: משפט, דין, תורה, כלל, חק. I removed the sentence about the opinion poll among Israeli Jews because this article is about the Torah, not the beliefs of Israeli Jews. I removed the paragraph about the beliefs of American Jews because it is largely not on topic. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the reference to answers.com because this source is completely unreliable, frequently basing its answers on Wikipedia, so using answers.com as a reference in Wikipedia results in ungrounded circular reference. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I added back in the sentence about American Jews because it is as relevant as the claim about religious Jews, and it is at least sourced whereas the other is not.Robot wagner (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Mishnah and tradition. POV

L69 i suggest that you consider this section of the NPOV policy. 'Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described........etc I will accept This belief is based on a historical narrative, first recorded in the Mishnah (100 BCE – 100 CE), and a belief that this narrative was previously transmitted orally from the time of Moses. It is also based on the Hebrew Torah (100 BCE – 100 CE), the Mishnah being the first time that traditions that were transmitted orally from the time of Moses were put in writing.

It is not a "belief". The origins of the Mishnah are not disputed as historical fact. You are clearly not knowledgeable about this issue. Sit down and do some research before creating a whole issue over this. Start with actually reading the source before you form opinions about what he sets forth as a historical account with names and dates See if it is disputed, and it is not, and then you can note it. The source is not expressing an opinion, but stating a historical fact. And he is only one of many sources that say this, as i said it is not disputed by anyone. refers to opinions and the origins of the Mishnah are not opinion, they are an issue of fact. You are very new to WP and should familiarize yourself with understanding the rules.Learned69 (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

References

composition

I have changed this in two ways: "According to religious Jews" into "According to tradition"; "with the exception" into "with the possible exception". As to the first, not all religious Jews, and not only religious Jews (this is also part of Christian tradition), believe in Mosaic authorship. As to the second, not all people who believe in Mosaic authorship accept that Moses did not (or, indeed, could not) write (under divine guidance) about his own death. BTW, this is somewhat a duplication of earlier remarks, but I'm leaving those unchanged. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we please discuss the changes which I mentioned above, rather than getting into an edit war? In particular, I stand by my addition of the word "possible". I understand that there are legitimate sources for the opinion that Moses also wrote the final verses of Deuteronomy: that God dictated the words, and that Moses wrote them in tears. (Do a Google search for "Moses Deuteronomy tears" or some such, for references.) TomS TDotO (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please cite at least on source that says that Moses wrote of his own death. There is a discussion in the talmud about this and all are in agreement that he did not write it. The Talmud says that writing it would be a lie. So who are these people that maintain that he wrote those 8 verses and what do they base it on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learned69 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I will defer to your learning, but I have, from time to time, come across the idea that it is possible that Moses wrote those final verses. I have recently looked that up on the web (and I freely admit that I have no idea of the reliability of these sources). From this online source [2]

"'So Moses, God's servant, died there' (Deuteronomy 34:5). But is it possible that Moses wrote 'So Moses died' while he was still alive?!' Rather, Moses wrote up to this point, and from here on, Joshua the son of Nun wrote—these are the words of R. Judah…[R. Shimon raises an alternative:] Up to this point, God spoke and Moses repeated and wrote; after this point, God spoke and Moses wrote in tears" (Menachot 30a).

See also[3] TomS TDotO (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That link to kabbalaonline gives the proper definition of the term used in the Talmud, dema, which it defines as mixture, as in mixed up letters, and not tears. The Talmud has two questions, if Moses wrote it it would be a lie, and if he didn't write it then the book of the Torah that Moses gave to the Levites would be missing several verses and therefore invalid. The Vilna Gaon asks that the answer of Moses writing it in tears doesn't answer either of the questions as writing in tears is still a lie and also the book of the Torah would still be invalid, as a Torah must be written in ink and not in tears. He too reached the same conclusion as that article, that the term dema does not mean tears, but a mixture of letters, the letters that the Torah was orignially written in before is was converted into the words as we now have them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learned69 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing whether or not Moses wrote the verses in question. All I'm suggesting is that there is an opinion worth mentioning to the small extent of saying "(possibly)" in this Wikipedia article. I gather that you are saying is that those who quote the opinion as saying that Moses wrote "in tears" are mistaken, so no one worth mentioning has ever asserted that. Would it be appropriate to note that the reportage about "in tears" is mistaken? TomS TDotO (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

this claim should be removed.....The Hebrew [26]Torah in Deuteronomy 31:24–26, .... states that Moses wrote the Torah on the grounds that if Moses wrote the Torah, then it is a Primary Source for the claim that he wrote it.Robot wagner (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC) blocked sock of user:Dalai lama ding dong

