Talk:Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll

Clarification
Forthe general reader, I thought some additional chronological clarification was necessary, and I added some in the introductory material. I think it should also need to be clarified that the dispute about which script was the original one in the Torah is a dispute between traditional Jewish scholars in the orthodox tradition; I do not think there is any contemporary non-orthodox or Christian or secular scholar who would maintain the Assyrian-script first hypothesis. As this may conceivably be my error -- I do not claim to any expertise -- I am mentioning it here before I try to clarify it further in the article. ``

SYNTH, and Sourcing
Having read over the article, I see that there are numerous problem areas. I’ve only put cleanup tags for the most egregious issues, so as not to overload the article. I removed some blatantly OR synthesis claiming that the existence of the text “lends credence” to the religious point of view that a historical Moses bestowed the Torah on the Israelites in a particular script. This is one of many religious claims made throughout the article, much of it being OR or synthesis, using primary religious texts (the Talmud, etc). Most of it has nothing to do with the subject of the article, but is borderline apologetics for various Rabbinical religious views. Some of the other sources are of dubious quality, predating the discovery of the subject of the article (one apparently being from the 1930s, long before this parchment was discovered).

The sourcing we need most are scholarly sources that actually discuss this artifact, and not unrelated texts that make broad claims about Judaism generally. It’s been a while since I’ve checked, but I’m hoping this hasn’t become widespread across various Dead Sea Scrolls articles.Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To fully understand the importance of this document, one needs to first understand the development of the Hebrew alphabet and comparative textual analyses. Almost all who have covered this subject, mention it in relation to, both, the Masoretic Text and the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (The Septuagint). For this reason we have added a "Background" section.Davidbena (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s not what I’m talking about. There are a great number of experts on that subject we can cite, such as Geza Vermes. Making claims about the truth of a religious belief because a document exists is most definitely OR and SYNTH. Using sources that essentially predate the discovery and thus, any possible comparative linguistic analysis that could even be performed, is possibly undue. A lot of the documents being cited are also primary religious texts that aren’t reliable for scholarly statements- we need secondary sourcing to draw the conclusions being made, otherwise it’s once again just synthesis and original research. If the other sources being cited don’t have any expertise related to the subject matter, or their writings predate the modern world even knowing about the Dead Sea Scrolls, then it likely doesn’t belong in this article. Not that it can’t be used elsewhere, but that’s not what this article is about. It’s like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and drawing conclusions where no correlation is actually presented.


 * And as I said before, we can’t use this article to state in wiki-voice various conclusions about the “truth” of religious claims in rabbinical Judaism. That’s just not encyclopedic. This document provides an important window to the past, but making uncritical and possibly ahistoric claims about this proving Moses gave the Torah to the Israelites, or even drawing a false balance about the blatantly ahistorical claim that Aramaic lettering predated Paleo-Hebrew, as the Talmud claimed, is a bit weird. Why that was ever considered due at all in the article is beyond me, as it’s a PRO FRINGE viewpoint.


