Talk:Torah

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)

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)

Merged with Pentateuch

I merged this article with Pentateuch; there was nothing in the Pentateuch article that was not already in the Torah article, so there wasn't much point in making the distinction. If the article were to be recreated, I would suggest that attempts be made to focus specifically on that term as opposed to the Torah. Serendi^podous 07:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Dates and Wellhausen

I think this edit [1] by Meieimatai (talk · contribs) should be pulled, at least pending further consideration:

It must be noted that Wellhausen's knowledge of Jewish literature outside of the Bible was limited, and led to his considerable confusion in event chronologies and dating. Notably he supposed the receiving of Torah was dating from about 1450 BCE, and that of monarchy, established by Saul, c.1020 BCE, and the (later) prophets, 9th to 5th centuries BCE.[ Julius Wellhausen ] In the case of the first the date in Jewish chronology is established as 1313 BCE, Saul is dated to 879 BCE, and Isaiah during 619 BCE. [pp.33,47,53, Kantor]

These dates are based on Seder Olam Rabbah. But a literalist reading of that book would give the destruction of the Temple in 423 BCE -- way after the accepted dates for eg the Battle of Marathon (490 BC) or Xerxes' invasion of Greece (480 BC); so a wholesale new chronology for the entire history of Classical Greece would have to be found -- which nobody seriously believes is credible. (See Missing years (Hebrew calendar).

So people who use the Seder Olam Rabbah dates (though not eg chabad.org [2]) generally adjust them to make the destruction of the temple match its date in the Babylonian records, viz. 586 BCE.

Adding that shift to Kantor's dates gives 1476 BCE for the Exodus, 1043 BCE for Saul, and 782 BCE for Isaiah (compare Chronology of the Bible). Modern views tend to revise the numbers down very slightly (see eg Kingdom of Judah). So Wellhausen's dates still match contemporary scholarship pretty much exactly.

Furthermore, what is important for Wellhausen's history is the relative dates of these events. Even if one prefers not to add the absolute date shift, it makes no difference to the relative chronology of the events, and the relative dates between them.

I don't think therefore that this can be seen as a substantive objection to Wellhausen. Jheald (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have ever seen Wellhousen mentioned to have been familiar with Seder Olam.

You seem to be well versed, so I need not explain to you how Greek chronology is rather problematic in itself.

What modern academics do with dates to support their individual hypothesis about record keeping in various ancient cultures is of course their province, but this particular subject, if it is to be consistent, can not be "adjusted" to match sources outside of its innate culture, or time, never mind that many academics who postulate the chronologies you suggest are neither Jewish, nor even monotheistic.

I note that the Missing years (Hebrew calendar) completely lacks citations, so its hard to say who and how argues for "the modern secular dating". In any case, I will make sure to include a link to that article and will try to fix the citations in it.

Chronology of the Bible article, besides being likewise poorly cited, has four other templates at the top {{confusing|date=June 2008}}{{disputed|date=June 2008}}{{refimprove|date=June 2008}}{{totally-disputed|date=June 2008}}{{Cleanup|date=April 2007}} however, I will get to that also eventually.

This article is about the Torah. Textual criticism is really not the place for it given the volumes of published works on the subject, so I'd like to keep that short. My point with the dates was to illustrate that not all 19th century theories about the Torah were well founded.--Meieimatai 13:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The dates need not be "scholarly". They come from a source consistent with the method by which chronology has been established within the culture for which this text is held as the core source of social construct. I'd say that it has every right to adopt whatever dating it desires for its purposes. Lack of faith by the academic textual analysts is not required, however, deletion of what constitutes cultural memory and value because it does not match their hypothesis concerning other cultures is not a good reason to remove the provided comparative chronology, particularly given the original proposer of the "the modern secular dating" was not aware of it--Meieimatai 13:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

This is Wikipedia's article about the first five books of the Bible, and what all traditions have to say about them -- not just literalist fundamentalists. Note, for example, that Pentateuch redirects here, so it was entirely wrong to remove the discussion of that term from the lead.

Textual criticism is entirely appropriate here, particularly as it is very important to how Masorti, Reform and Liberal communities relate to the Torah.

As for Wellhausen and the dates: the important input to the historico-critical school was the relative dates. The relative intervals between events are the same on both calendars. So complaining that Wellhausen didn't base his theory on an utterly implausible date for the sack of Jerusalem is irrelevant. It wouldn't have made any difference to his thesis if he had used AM dates.

Whether or not you can find a book which prints these dates is irrelevant, because they are irrelevant to Wellhausen's thesis. That's why they shouldn't be in that bit of the article, whether or not they've been printed somewhere. Jheald (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually what "all traditions have to say about them" is a subject of other articles, such as Biblical criticism.

Do you suppose I'm a "literalistic fundamentalists"? If you do, you can not be further from the truth :-) I just hope it was not meant as a veiled personal attack.

Textual criticism has an article of it own, which is why it is entirely unnecessary to add it to this article.

Relative intervals are part of speculation in Wellhausen's hypothesis. It was not well documented, and as you are probably aware is not the mainstream hypothesis any more. What is relevant is the fact that he was not aware (as far as I know) of the existing thinking on chronology from Jewish sources. Surely culture-specific data is entirely relevant to formulating hypothesis on the culture?!--Meieimatai 02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to Wellhausen's thesis, and the arguments for or against it, whether one takes the date of the destruction of the temple as 586 BCE, or whether one takes it as 423 BCE and subtracts 163 years off every generally accepted date for every culture in the region. The point of dates is to be able to compare them with other dates; and so long as one is consistent about what system one is using, it's not going to make any difference to the sequence of events before the fall of the temple.

It doesn't take anything away from Wellhausen that he used the generally accepted date for the destruction of the Temple. It is entirely irrelevant. Jheald (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally accepted? Whatever happened to your penchant for NPOV?! How about including all accepted dating?--Meieimatai 07:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

Fine, but in this case let's not include the dates at all, because whatever date one takes for the destruction of the Temple is simply irrelevant to the sequence of events before that date, and to Wellhausen's thesis. Jheald (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I did not put the section on Wellhousen into the article. I simply added the chronological context to his research because he was trying to establish the validity of Jewish dating! Do you appreciate that without Jewish dating there would be no chronological research in Biblical studies?

As far as I'm concerned the destruction on the Temple need not be mentioned in this article at all--Meieimatai 00:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew year 2449 (1313 BCE)

A disputed date tag has been placed on this date. I'd like to know what part is being disputed. The date is given by culturally cognisant sources from Seder Olam. I am aware that the date is disputed in modern academic analysis, but this is not the article to describe these disputes. Where the dating is pre-modern, and is not a part of the Western chronological system, there is no issue in using the calendar system and chronology of the culture to which the text belongs --Meieimatai 00:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in question reads:

According to the text of the Torah, Moses was its author, receiving it from God either as divine inspiration or as direct dictation in Hebrew year 2449 (1313 BCE)

At a stretch, a case can be made for the Hebrew year AM 2449 being "derived from the text of the Torah", "pre-modern", "not a part of the Western chronological system", and "rooted in the calendar system and chronology of the culture to which the text belongs".