; this claim It is also based on the Hebrew Torah[15] that states in Deuteronomy 31:24–26; after Moses finished writing the words of this Torah in a book from beginning to end. He gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord: "Take this Book of the Torah and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God. There it will remain as a witness upon you". The Torah refers to this book of the Torah that was entrusted to the Levites in regard to rules pertaining to a king. Deuteronomy 17:18 states; When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this Torah, taken from that of the Levitical priests.[16 Also needs to go as the Torah is a Primary Source for any claim that Moses wrote it, if he is the author.Robot wagner (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

blocked sock of user:Dalai lama ding dong

In the Loeb edition of Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, IV.326 (page 633): "But he [Moses] has written of himself in the sacred books that he died ...". Footnote c to this reads: "Rabbis were divided on the question whether the last eight verses of Deut. were written by Moses or by Joshua (see Weill's note). The view of Josephus has the support of R. Simon." Josephus (1930). Jewish Antiquities. Loeb Classical Library. Vol. 4. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-99267-9. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Many small details but what is Torah?

5 years ago I asked the same question. This article is full of technical details about the text and its origins (some of them rather trivial in comparison to what is left out...), but doesn't give me any hint as to why the Torah is important. Since the title of this article is 'Torah' and not 'Bible' or "Old Testament' or 'Pentateuch' (as some mention is the term used in scholarly literature), I would assume the article might at least touch upon what is the Torah's significance in the Jewish tradition (major significance). But it doesn't. All there is in the section relating to Judaism is a discussion of whether Moses got it all from god, that it's read ritually ever year, and a tiny segment that doesn't really go anywhere:

            Biblical law
            See also: Biblical law

            The Torah contains narratives, statements of law, and statements of ethics.
            Collectively these laws, usually called biblical law or commandments, 
            are sometimes referred to as the Law of Moses (Torat Moshe תּוֹרַת־מֹשֶׁה), 
            Mosaic Law, or Sinaitic Law.

So maybe from this article I'm prepared to go look up more academic technical details, but I'm still clueless on what's the significance of an ancient text that millions have thought to preserve for thousands of years.

If we are going to have an article named 'Torah' and not 'Pentateuch' or 'old testament' and have a section on 'Torah and Judaism' then we should at least state what Torah means in a Jewish context. The primary meaning of 'Torah' in Jewish context is not a specific text studied by academics, but the entirety of teachings as to a way of life. I.e. it is the source of the Jewish way of life, a set of teachings about how to construct and carry out the Jewish civilization. This includes the mitzvoth ('laws') as well as narratives.

Furthermore a major mention should be made that is is noteworthy that narrative and halakha are interwoven. this makes Torah different than a primarily narrative document like like Homer's Odyssey or a primarily legal document like the U.S. constitution.

And this fact is important in understanding the meaning of the word Torah, for it is not only in the halakhic sections ('laws') that the tradition looks to for its teachings, but just as importantly, the narrative sections. The narrative is about the forming of a family and that is one of the primary ways Jews see themselves, as a single family, that also happens to strive to follow the Torah way.

The article mentions that Torah means teachings not law, yet the article then goes on to discuss 'law'. Because of this wider meaning of the word Torah in Jewish tradition, and the fact that the narratives, the actual and perceived history of the Jewish people is considered as teachings also, the rest of the Tanakh (Jewish Bible, prophets, kings, psalms, Ruth, etc..) is also considered Torah. Certainly an important part of the narrative is repeated exile and return (from gan eden to the return under the Persian empire, and then in context of Talmud, Roman exile and hope for eventual return.)

The article mentions Jewish rituals and the only one it mentions is periodic readings. But reading is merely the first step, it is then discussed, argued about, interpreted, (and those are also important Jewish rituals) and finally put into practice: every act of Jewish life is a ritual which involves Torah, every aspect of life is related to Torah by the rabbis from Talmud times on to the present. This is what Torah means in a Jewish context (as opposed to a text studied by academia or used for other purposes in Christianity or Islam)

So I open the can of worms again about separate articles for a concept of 'Torah' vs concept of 'Pentateuch' I don't know if I have the gumption to start a 'Torah' article, (and fill in references for all my suggestions) but we'll see.

Even as a description of the actual text aside from the context of the Jewish tradition, the article is missing some interesting points.

Nowhere does it even come out and say: the text is written in Biblical Hebrew, that the earliest copies we have of it (Dead Sea Scrolls ~200BCE) are written in Biblical Hebrew and the consensus is that this was the language of the composition in the form we have by that time.

Nowhere does it discuss the form of the text - primarily prose as opposed to poetry (as is the form of many ancient documents), and where there is poetic diction, it is not in strict meter or rhyme.

