Talk:Torah

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Torah article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 30 days

Judaism Top‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bible Top‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Ancient Near East Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Moses#The years in the wilderness|forty years of wilderness wanderings]] The anchor (#The years in the wilderness) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Sock edits[edit]

Robert Wagner has been blocked as a notorius sock of Dalai lama ding dong. Unfortunately, he made a huge amount of controversial edits that were often reverted, some were not. I'd suggest going through them and seeing if anything is there that should not be, and reverting if required. --

Questions:[edit]

What is the oldest torah ever found? I.e. what is the oldest, full copy or fragment, of text containing the old testament?

Who wrote the first torah? 2A0D:6FC2:61B3:FA00:A023:8B4E:3147:454D (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Aleppo codex?? Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The five books of Moses were written by Moses with the help of God. Geeschlez (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RNPOV and WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph in lead[edit]

Hi @EveryRay432, I removed that paragraph because the lead section of the article should summarize the content of the article, which the paragraph that I removed does not. That paragraph is also not neutral: it presents a particular point of view in a writing style similar to an essay, not a Wikipedia article. Please take a look at our guideline on words to watch and Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems from the pages history that the section was long-standing, so removing it would no doubt require consensus. I strongly believe mentioning that the term "Torah" is also used to designate the entire Hebrew Bible is important. There’s reliable sources for this (which I’ve added in the section “Meaning and names”), just as there are reliable sources for the "Torah" also being used to designate the the first five books. Both should be mentioned to avoid a biased POV. EveryRay432 (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EveryRay, deleting something that violates guidelines does not require consensus. Wikipedia's guidelines on lead sections (the opening paragraphs of an article above the first section) say that the lead should summarize the content of the article. The following paragraph already states that "Torah" is interpreted to mean both the written and the oral Torah.

Additionally, there is nothing in the body of the article that reflects what is written in this paragraph, particularly the following:

Representing the core of the Jewish spiritual and religious tradition, the Torah is a term and a set of teachings that are explicitly self-positioned as encompassing as many as 70 or potentially infinite faces and interpretations, making an unequivocal definition of Torah impossible. Common to all these meanings, the Torah consists of the origin of Jewish peoplehood: their call into being by their God, their trials and tribulations, and their covenant with their God, which involves following a way of life embodied in a set of moral and religious obligations and civil laws (halakha).

That quoted section also should not be in the lead because it is written in a non-neutral manner. For example, it states as fact this interpretation, which is the citation at the end of the first sentence. Additionally, the second sentence, beginning with "Common to all these meanings" again presents as fact a particular position about Jewish personhood.

Also, I note that you've just created your account, that your only edits have been to this page, and that you seem to have a grasp of how page histories work. Have you edited Wikipedia before? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it now summarizes the content of the article, since I’ve added a reliable source from Britannia. I also don’t see how any of the things you quoted aren’t neutral. The sources cited are also all reliable. EveryRay432 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to request a third opinion. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

The Manual of Style states that the lead section (MOS:LEAD) should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. I've taken a look at the disputed sections in the lead and while some of the content exists in the main text, there are interpretations which appear only in the lead. This is giving undue weight to these interpretations. The disputed section of the lead is redundant by the following section, which is worded in a more neutral manner summarising the actual content. Longevity is not a shield for content which does not align with our policy and guidelines. I support removing this section of the lead. Polyamorph (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. Looks like the other editor was blocked as a sock, so I will go ahead and remove it. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this sentence accurate?[edit]

The sources cited for this sentence are all from 1998 to 2002. Is it still accurate?

“The majority of Biblical scholars believe that the written books were a product of the Babylonian captivity (c. 6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, and that it was completed with final revisions during the post-Exilic period (c. 5th century BCE).”

What do scholarly sources since 2002 say? Do all the part of the sentence still hold majority opinion? IncandescentBliss (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to update the final part of the sentence—-“it was completed with final revisions during the post-Exilic period (c. 5th century BCE)”

This seems to be regarded as the case anymore. Regarding the Joseph story, see Römer:

“The date of the original narrative can be the late Persian period, and while there are several passages that fit better into a Greek, Ptolemaic context, most of these passages belong to later revisions."

T. Römer, “How “Persian” or “Hellenistic” is the Joseph Narrative?”, in T. Römer, K. Schmid et A. Bühler (ed.), The Joseph Story Between Egypt and Israel (Archaeology and Bible 5), Tübinngen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021, pp. 35-53

Genesis 14 is regularly dated to the Hellenistic period:

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/8/632 IncandescentBliss (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To not be regarded* IncandescentBliss (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]