But 1313 BCE is part of the Western chronological system, and -- appearing without any qualification -- will be understood as such.

The Seder Olam conversion is based on assigning the date of the destruction of the first Temple as 423 BCE, based on a somewhat non-obvious reading of Daniel 9:24–27 as predicting 490 years would pass and then the second Temple would also be destroyed.

To claim that date "is disputed in modern academic analysis" is to understate things to an extent which is postitively misleading. The date is blatantly wrong. [3]. We have year-by-year chronologies of the period, and astronomical references which fit perfectly. There is simply no way to lose 160 years in the history of Classical Greece - it's too well documented.

That's why even Orthodox Jewish sources reject this dating. (eg the J. H. Hertz Pentateuch, the Soncino edition of the Bible, the Da'at Mikra edition of the Bible, Adin Steinsaltz's edition of the Talmud, etc, etc).

One way to try to patch things up is to keep the Biblical AM dates, but to reject the interpretation of the Book of Daniel, instead indentifying the year of the destruction of the Temple, AM 3338, with the historical date of the destruction of the Temple, 586 BCE.

Doing that identifies the traditional year AM 2449 for the Exodus with 1476 BCE, and if you Google "Exodus 1476" you will get a fair number of hits.

Now, I'm not saying that we should identify 1476 as the definitive date of the Exodus (even if some do). But equally, there is no way we should silently, without comment, identify AM 2449 with 1313 BCE, when that conversion is based on a BCE date for the fall of the Temple which is a nonsense. Jheald (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

How about all dates are provided in the article, given the sources for them are properly cited--Meieimatai 07:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

Torah a "tradition"?

Please note the introduction to the article on tradition. I would also highly recommend you read The Invention of Tradition by Eric J. Hobsbawm, Terence O. Ranger. The word for tradition as derived from the Torah is minhag, so in therms of cultural context and logic, the whole can not be considered to be the derivative of its part. For the most part is includes everything but the traditions, most of which have developed in diverse communities of the Jewish Diaspora as is often noted in both the Talmuds--Meieimatai 02:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the word was intended to be understood with nearly such a narrow meaning. I take it you're objecting to this phrase:

it is said by tradition to have been revealed to Moses by Him

What the phrase is trying to communicate is that this may have been a traditional understanding - torah min ha-shamayyim. But it is no longer one that the majority of Jews accept (Conservative, Reform, Masorti, Liberal; even probably in the hearts most Modern Orthodox).

A belief in the literal dictation of the Torah to Moses may indeed not fit well under the rubric of the word minhag in Hebrew. But it can still be described as a "tradition", using that word in a wider sense, in English. Jheald (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about the Torah. The very name should tell you that the wider sense in English is not what the article is about. It does indeed deal with the Hebrew version of a text. One can not have a "traditional" interpretation of a text given it has innate meaning derived from its language. The fact that some Jews do not accept the interpretation of the text does not alter the text, but only their perception of it. The article can not deal with perception of individuals. It deals only with the text--Meieimatai 12:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

Plainly, this article does deal with much more than just the text. It does deal with how different groups have reacted to, and interpreted it. And so it should. And it is tradition which says that this is the word of God, to be obeyed as unquestionable law -- a tradition which not all accept. Jheald (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article does deal with much more than just the text, but not every conceivable subject category in the Bible Project!

That Torah as the word of God is a matter of a written record. This record has not been significantly modified for at least 1200 years, so clearly it is not a "tradition". That some Jews do not observe the precepts of the Torah is not the subject of this article, right?--Meieimatai 07:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That Torah is the literal word of God is a belief and a tradition. Not all written records are to be relied on. Other Jewish traditions and views about the nature of the Torah cannot be dismissed. Jheald (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That the Torah is the literal word of God is a belief and a tradition in the Karaite Judaism. The issue is discussed there.

Fair enough, substitute dictated for literal if you prefer. Jheald (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That not all written records are to be relied on is your theory, which does not work with my parking fines :-(

Keeping in mind that the word tradition comes from the Latin traditionem, acc. of traditio which means "a giving up, delivering up, surrendering", other Jewish traditions, having originated (with the exception of Karaites) in the 1820s are in fact inventions and they were based on views that see the nature of the Torah from the context of Modernism which were not unique to Judaism, but include reforming movements in art, architecture, music, literature and the applied arts which emerged during this period. Have a read of this article, please.--Meieimatai 09:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the article you actually mean to refer me to is Modernity. Jheald (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Something can become a recognisable distinct "tradition" (2. "the body of customs, thought, etc., belonging to a particular country, people, family, or institution over a long period", Collins Concise Dictionary, 1999), whether it has evolved from the 1820s, or even like Liberal Judaism (United Kingdom) from the first decade of the 1900s.

Such bodies of customs, thought, etc. about the nature of the Torah cannot be dismissed. Jheald (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that tradition is a the body of customs, thought, etc., but the article is about the Torah! So far as I know there is only one mention of a tradition in the Torah. Torah itself is not a tradition, but a textual record. It is not passed orally from generation to generation, but in written form. Even if it was, it contains no customs, or philosophy.

The manner in which individuals or groups perceive and interpret the Torah is a matter for articles dealing with the individuals, groups and methods of interpretation--Meieimatai 00:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Torah is sometimes referred to as the (written) Law or written Torah

What does "sometimes" mean? What is it referred to at other times? So far as I know the vast majority of Hebrew speakers use Sefer Torah or Torah SheBKtav, and the former is also seemingly used by the many English speaking Jews of almost all denominations. The written Torah is almost never used to avid confusion with the oral Torah which is also written, or printed to be more exact--Meieimatai 02:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well mostly it's referred to as just "the Torah". It's only sometimes that people want to distinguish it from the oral Torah. As per the comment below, according to WP:LEAD we should avoid where possible using too technical or unfamiliar language in the lead, as it strongly puts off readers who don't know much about the subject. And remember this is English Wikipedia, not Hebrew Wikipedia. "Written Torah" is not uncommon in English-language materials, and is much more accessible to English-only speakers. Jheald (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And the difference between "written Torah" and "literally Law in writing" is?