Furthermore a major mention should be made that it is noteworthy that narrative and halakha (the specific mitzvoth) are interwoven. This makes Torah different than a primarily narrative document like Homer's Odyssey or a primarily legal document like the U.S. constitution.

There is no mention of the fact that the stories in the narrative are linked together by a system of resonating word roots that can only be appreciated in the original Hebrew. In many places these words form puns that make the text dance alive. Example: Adam and eve were 'arum (naked..but also..) in the garden when they were created, and in the very next line "the snake was 'arum (sly, slick? naked?) of all the animals of the field' (and even later, god to the snake: " 'arur (cursed) you will be of all the animals in the field" This kind of play opens up doorways of interpretive depth to the narrative. Hence to many in the tradition, a translation is not a Torah, because to 'do Torah' in the Jewish tradition is to engage with the text in its rawest most playful state. (Did I mention that the tradition teaches that the text is to play with, not to be treated as a static literal document?) Perhaps in the Jewish ritual section mention should be made that the Jews dance with their Torah (literally, in the streets, during the celebration of Simchat Torah).

Mention can be made about the terseness of so much of text. And then the boneheaded drawn out repetitiveness of some parts of the text.

Mention can be made of the way in which the tradition plays with the repetitions and inconsistencies and gaps that are formed by the redaction of multiple strands of the stories. The very aspects that the 19th century scholarship had used to belittle the Jewish text is actually one of its strengths to the Jewish people.

Mention can be made of how the text functions as an exercise in holding multiple perspectives as possibilities and learning not to desire a single definitive literal meaning or answer to the way human life is.

Along with this can be made mention of some of the things that the narratives are about. I.e. the entire book of Bereishit is about sibling strife, how this has consequences from generation to generation and is finally put to rest by Joseph's act of forgiveness, or t'shuva (which also means return). In fact one can see the whole narrative of the Tanakh as being about t'shuva, a central concept in Judaism.

Also since this is one of the most familiar documents and at the same time the most alien of documents to most English speakers, I would mention that while we don't have a firm handle on when and where and by whom in what context these texts came together, at least we have some clues from cognate languages and cultures: Ugaritic myths and epics, and Akkadian/Babylonian myths and epics. It can also be mentioned that what remains of these in no way compares to the breadth and richness of the Torah. All the more frustrating to scholarship.

Also on the topic of form, we should mention that the Talmud, does not follow the form of a narrative, as in the first five books, or even the gospels which formed at the same time, but are in the form of a complicated web of snippets of rabbinic discussions and arguments and tales, arranged by hallakhic topic. There is no contiguous narrative of any rabbi, no narrative of history. Curious. This form of discussion and argument is carried out to the present day and is an important part of Jewish practice.

Or maybe I don't quite understand the purpose of an encyclopedia entry...

I'll wait for some comments and then perhaps find references and begin to edit some of this in?Wikiskimmer (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

27Nov2012 I have begun, in a small way. I was about to begin a few edits on the section Torah and Judaism, but realized that there is almost nothing there. Simply three trivial items: another discussion of how it was written, how it's read in the synagogue, one sentence on law. Nothing substantive about what it means to the Jewish people and how it functions. I'd have to start from scratch. I'll have to get my reference materials in order. Wikiskimmer (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

B.C. vs. BCE

The Torah article is "semi-protected", so I can't make this change myself, but it seems to me that it shouldn't be controversial. The "In other religions" section says, "This ... version ... dates from the 3rd century B.C.," and it seems to me that, even if only to be consistent with the rest of the article, this really should be written as "3rd century BCE".

(Also, and again I can't edit because it's semi-protected and I'm not a "confirmed" user -- the second paragraph of the "Production and use of a Torah scroll" section says, "... a sefer Torah ... is a copy of the formal Hebrew text of hand-written on gevil or qlaf ..." and that second "of" makes no sense to me. Shouldn't that read, "... a copy of the formal Hebrew text, handwritten on ..."? I would replace the word "of" with a comma.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjules (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Physical Scroll Contents

The physical object of the Torah scroll only contains the five books of Moses. It does not contain a single word from the writings, prophets, Talmud or Mishna. People reading the introduction may be confused on the facts that the Torah is a physical document (as opposed to concept), and that it only contains the five books of Moses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.42.65 (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

"earlier Israelite religions"????? ROFL. Those were JEWS. It's amazing to what lengths some people will go to deny the continuity of Jewish experience over 3000 years.