 * We should be using sources from renowned mainstream and critical scholars who have actually worked with this text. I know there are actually several issues in my comment, from WP:RS to WP:CRUFT... To OR and especially synthesis. But this article appeared to display all these issues, and from fairly recent additions. Perhaps sourcing and claims should be discussed more on the talk page to prevent this in the future. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Symmachus Auxiliarus, I will be adding more sources later, once I have visited again the Hebrew University library. There are many books on this topic. Meanwhile, feel free to add any information that you might have on this important subject. For your information, Eugene Ulrich, David Noel Freedman, K.A. Mathews, Eibert Tigchelaar, and Roland de Vaux are all renowned mainstream and critical scholars who have actually worked with this text. They have all been cited by me. I stand corrected about the importance of not claiming the truth of a religious belief simply because a document exists, unless academic scholars who have approached the subject with a critical demeanor should actually make that claim themselves; Hence, I have since added to the article: "Whether or not the discovery of the 11QpaleoLev scroll actually corroborates the rabbinic claim that the Torah was first written in the Paleo-Hebbrew script, or that it can shed light on the Hebrew Pentateuch's textus receptus, remains to be divulged by scholars."Davidbena (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Davidbena: first off, I should note that you should likely move your comment (and my subsequent reply) to my post above this, as it’s not in response to Warshy’s comment. Anyway, I’m not denying that you’ve made positive contributions to the article. Apologies if I indicated you hadn’t. I’m only talking about the specific issues I addressed, and more specifically, those examples. If I sounded overly blunt about this evening aspects, maybe I should have prefaced what I said with this, but I didn’t want to specifically call you out in the initial comments. I have seen your comments elsewhere posing hypothetical questions about including Arabic authorities, and I’d venture most of those sources, with some obvious exceptions, should be confined to subjects regarding Rabbinical Judaism. A posek should certainly be acknowledged in their realm of expertise. I just don’t think it’s relevant to a text about An Essene manuscript they’re not even actually commenting on. I guess when it comes to scholarship, I’m partial to keeping to those scholars within that realm of expertise, unless their opinion is considered notable by the mainstream. But like I said, a few of the references clearly aren’t pertinent to the article. I only removed a few, and all essentially using it for synthesis. I didn’t want to start ripping stuff out without discussing it with good faith editors.
 * Honestly, you've lost me on this one comment: "I have seen your comments elsewhere posing hypothetical questions about including Arabic authorities, and I’d venture most of those sources, with some obvious exception, should be confined to subjects regarding Rabbinical Judaism." Where did I mention an Arabic authority? Perhaps, if I did elsewhere, you can bring-up the issue in the relative Talk-Page. As for calling any of the Dead Sea Scrolls "an Essene manuscript," personally, it makes little difference, since here we're discussing an ancient Hebrew manuscript of the Hebrew Bible, followed by Pharisees, Sadduccees and Essenes alike. Their denomination has little to do with the fact that they made use of Hebrew scripts. What we are primarily concerned with here, in the section "Historical Background," is the understanding when Paleo-Hebrew, as a script, was widely used in Israel, since the text in question is written in that very script.Davidbena (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Davidbena, the “Arabic authorities” was an autocorrect error on my mobile device that I didn’t catch before I published my comment. It’s meant to say “Rabbinic authorities”. And your comment appeared on one of the “intelligent design” talk pages, I believe. I have most of the top-level pseudoscience articles watchlisted. While it’s a bit of an aside from my intended point, let me illustrate a hypothetical where their sectarian differences might be meaningful. While not drawing inferences from a lack of [extant] evidence, it does appear that the Essenes regularly used Proto-Hebraic script, if even just to write the Tetragrammaton. Obviously there was a sofer or two in their midst that felt comfortable copying whole texts in it as well, though. We don’t know their actual relationship with the script, or whether Pharasaic or Sadducean scribes also used it; we only have monumental inscriptions from this era by non-Essenes, and it nowhere appears in that catalogue. If the contention is true regarding the theory that the Essenes are a traditionalist Zadokite breakaway sect, originally comprised of a majority of Levites (and the Righteous Priest being an ousted Cohen Gadol), then it would make sense that perhaps they were using the script in an appeal to antiquity. However, that’s original research, and not about the article- I just thought I’d highlight how sectarian differences COULD color the archaeological record—- so scholars can’t confidently state with certainty that subculture had no influence.