The language used is not technical, but appropriate to the subject given its not an English language subject. It says so from the third word which is Hebrew--Meieimatai 13:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of Hebrew Bible hyperlink

What is the need to insert another link next to Tanakh? It seems to me that that article explains fairly well what the meaning of the word is without having to add the Hebrew Bible to it. After all, the Torah article is contextualised specifically in terms of being a part of the Tanakh and not "is a generic reference to those books of the Bible originally written in Biblical Hebrew" which includes any and all versions of Christian translations--Meieimatai 03:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD. The lead should be accessible to all, and should avoid or be very careful in its use of technical terms which may be unfamiliar to some readers. Since many readers will not be from a Jewish background, and will not know the term Tanakh,it is appropriate to provide the gloss Hebrew Bible, and link the article which provides a different less exclusively Jewish perspective. Jheald (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

However, the Hebrew Bible article does not deal with the Torah as a subject. This is the entire point of having English articles about non-English subjects, to introduce readers to the non-English concepts. The article on Tanakh does a good job of explaining what Tanakh, and retaining the cultural context--Meieimatai 13:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

Christians refer to the Torah as the Pentateuch

Yes, ok, but why does it need to be in the introduction?! The article is about the Torah, and what Christians call it and think about it is covered in numerous other articles, and a relevant section. Does everything still need to be sanctioned by Christians before it is published?--Meieimatai 03:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason that Pentateuch should be in the introduction, and in bold, is that Pentateuch redirects here. This is WP's article on Pentateuch, as well as Torah.

Putting Pentateuch in bold in the introduction is standard practice, to identify the major redirects that this article is also covering. It reassures readers putting Pentateuch into the search box, or following a link Pentateuch from elsewhere on Wikipedia, that they have come to the right place, and that this is also the article about the Pentateuch, even though it is called Torah. Jheald (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that the redirect to Pentateuch needs to be moved to the OT article because as a Greek name it was never applied in the Jewish culture--Meieimatai 13:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

the Five Books of Moses

Who calls the Torah "the Five Books of Moses"? I can only find sources from Christian literature. That the Christians call it so is already covered in the OT article. What does seem apparent is that form the four paragraphs in the introduction, three include a Christian point of view on the subject. Seems like undue weight is given to what is essentially an article in the Jewish religion subject area--Meieimatai 03:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

See above for Pentateuch. This is also the WP article that people end up at when they type in Five Books of Moses, or follow a link to that effect.

This is not essentially an article in the Jewish religion subject area. That is an important part of this article, but it is also the article which covers what the first five books of the Bible mean to all faiths, and none. Jheald (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The article did say that

The Torah is the first part of the Tanakh, and includes five divisions known as books. For that reason it is also called the Chumash, or the "Five" books of Moses.

How much more explicit do you want it?!

Did you see the large template that says - Part of a series of articles on Jews and Judaism?

There is another template below that says Jews and Judaism

Look at the categories Categories: Bible, Hebrew words and phrases, Hebrew Bible topics, Torah, Jewish texts, Moses, Biblical phrases, Islam and other religions, 12th century BC works

What the Bible means to other religions can be seen in that article. I quote first sentence "Bible refers to respective collections of religious writings of Judaism and of Christianity." What the Torah means to other religions you can read in this article in the relevant sections--Meieimatai 13:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the importance of the Torah to Judaism. But that doesn't mean this article can't also cover other relations to this text. (Including those of Jews who don't buy into torah min ha-shamayyim -- or at least, not with quite such a limited view of the word min!) -- Jheald (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what has become clear to me given your comments is that it is not clearly defined what this article is about. It is about the Torah! I will propose a revised structure later which may make this clear.

However I observe the obvious contradiction of your statements "Nobody is disputing the importance of the Torah to Judaism" and "those of Jews who don't buy into torah min ha-shamayyim". What significance would the Torah have for the Jews if it was proven to be of human authorship?! Indeed, whoever proves this should fear for their life for putting all the comparative religion academics out of work :-)--Meieimatai 07:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist theologians find no end of significance in the Torah for Jews, without necessarily accepting that it is the literal word of God. Perhaps you should read some of them? Jheald (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For now I will confine myself to the reading required for this article. I do think you may be a bit confused because so far as I know its the Karaite Judaism that accepts it is the literal word of God--Meieimatai 09:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

Acceptance

The following was deleted from my edit, and I would like to know why

Accepted universally by Jews until early 19th century as the code of personal, family and community behaviour, the Torah has also been accepted to varying degrees by the Samaritans, Christians and others as the literal message of God to the Israelites, as dictated to Moses.

--Meieimatai 03:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Because to put it in you deleted this alternative text

The Torah has been traditionally accepted by many Jews, Samaritans, Christians and others as the literal message of God to the Jewish people, as told to Moses. Christian Bibles incorporate the Hebrew Bible (with some variations) into its canon under the name of Old Testament or the Septuagint. Though different Christian denominations have slightly different versions of the Old Testament in their Bibles, the Five Books of Moses (or "the Law") are common to them all.

This is an article on what the first five books of the Bible mean to all faiths. The latter text is more inclusivist and welcoming to readers from all backgrounds. Compared to it, the first text reads more like "The Torah is for the Jews. Everybody else get your dirty hands off it and find your own holy books". Jheald (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to the above answer that what Bible means to other religions is covered there.

The text I edited out was discarded because it was misleading.

• The Torah has not been traditionally accepted by many Jews, - its a written record of laws. One does not abide by a code of law "traditionally"!
• Samaritans, Christians and others have not accepted the Torah "traditionally" either, particularly not Christians, and I don't know who the "others" are
• Jews have never accepted the Torah as the literal message of God to the Jewish people
• Christian Bibles incorporate the Hebrew Bible (with some variations) into its canon under the name of Old Testament or the Septuagint - this is true only when one considers that according to the Hebrew Bible article "Hebrew Bible is a term that refers to the common portions of the Jewish canon and the Christian canons". However, the Christian canons do not incorporate Hebrew text, and the Septuagint is in Greek!
• Though different Christian denominations have slightly different versions of the Old Testament in their Bibles, the Five Books of Moses (or "the Law") are common to them all - While "slightly" is an understatement here, no Christian version includes the Hebrew text of the Torah--Meieimatai 13:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong's Concordance

Note that Strong's Concordance is useful, because it gives a concordance of the Hebrew text of the Hebrew Bible (and also the text of Gesenius's lexicon entry). Although the text of the corresponding verses are presented in English, the concordance is based on the Hebrew words, not the English KJV ones. Clicking the link on any of the verses leads to the Hebrew text of the verse containing the target word, with a word-by-word presentation of the English translation.