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

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

The original language in which these five books were written in was Middle Paleo-Hebrew, not Greek nor Latin, as these two languages did not exist at the time in which it was created; therefore, the name of that five book collection would be pronounced Tōrâḥ(תּוֹרָה), according the Ancient Hebrew Research Center.AurumSpiral1235813 (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor2020 is correct that he does not see my summary topics in the main article: for a good reason

Because no one has written them yet. But I put them there because they surely should be written as i explain in my talk topic a few headings up. This topic is a major one for the Jewish tradition (and the rest of the western world inasmuch as Judaism has affected it), yet the article is mostly a random grab bag of periferal topics to what is important about Torah. When I get the time and my sources together I will write more in the body of the article. Wikiskimmer (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

the terms 'yaweh' and 'national god' do not belong in the intro paragraphs

Hello Editor2020

I explained my reasoning for my recent edits in the history page, would you explain the reasoning for your reversions? If you want to take this to the torah wiki talk page, fine. The intro paragraph begins stating that it is about a central concept in judaism, and 'Yaweh' is not a jewish god.

one day i will get my resources together and fill the article in. i'm trying to keep it focussed, because as it stands the article is a loose bag of mostly irrelevant information about this central concept!

thanks

Wikiskimmer (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

i looked at the pages for Yahweh and national god neither of them seem to pertain to the modern concept of torah in judaism. I don't think they belong in an intro paragraph. They are fine topics of discussion for the body of the article if you want to do that. If you don't explain why they belong in the lead of the article, i'll remove them again. Wikiskimmer (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be WP:edit warring. Wikipedia is built on the basis of WP:Consensus and WP:Compromise. The version which existed before a new edit is considered to be the existing consensus version. If your edit is accepted by other editors, it is considered that the consensus has changed. If the edit is rejected by any of the other editors, the article reverts to the earlier consensus version. If you feel that your edit has compelling reasons, you should discuss it on the talk page and attempt to convince the other editors that your new version is an improvement.

you are the one to change the reference for 'god' from god in judaism which seems to be a fair handed description of the concept to yahweh, which i think is a slanted point of view for an article on a jewish concept (torah). further, you put in the reference to national god which speaks to bronze age and christian stuff, not normative judaism. these are your recent edits. just explain why you think they belong.Wikiskimmer (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The WP:Lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article. If you are unhappy with the existing version of the article, great, change it (while providing references). After you have changed the article, and others have evaluated/contributed/reached consensus on the new version, you can change the WP:Lead to reflect the new article contents. Editor2020 (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I just saw your most recent edit. I think the tetragramaton would be confusing to most people in the lead paragraph without explanations. saying "the call into being by their god" i would think makes plain sense to most people. (on the surface. of course the concept of god is anything but plain). 'god' is the most straightforward english term for this concept.

I will find citations for the more general usages of the term torah in judaism.Wikiskimmer (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

got oneWikiskimmer (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Before our recent edits the article read

Torah consists of the foundational narrative of the Jewish people: their call into being by Yahweh (euphemistically called HaShem by Jews and denoted in English translations of the Bible as the LORD), their trials and tribulations, and their covenant with their God, which involves following a way of life embodied in a set of religious obligations and civil laws (halakha).

On June 15, 2013 you changed it to:

Torah consists of the foundational narrative of the Jewish people: their call into being by their God, their trials and tribulations, and their covenant with their God, which involves following a way of life embodied in a set of religious obligations and civil laws (halakha).

As you can see, I did not change the article to Yahweh, it was already there and you removed it. "Their god", wikilinked to National god, was also already there and you removed it.

On June 16, 2013 I restored Yahweh and National god:

Torah consists of the foundational narrative of the Jewish people: their call into being by their God (Yahweh), their trials and tribulations, and their covenant with their God, which involves following a way of life embodied in a set of religious obligations and civil laws (halakha).

Editor2020 (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

it was you who added the link to national god

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torah&diff=next&oldid=545332366

which discusses bronze age topics and modern christian topics. there is no evidence that tells us torah is a bronze age document, and the whole point of judaism is that God is NOT just a national god. I'm explaining why i think these additions do not pertain. you are not explaining why you think they do.Wikiskimmer (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

it was also you who added the link to yahweh,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torah&diff=prev&oldid=545330499

which is not the jewish god. sorry. and again you are not explaining why you think these belong in the basic summary of what torah is. Torah is not primarily an archelogical document, it is an all encompassing concept that has operated in the jewish tradition for many many generations and continues to do so. My rewrite of the summary stood since last november and you are the only one to change it, it's not consensus. so quit playing these petty administrative games and help me deal with the substance of an article that doesn't even come out and really say what's important about the concept of torah. This is partly why i probably wouldn't invest the effort it would take to really add into this thing what it needs.Wikiskimmer (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I just added a section in content, where the concepts of god in torah can be discussed.Wikiskimmer (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits I made in March with no response or objection until now? I'd appreciate a more timely response. But OK, I'll give it to ya. I withdraw my undo of your changes. Editor2020 (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)