Yes, the translation in question may be the KJV rather than the JPS. But it's a very very useful tool to see exactly where and how a particular Hebrew word is used in the Tanakh. Jheald (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly we are not dealing with the Tanakh. Secondly there is no need to provide the reader with "tools" in a reference article. Thirdly, Strongs, is simply not required where an authoritative Jewish reference is available, given it is about Jews and Judaism. I suggest that you move the reference to the Hebrew Bible article--Meieimatai 13:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's useful to be able to see how the Torah itself uses the word "Torah"; and to see the Gesenius lexicon entry for the word. Where there are accessible sources available online, editors are encouraged to add them to Wikipedia. Jheald (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

H.W.F. Gesenius' Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament was first translated to English in 1824. Do you see any problems with this? --Meieimatai 07:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No. No problems at all. Jheald (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, there is your problem, Torah does not = Torah. Such a concordance, particularly given its origin and time, should be regarded as containing bias, or at least being outdated--Meieimatai 09:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

Regarding subsection In Islam

• Please refrain from adding content directly off websites (I found "we Muslims believe in is not the "Torah" of the Jews and the Christians through the words - one Arabic, the other Hebrew " verbatim on two websites via a simple google search [4])'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• User:Meieimatai: It is essential to mention what the Qur'an teaches w.r.t the Torah in this article simply because of 1) The presence of a sub-section titled In Islam and 2) The fact that all teachings in Islam stem from the Qur'an and the Hadiths of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH). I believe this simple rationale has also answered I question the logic of "claim that portions of the Torah...which do not contradict the teachings of the Qur'an...may be considered to be unc 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've undone some of the changes to In Islam between [5] since 1) Material in the latter revision was copied verbatim off some websites. 2) The words The Muslims are of the opinion are not a fair replacement for Many Muslim scholars are also of the opinion and 3) Replacing two justifiable references (WP:RS) viz. [6] - What the Bible Says About Muhammed (PBUH)] by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat and [7] Muhammad in the Bible by Prof. Jamal Badawi with {{ fact)} is improper. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No proselytising please

This statement

Islamic Daˤwah (missionaries) proselytizing Islam like Sheikh Ahmed Deedat and Dr. Zakir Naik amongst others, claim that portions of the Torah (as well as the Christian Bible) which do not contradict the teachings of the Qur'an or the Hadith of Prophet Muhammed, may be considered to be uncorrupted portions from the original Tawrat.

is unacceptable.

I have edited it to reflect the true message being delivered. The two individuals are in effect Islamic missionaries, one having barely any educations as is evident from his "book" and the other being a medical doctor who has decided to devote himself to promotion of Islam. The statement that any parts of the Torah that do not contradict Islamic teachings are considered "uncorrupted" is a statement that essentially says the Torah is corrupted, and therefore is a statement of comparative analysis. However, I have seen no such analysis, and this article is certainly not the place to include such analysis.--Meieimatai 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel the above comment has been added by User:Meieimatai, since 'Meieimatai's the only editor who's worked on this article since I've left it a few hours ago. A mistaken case of missed out ~~ ~~s I feel. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT proselytizing for sure

Meieimatai, the statement "Islamic Daˤwah (missionaries) proselytizing Islam like Sheikh Ahmed Deedat and Dr. Zakir Naik amongst others, claim that portions of the Torah (as well as the Christian Bible) which do not contradict the teachings of the Qur'an or the Hadith of Prophet Muhammed, may be considered to be uncorrupted portions from the original Tawrat." is something that you've written as part of your own fancy (including the word proselytizing) and then deleted saying it was unacceptable. The original paragraph (when I had left the article was) "Many Muslim scholars are also of the opinion that some parts of the present day Torah might have escaped corruption and remained in their original forms. Scholars like Sheikh Ahmed Deedat, Dr. Zakir Naik, Professor Jamaal Badawi amongst others claim that portions of the Torah (as well as the Christian Bible) which do not contradict the teachings of the Qur'an or the Hadith of Prophet Muhammed, may be considered to be uncorrupted portions from the original Tawrat. On the basis of this, they go on to propose that a number of prophecies in the Torah foretell the coming of Muhammed as a prophet from Allah.". Besides, your personal point of view in saying one having barely any educations as is evident from his "book" regarding one of the scholars mentioned above isn't acceptable on Wikipedia, which expects all editors (including you and me) to maintain a neutral point of view. Please comment here and reach a consensus before editing the subsection any further. Also, please remember that maintaining a neutral point of view translates to calling a spade, a spade, so if the beliefs in Islam are indeed 1) based around the Qur'an and teachings of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and 2) going against the Torah of the present day in a few ways, then there shouldn't be any hurt in mentioning them since the subsection is titled in Islam and NOT the Truth or something similar. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You only need to read the article about the two individuals involved in Wikipedia to understand that they are Islamic missionaries because it says so!

The book by Deedat would not be admitted as a viable reference work by most editors, and fails the MOS, never mind coherency test. It would certainly never be published by any reputed publisher in the English world. Besides that the Torah is mentioned only once on page 7 in one paragraph. The rest of the book is an attack, since it can not be called analysis, on the various version of the Christian OT, in English

This article is about the Torah. How the Torah and Quran diverge is a subject of another article. I am not editing to present the truth, but the facts, including authoritative citations where required. I would advise you to do the same--Meieimatai 13:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Citing (a possibly incomplete article on?) Wikipedia as a source of a person's credibility isn't a very smart thing to do Meieimatai. Besides, almost all of your comment above can be categorised as just a [WP:POV|personal point of view]]. Now I'll answer rapid-fire (in blue) to all your points. a) Credible publishers: Credible according to whom?. b) Not published in the English World: A lot of good written material isn't published in the English world Meieimatai, that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a read. (AND I somehow felt that comment of yours sounded racist and against the basic human rights of freedom of speech. I hope you'll be a bit more diplomatic in your choice of words hence) c) Torah mentioned just once on page 7 of Deedat's book? Two things here; (almost all of) the Torah is part of the Old Testament from the Christian Bible (in English as well as other languages), so most of the critique directed towards the latter applies to the former as well and hence it might not have been necessary to mention the Torah explicitly. d) The current article is about the Torah: Yes indeed it is. And hence it is quintessential to present the views of ALL religions which revere the revelations given to Prophet Moses(PBUH) and recorded in the Torah (or the Christian OT, or the Muslim Tawrat). Islam revolves around the Qur'an which speaks about the Tawrat (the original Torah, that Muslims believe in)and Prophet Moses (PBUH) in a number of places. It is necessary to present these facts in the current article. e) Your presenting the facts with authoritative citations: Thats exactly what I've done as well. The Qur'an is THE authoritative book on Islam. I guess what you're asking for is other sources for quoting the views of Muslim scholars rather than some random websites. If the second paragraph about Muslim scholars irks you in some way, then I'll try providing better sources for their research. Meanwhile, I believe the first para (the one about the various verses from the Qur'an) shouldn't seem far from the truth to anyone with even a little understanding and a neutral point of view. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I questioned Deedat credibility based on his online "book", not his Wikipedia article.

Surprise, I have a personal point of view. Thinking for oneself is not against Wikipedia policy ;-)

Publishers are credible when they sell books, so according to book readers :-)

A lot of good written material isn't published in the English world, probably because it is not notable to the English speaker

To present the views of ALL religions which revere the revelations given to Prophet Moses you go to Islam and Judaism, Tawrat, Tahrif, Christianity and Judaism, Islam and other religions, Islamic view of the Bible, Biblical narratives and the Qur'an, Prophets of Islam, Origin and development of the Qur'an, etc.

The Qur'an is THE authoritative book on Islam, but "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Muslim scholars don't irk me, but I have yet to see one cited in this article

The paragraph about the various verses from the Qur'an really did not belong here. Aside from the obvious fact that one is in Hebrew and the other in Arabic, it is really difficult to use one primary source as a reference for another when they are separated by a very long periods of time, and do not share same cultural context--Meieimatai 08:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Bold - Revert - Discuss

I'm very concerned by recent changes to this article by Meieimatai (talk · contribs), and in particular the contention that this should be "essentially an article in the Jewish religion subject area", and therefore apparently to be cast entirely from a Jewish point of view.

A core value of Wikipedia is to write from a neutral point of view, reviewing in a scholarly way what all traditions have to say about a topic.

Furthermore, despite the title, this is not just Wikipedia's article on Torah. It is also, for example, Wikipedia's article on Pentateuch, and it's article on the Five Books of Moses. The article must reflect this.

I'm also very concerned about the Torah in Islam section, which previously has presented the mainstream Islamic view of Torah, from an Islamic perspective. This seems to me entirely appropriate, and attempts by Meieimatai (talk · contribs) to re-cast it from a different perspective are I think not appropriate. (Particularly when with edit summaries like "what the Qu'ran teaches is not the subject of this article").

Finally, the disputed sentence "Islam draws heavily upon the Torah for Islamic concepts, teachings, and history of the early World". This is not Islam's view of itself, and should not lead this section. Placing it at the top of the section reads to me like at attempt at a deliberate smack in the face to Islam. Making this bald statement without explanation, in so blunt a way, and so prominent a position is IMO simply not appropriate.

Of course, the Qur'an does extensively reference existing Torah and existing Jewish cultural midrash -- either, because both are inspired by God, or, modern scholars might argue, because the Torah and midrash represented an existing important part of the general Arabian culture of the time, which the Qur'an could refer to and build on; or perhaps because it represented an existing important part of the Jewish culture of the time, which Mohammed wanted to bring to a wider audience. Some of these ideas can be introduced in the article, and then handed off to other articles which consider them more extensively. But surely, the place to do that is only after having introduced the mainstream Islamic view.

The accepted Wikipedia way to respond, when an editor wants to rewrite an article in ways others are not comfortable with, is Bold - Revert - Discuss. Meieimatai has been Bold with these changes, which is fine. But they take the article in a different direction, with a different aim, from what it was previously; which is why I am Reverting it to where it was pretty much beforehand. Now, can please we take it slowly, allow other editors to get involved, and see what has consensus, before deciding which or any of these changes should be implemented. Jheald (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, see the large template in the article that says Jews and Judaism. That sounds like a Jewish religion subject area to me

Its not possible to have a neutral point of view of a text written in Hebrew, and representing core religious values of a culture. Necessarily one has to have a perspective based on knowledge of both.

It is not a "core value of Wikipedia" to "reviewing in a scholarly way what all traditions have to say about a topic". The core Wikipedia value, in fact policy, is Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources. The only source you cited that is relevant is a self-published source. However, we can take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you prefer

This is just a Wikipedia's article on Torah. The article must relate to the title of the article. It is not an article on Pentateuch because Πεντάτευχος is in Greek, and the Torah is in Hebrew. It is an article on the Five Books of Moses, and it said to in the article, even explaining why it is five

I did not place the "Islam draws heavily upon the Torah for Islamic concepts, teachings, and history of the early World" there, I only cited a reference for it

If "Torah and midrash represented an existing important part of the general Arabian culture of the time", why did it take until the 7th century CE for the Arab culture to "discover" it by making references to it in the Quaran? Are you aware of earlier Arabian texts that reference the Torah?

On this specific point, AFAIK there is rather little Arabian text of any kind before the Qur'an. It was Islam that created a sudden push for much wider literacy. Which makes it hard to say how widespread Torah and midrash were in the wider Arabian oral culture of the time. My guess is that they probably at least were not unfamiliar, and sources could be found that discuss this; but I am no expert. Jheald (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

When you have found an authoritative source for the mainstream Islamic view of the Torah, please add it in

Not sure what you mean by stating that I have been "bold" with editing. Most edits I have made are justified either by cited references, or their lack of in previous version

What "direction" are you talking about? There is not supposed to be any direction! Its supposed to be an article about the text in Hebrew called Torah and suitable referenced

I guess that was discussion, so I'm boldly reverting until better arguments and references are --Meieimatai 14:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)found

I have raised the issues here at WT:BIBLE and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religious texts to try to get more editors to come in and give their views.

Re-purposing this page away from a page about what the first five books of the Bible mean for people from all perspectives, as Meieimatai seems to want to do, would be a major change, and should not be persued without clearly-expressed wider consensus. Jheald (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Also raised at WP:EAR#Torah. Jheald (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My only purpose is to describe the Torah, its significance and use, and provide relevant and authoritative cited references for the article so it is raised to a higher level of quality then B. I am rather surprised to hear that there was any other "purpose". The Torah has a meaning to Christianity and, in a far more limited, to Islam. However it has not been incorporated into either of these religions in its original form, and so other articles have been created in Wikipedia to reflect this. I'm not sure how a perspective can be had for a religion that does not use the text in its original form--Meieimatai 15:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

3PO

Third Party Opinion

I think the best way to come to consensus about these types of issues is to allow the perspective of an article to be determined by the perspective of the group that best represents the article's focus. For example, I am an Orthodox Jew and I used to become involved in heated debated regarding the contents of the article on Conservative Judaism (CJ) (n.b. What I am about to say is purely for the sake of this discussion and it not an evaluation, but merely an observation.) To put it bluntly, Orthodoxy believes that CJ is fake, while Conservative Judaism thinks that Orthodoxy is fake. Being an Orthodox Jew, I hotly contested the assertions of the CJ article that CJ is, as they say, "strongly dedicated to halacha", etc. But as I came to realize, the CJ article cannot be written from the Orthodox perspective any more than the Orthodox article can be written from the CJ position. Wouldn't it be silly for the Orthodox Judaism article to begin with "Orthodox Judaism is a branch of Judaism which claims to be following what they feel is the proper path..." and so on and so forth. Criticism is appropriate in its proper time and place, either within subcategories of the articles or within separate "Criticism of..." articles. My point being, there are many articles dealing with this topic, including but perhaps not limited to the Old Testament, the Bible, the Hebrew Bible, the Tanach and Chumash (Judaism). Whereas the Old Testament and Hebrew Bible articles ostensibly exist as a reference to the "Old Testament" as viewed by non-Jews (who for all intents and purposes) do not speak or study Hebrew as a language of their religion, the the Tanach and Chumash articles ostensibly exist as an internal Jewish reference to the holy books and texts of said religion. As such, while these articles are essentially speaking of the same, identical entity commonly referred to in English as the "Old Testament", they actually speak of them in different perspectives -- the former three from a secular/non-Jewish standpoint and the latter two from a Jewish religious standpoint. The split is almost parallel to Judaism itself (and there aren't two Judaisms) being discussed in two different articles from two (or more, i.e. Reform Judaism, Karaite Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism) different but equally valid perspectives as far as Wikipedia is concerned. So it there POV -- of course, that is why these articles have been split. Similarly, there are four (or more) articles that discuss the "Old Testament". Whereas reference can surely (and is encouraged to be) be placed to the other articles for variable perspectives, each article should be written from the standpoint that generated its existance. References like Strong's Concordance and Peak's Biblical Commentary, which have no bearing whatsoever in traditional Jewish biblical commentary should be placed into the former three articles and not the latter two. Something like, "for alternative explanations, please see the article on Old Testament" is recommended. This is because, while "Old Testament" and "Tanach" are nearly identical in entity, but differ spirit and perspective, Strong and others were not commenting on the Tanach, but rather on the Old Testament. This is evident (from a traditional Jewish perspective), because, according to Jewish tradition, the Written Torah (Five Books of Moses) is literally worthless and meaningless without the Oral Torah (Talmud) to explain it, and I doubt that Strong and similar commentators studied these in depth, let alone even knew the first thing about them. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

END of Third Party Opinion

Okay, thanks for the 3PO

One minor point, for the record. Strong's is a concordance, not a commentary. It lets one look up where and how the Torah uses the word "Torah" itself. Secondly, the idea that only adherents of a particular faith group can have anything useful to say about that faith or its texts seems to me entirely spurious and entirely against the spirit of WP:NPOV. One can respect Gesenius as a brilliant scholar of Hebrew whatever his faith background. All the rabbis I know have copies of BDB.

Are your rabbis following the rabbinic tradition? Orthodoxy does not utilize the DBD. That doesn't guarantee its illegitimacy, but it seriously damages it. The reason being that anyone that does not recognize the supremacy of the Oral Torah over the Written Torah cannot be relied upon to comment on the Written Torah. That being said, Orthodoxy does rely upon the Marcus Jastrow dictionary on Aramaic that is used extensively to aid in the study of Talmud, even though Jastrow was a heretic according to Orthodox standards. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

On the major point, I really don't see the benefit in maintaining a stub of an article at Pentateuch, rather than re-directing reader here (which is where the information is about these books, and how faiths have used them). I can live with it, if the consensus really is to have two separate articles; but it seems to me that the Christian relation to the Pentateuch as a unit is primarily their relation to it being the Torah of the Jews. Jheald (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Does it really bother someone if there is an article out there that they don't want to see? Don't visit it, and you won't see it. Please don't misunderstand my words -- I'm not trying to be sarcastic. The Pentateuch is the neutral first five books of the Torah without Jewish commentary. Your assertion that Christians agree with Jews over the first five books is erroneous -- clearly Christians believe in Jesus being Christ(hence the name) and the first five books of the Bible, in Jewish tradition, assert that Jesus , as a false prophet, was to be executed for not following the rules (namely, being a false prophet). It does not say those words, of course, because Jesus hadn't been born yet! Christians do not agree with Onkelos, Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, or the Talmud, all of which are, according to traditional Judaism, part and parcel of the first five books. Judaism regards the first five books meaningless without the oral portion as presented by the Talmud and cited by these commentators. So they are not the same thing, even though the text of the two documents lying side by side might be identical (and that really isn't true either, because while the Christians don't mind translations, Judaism is obsessed, so to speak, with maintaining the original Hebrew -- that's the only was the rules and regulations of Judaism can be derived.) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, but it is a problem if people don't find material that they do want to see. Splitting off the article "Pentateuch" IMO simply forks the content, and makes it harder for people to find material that is relevant to what they want. As I wrote above, the relevance of the Pentateuch as a unit is precisely that it is the Jewish Torah, and relevance to a Christian of the Pentateuch as a unit is precisely the relevance to them of the Torah.

It doesn't matter what the Christians think they think. They do not hold the Torah sacred and they do not follow its teachings. To have an article that will beat this point to death at every turn because a mention of "Christians do not agree with gezeira shavah" and "Christians do not agree with Rashi" and "Christians do not agree with the Talmudical analysis" are counterproductive. Let the Christian version of the texts held sacred by Judaism possess their own article. Are Christians paying per mouse click? When they get to Pentateuch and they say to themselves, "I thought this was a Jewish Bible", they can read the disclaimer at the top and click on Torah. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But WP:NPOV does matter, and that does require covering a subject from all relevant perspectives. Also, frankly, this statement, "It doesn't matter what the Christians think they think. They do not hold the Torah sacred and they do not follow its teachings." seems to me to indicate that the above editor may already have a pre-existing bias which makes that editor incapable of making objective decisions. As per WP:COI, editors who are incapable of objectively approaching any given subject are advised to refrain from editing such articles. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

John, with all due respect, one can not write a neutral point of view on an article that deals with a text written in a specific language. One has to deal with language from the point of view of its speakers, and those who study it. I fully intend to add treatment of the Torah my modern scholars which is currently heavily dominated by the point of view expressed based on one school of textual analysis derived from Wellhausen. However, I can not include points of view of those who study the text in translation! I think this is fairly objective as an approach. No one would seriously consider the study of Magna Carta based on the Chinese translation, and considered in its relevance to the evolution of law in France as remotely equivalent to the textual analysis of the original English in the context of English law. The point of view is inherent based on the nature of the subject. I'm not sure how personal beliefs enter into the arguments, but on the technical level I have never heard the requirements demanded by Jheald to have been applied in the academic world--Meieimatai 03:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

On your other point, Orthodox Judaism may have a POV on what might be considered credible commentary. But this article doesn't aspire to be written from an Orthodox Jewish approved POV, it aspires to be NPOV. Jheald (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying is completely false. Wikipedia may promote NPOV, but articles are clearly written with POV when there are multiple articles written about a single entity. Take, for example, the articles on Orthodox Judaism versus Conservative Judaism. They are contradictory -- but each is true from the perspective of its supporters -- so each article is entirely POV. Take Jesus. Now, there isn't much to say about Jesus from the Jewish perspective, so all it takes is a little note that says "Jews, however, assert that Jesus was a mortal man like all others who possessed no factual claims of...". Then the rest of the article can continue on with whatever else it has to say. But documentary hypotheses and Jawist letters vs. Elohist letters -- these are not about the Torah. These are about the Pentateuch. If the Torah is dependant upon the Talmud and the thinkers and scholars who put forth these hypotheses haven't the slightest clue about the Talmud, how can they be talking about the Torah. What is your quest? Why are you out to destroy? I am suggesting this construct to avoid confusion. Any confusion created by splitting the articles can easily be removed with clarification added to the Pentateuch article with appropriate links to other articles. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The great Masorti rabbi Louis Jacobs, who was celebrated for his outstanding knowledge of Talmud, didn't have a problem with the Documentary Hypothesis, or teaching it. And yet he had a great faith in Torah.

I don't believe in walled gardens, restricted to a single point of view. I think, wherever possible, articles should give a rounded comprehensive picture, presenting all points of view on a subject. Because I think that is most helpful to readers. WP is right to deprecate POV forks.

The Orthodox fundamentalist view of torah min ha-shamayyim isn't the only view (or even the majority view) of Torah. Nor the view that we have to be bound by the views on it of the past, nor that so-called "Oral torah" is divine and was given to Moses. It's a POV, and the article should review it. But other POVs about the Torah - both as a text and as guidance - should be presented too. And on general points, Wikipedia shouldn't be afraid to cite whatever WP considers are WP:RSs -- if somebody feels their faith-group's view is being misrepresented, that'll get noted soon enough. Jheald (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What do views by any contemporary rabbi like Louis Jacobs have to do with the article?

The thing about walled gardens is that the walls are there for a reason! There are any number of crank and implausible interpretations of any and all religions, including Judaism, so that's why the "walled gardens" have gates, which in universities are called final exams :-) No one likes them, but if you want to be accepted for a sane person, it helps to go through them. A further test of sanity is the publication of research to support ideas about any given concept, in this case the Torah. Publishers really do not like to publish works that will not create sales. This is the reason for the rather explicit WP:V policy.

"The Orthodox fundamentalist view of torah min ha-shamayyim isn't the only view (or even the majority view) of Torah", but it is the one that defines Judaism as a religion, and they are the only demographic that use it in this way. As for being a majority, that is hardly a valid argument. The vast majority of Earth's population do not drive cars, but that has not invalidated the use of combustion engines for personal transport in the 20th century.

"other POVs about the Torah" - but that woudl be an article with a collection of POVs, and not an article that presents a neutral point of view as a whole! This is most definitely against Wikipedia policy. In any case, care to say where these "other POVs" should come from? --Meieimatai 03:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Louis Jacobs's published books, or Abraham Heschel's, or those of any number of rabbis and professors at HUC, JTS, Leo Baeck College, etc, etc comfortably pass WP:V.

Orthodoxy doesn't exclusively define Judaism as a religion; nor does it "own" the Torah. There are indeed "multiple or conflicting perspectives". I suggest you go and read WP:NPOV. Wikipedia articles should represent all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Jheald (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to use their works as cited references for the contents of this article, I have no problem with that. Just didn't see what their personal beliefs had to do with the editing of a Wikipedia article on Torah.

Well, actually Orthodoxy does exclusively define Judaism as a religion. "The word orthodox, from Gk. orthodoxos "having the right opinion," from orthos ("right, true, straight") + doxa ("opinion, praise", related to dokein, "thinking"),[1] is typically used to mean adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.", and it is logically inconceivable to have two opinions that are true in this context. While orthodoxy does not "own" the Torah, God has copyright I believe :-) (did He agree to license His contributions under the GFDL?, now there is a question), they do own more of them, and write most of them also.

I will try to represent all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias, however I make no promises. I think first we would need to define what a "significant view" is. Secondly, the proportion of published material by the "orthodox" Jews, so defined only since the early 19th century, vastly outnumbers that of the non-orthodox views. As for bias, again, until the early 19th century there was no significant bias even from the Karaite POV who had a different interpretation of the Torah. However, humanistic philosophy clearly influences many modern and post-modern Jewish groups, and these were derived from several -isms, so ideological influences play a role. However, I see no reason these need views need not be voiced in the article. This is an article on the...Torah. The views are expressed in several other articles, so I see not reason to repeat them here given the subject of the article is the Torah and not Differing views of Torah--Meieimatai 09:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Second 3PO

I also wrote a Third Party Opinion, and here it is.

Third Opinion. A WP:Third Opinion has been requested since only two editors are contributing to this discussion. Let me get some perspective here first. Question. The article Pentateuch redirects here, and Five Books of Moses does also via Pentateuch. Pentateuch was once a separate article. The merger was proposed 5 July 2007. Then Dbachmann (talk · contribs) did merge the articles with a redirect 13 September 2007. Seven months later the merger was undone, 19 April 2008, followed by removing the merge proposal tag. Then Serendipodous (talk · contribs) one month later proposed the merger again and five minutes later did the merger as a redirect, 22 May 2008. Which is where it stands now. The only discussion for either merger was at Talk:Pentateuch#Perhaps merge with the torah? and Talk:Pentateuch#Differentiation. There was no consensus before the first merger and no discussion between the time of the two mergers. (There was some concern about the multi-faith issue that has indeed arisen here, but others wanted to merge for good reasons. Over all, few comments.) The target article for the merger, this one, Torah was never tagged to alert editors what might happen. (See WP:MERGE#Proposing a merger for guidelines.)

So my questions are:

1. Was there another discussion on the merger, perhaps on a dispute page somewhere?
2. Was the merger accepted as uncontroversial, by virtue of silence after the fact?
3. What is the opinion of the editors here on the merger?

As for making this a better article, let me assume the article is to remain merged with Pentateuch. Otherwise no Third Opinion is needed at this time. I just have a few preliminary comments until people address the merger issue, which maybe all editors were not even aware of. On first read some of Meieimatai's edits go in the wrong direction if this is a merged article. For instance, one controversial section is "In Islam", later changed to "Torah in Islam". In a series of eleven edits, Meieimatai first adjusts the text of two paragraphs, then removes the adjusted 2nd paragraph, which is about a theory asserting Muslim versions are more authoritative for the study of the history of the text. If this article is about the Torah from a multi-faith perspective, and the theory is notable, it should stay. The first paragraph is another issue. It must be crystal clear which clauses are assertions by the Qur'an, and which are neutral factual statements about the Qur'an and the faiths discussed. Jheald (talk · contribs)'s last version, the multi-faith one, needs work in this direction. And Meieimatai's edit removing "last and final Prophet" is correct, since the cited verses of the Qur'an (7:157–15817:2–220:36–41) do not mention that aspect, at least on my reading. If it is correct (that it is in the Qur'an as a statement about Judaism), then that needs to be made more clear, instead of strung on in a serial clause. Also, the cites are missing by the time of the Jheald version I am discussing, but the clause is still there.

So let's get some perspective from the editors on what this article should be. The kind of detailed 3rd Opinion stuff I just did is pointless otherwise. Thanks! -Colfer2 (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Pentateuch has been unmerged and resurrected. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But should it be? That's the question. Jheald (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I would have to think no, as the differences between the Jewish perspective on the subject and the Christian perspective on the subject are rather limited. Also, in all honesty, there is little if any fundamental difference in the relevant content of the two articles, making the presence of two articles almost counter-indicated. At this point, given the existing length and quality of the relevant material, I have to say that at this point there is no clear and obvious reason why all the relevant content should not be contained in a single article. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to present the following valid analogy: Pentateuch is to Torah as Old Testament is to Tanach. In the kindest way possible, I'm going to say that just because you don't see a difference doesn't mean there is no difference. Yes, I'll grant you that the words are mere translation of each other, and in the course of a bible lecture given in a church or synagogue, they are perhaps interchangeable -- but that is only if they are used as pure translations. But they are not...because this discussion and the articles on Wikipedia cannot be looked at as lectures within the confines of only a church or synagogue. It's as though we took a church congregation and a synagogue congregation and put them together in Central Park for an interfaith lecture. Any mention of Torah would immediately cause a rumble in the Jewish section if the speaker were a priest, as Old Testament would cause a rumble in the Christian section if the speaker were a rabbi. If Old Testament gets an article, so should Pentateuch. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The analogy is actually not as valid as the editor seems to believe, as there is a substantial history within Christianity of a dispute regarding what volumes are to be included in the Old Testament, as per that article, which does not seem to exist to the same degree in Judaism. As such, various existing versions of the Old Testament can and do contain several books which are included in neither the Tanakh or even the Old Testaments of other Christian churches. I have no reason to believe the same degree of disagreement about what books should be included in the Tanakh exists. As those contested works can be important to the overall structure of the book as a whole, I think it makes a good deal of sense to deal with the subjects as separate things, as their content and evaluation differ rather remarkably. The statements regarding which title the article should have indicate a disagreement about the title between various groups, but that is not sufficient cause to actively create separate articles. And I would agree that "Wikipedia cannot be looked at as lectures within the confines of only a church or synagogue". Unfortunately, I have to think that trying to separate out the content to possibly make the content of each article effectively correspond to what could be lectures with the confines of only a church or synagouge would seem to fly in the face of that idea. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there is a disagreement about the title, which would be an issue of semantics. I'm saying that there is a disagreement about the context and that the Jewish persepctive of the Old Testament is so different from the Christian perspective that it would be provide more clarity if there are two articles. The difference of the Jewish perspective is so pervasive that it is not merely an add-on to the Christian view but it becomes an entirely different thing. Christianity has no biblical laws and the entirety of Judaism is governed by the Torah -- each and every little thing that exists in Judaism has a source or allusion in the Torah. The Torah is not just a Hebrew translation of the Christian perspective of the Old Testament. That's what I meant by the analogy and in that sense, the analogy is valid. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, lets not forget that the Pentateuch was not requested for translation to aid worship, but for a library! Until a later period of Hellenism in the Israelite society it is unlikely that the Greek version was used by the Jewish communities. This means that the Pentateuch is clearly not the same as the Torah. The preference for Hebrew and Aramaic in the Mishnah and Talmud, and the existence of the Targums, are a clear proof for preference of Aramaic over Greek that confirm this. So far as I know the Pentateuch can not be used in the Jewish service, and its scrolls were not stored in the synagogal Aron. It was in fact at best regarded as a text for rich (because of the cost of scrolls), but illiterate in Hebrew, Hellenised Jews--Meieimatai 07:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

Just so we are clear, the sequence of texts that we have is

• Torah (Hebrew) - Jewish and Babylonian perspectives
  • Tanakh (Hebrew & Aramaic) <- Hebrew Bible = Jewish Canon - Jewish, Greek and Roman perspectives
    • Pentateuch (Greek) Jewish and Greek perspectives
      • Septuagint (Greek) (e.g. OT & NT and apocrypha)<- Christian Bible = Old Testament canon + Testament canon - Jewish and Christian perspectives
        • Vulgate (Latin) - Jewish, Christian and Islamic perspectives
          • English Bibles - Christian, Islamic and academia perspectives

What does not need to be dealt with extensively in the Torah article from Wikipedia perspective because articles exist elsewhere

• Biblical canon and books

Nevi'im · Ketuvim Old Testament · Hebrew Bible · New Testament · New Covenant · Deuterocanon · Antilegomena · Jefferson Bible

• Apocrypha: Jewish · OT · NT
• Development and authorship

Panbabylonism · Jewish Canon · Old Testament canon · New Testament canon · Pauline epistles · Johannine works

• Translations and manuscripts

Septuagint · Samaritan Pentateuch · Dead Sea scrolls · Peshitta · Vetus Latina · Vulgate · Gothic Bible · Luther Bible · English Bibles

• Biblical studies

Biblical criticism · Higher criticism · Textual criticism · Novum Testamentum Graece · NT textual categories · Documentary hypothesis · Synoptic problem · The Bible and history‎ · Biblical archaeology

• Views

Inerrancy · Infallibility · Criticism · Islamic · Qur'anic · Gnostic · Judaism and Christianity · Law in Christianity --Meieimatai 05:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Third 3PO

Torah literally means "teaching" in a very broad sense. The word can be applied to a completely secular topic -- one could say "Torat Einstein" to refer to the teachings of Einstein. The word is used in a broad sense throughout Jewish thought to refer to "the teaching", and to encompass the whole corpus of Jewish religious law and philosophy -- Oral Torah and much more. Study any traditional Jewish religious book -- the Talmud, the Rambam, the responsa of Moshe Feinstein -- and one says one is "studying Torah". It seems to me an article on Torah in a Jewish religious sense should discuss this broad meaning and the way it is used in Jewish thought. Thus, Torah as used in Jewish thought is a different thing from the "Pentatuach" or the "Five books of Moses". However, the perspectives of other religions would likely focus on the latter sense -- The Islamic view of the Torah is not likely to encompass Moshe Feinstein. It seems to me, therefore, that a case could legitimately be made for two separate articles, although I'm not convinced such a split would be required. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is yours a WP:Third Opinion? You already have an edit on the article. Sorry if I'm being too technical! -Colfer2 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, DRosenbach (talk · contribs), author of the first 3rd Party Opinion above, had substantial edits on the article in 7 March 2008. Folks, let's not use the term that way. Note the first bullet point at Providing third opinions:

“ Third opinions must be neutral. If you have previously had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute. ”

Now, back to improving the article(s). Thanks! -Colfer2 (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Shirahadasha, sorry, I see yours now was a correction of an obvious mistake made to the structure of the article. -Colfer2 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

DRosenbach of course your comments are helpful, insightful, etc. (I'm responding to a User Talk thing now). I was just wondering about the Third Party title you gave it. The more discussion the better. I'm new to the 3rd Opinions myself, so not sure how they are used in practice. -Colfer2 (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Terminological issues

There seem to be at least two substantial terminological issues in play here, and perhaps both of them relate to Christian use of the words.

Contrary to User:Meieimatai's claim, "Pentateuch" doesn't mean a Greek text. It means, in the abstract, the five books of Moses, regardless of version or translation. At least, that's the standard Christian usage. Likewise, "Torah" is simply used as a synonym.

Second, there's obviously a substantial variation how Jewish speakers mean the word. Sometimes it means "law" or "teaching" in a general sense (or more specifically a religious sense); sometimes it seems to represent a smaller encompassing view of the text and its commentary; and sometimes it signifies just the text itself, without commentary. (For instance, there is no commentary in the New Jewish Publication Society of America Version.) The last sense is synonymous with the Christian usage.

Right now it seems to me that the recent edits have given this a particularly Orthodox Jewish cast. It's reasonable for this to be predominantly a Jewish article, but I get the impression that it's being edited specifically to exclude Christian usage and views. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)