 * If you can find sources linking the 11QpaleoLev scroll specifically to the Essenes, please add them. I noticed where the Encyclopaedia Judaica has an "opinion" about who may have actually composed the paleo-Hebrew scrolls near Qumran. My point, however, was simply that all Jews made use of the Torah (with its variant readings). The Torah was not limited to any one particular sect, to the best of my knowledge.Davidbena (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My comment about Rabbinical sourcing is that they’re an authority in their field, but not necessarily history or even historical linguistics. We see thousands of examples where they got things wrong, by virtue in the past generations of simply not knowing any better (as scientifically methodology and critical study didn’t fully exist in their time period), and modern day Orthodox scholars still often cite these flaws uncritically due to the appeal to authority that exists for previous generation ship of rabbis, especially those found in the Mishnah and the Talmudic scholars. Now, if they are scholars of relevant scientific field, and their opinion is generally well-respected by mainstream scholarship, then obviously that’s another matter; if such an opinion is relevant in that field, then it’s due. Much point was: stick to mainstream scholarship with representative opinions.
 * Here, I agree with you. Sometimes there are flagrant errors in the ancient rabbinic sources, for example, in the Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 29a, where Abaye thought that Yannai (Alexander Jannaeus) and Yoḥanan (John Hyrcanus I) were one and the same person, although Rava knew that they were two separate individuals! One has to, therefore, be careful sometimes when taking things written in the Talmud at face value. This, however, should not negate the fact that there are still truths embedded in the Talmud and in rabbinic literature. My argument on the Intelligent Design Talk-Page (which you can see here, and which later continued on my User Talk-Page here) was only to send-out "feelers", so-to-speak, to see whether or not they would allow me to post in that article "philosophical" view-points raised by rabbis, such as by Maimonides, on the subject of Intelligent Design. In other words, to approach this topic of our existence purely from a philosophical perspective, rather than from a scientific one.Davidbena (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as usage of primary sources, that’s done carefully and selectively. Use of Josephus is due to him being a sole witness for some events, and is done critically. I can think of many articles in which it’s noted that archaeological evidence contradicts some of his assertions, it’s clear to scholars he’s simply repeating what’s found in Biblical sources, et cetera. Again, I wasn’t saying primary sources couldn’t be used. But that it has to be done carefully, can’t be used to make broad statements (especially drawing conclusions), and outside where it’s due. Otherwise we run the risk of violating WP:RNPOV, one of the “cardinal sins” on Wikipedia. It just needs to be done with caution. Again, I suggest using them only when it’s due, and sticking mostly to mainstream scholarship. We can’t bury the lead and say “___ might prove the Talmud right” because that’s blatant Original Research. A reliable source would need to make that claim. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here, I also agree with you.Davidbena (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Lastly, your revision in quotes is a bit WP:CRYSTALBALL. It’s still drawing a conclusion. However, I do think a one line addition along the lines of “Some Rabbinical texts have also traditionally asserted that [...] while others have denied this assertion, such as [...]”, with primary sources used as a reference. The wording and (especially) attribution is what is most important. You can use primary sources so long as it’s not drawing any novel conclusions, clearly attributed to the source in the prose, and due. I have no objection to that. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What you said about me infringing upon WP:CRYSTALBALL, this is plainly wrong, since nothing which I have written concerning the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet's use in preëxilic times is "unverifiable speculation or presumptions." On the contrary, this matter has already been proven and is stated by many scholars. As for the use of Primary Sources, Wikipedia permits the use of Primary Sources occasionally, when they are used with caution. We especially find this when citing references from Josephus, etc. The sources taken from the Talmud and cited by me (about the Torah being given in the Old Hebrew script) are neutral, insofar that I have mentioned both views, and therefore does not draw any specific conclusion.Davidbena (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I’m often near Hebrew Union College, so let me know if you want me to pull something from their collection. I pass it most every day, actually. I’m also at the Blegen Library regularly, if you need to reference any classical texts (in any language). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer. I do get to Jerusalem frequently, but rarely at the Hebrew Union College. Most of my research on behalf of Wikipedia is done at Hebrew University National Library. Still, there may be subjects that you can help me on. I appreciate that.Davidbena (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the confusion- I meant the original mother campus in America, not the satellite branch in Jerusalem. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you User:Symmachus Auxiliarus for a great lesson on how to create new ancient history articles for Wikipedia. I learned a lot from your critique and from your very well articulated suggestions on how to correct these issues. warshy (¥¥) 17:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why thank you, Warshy. Admittedly, most of my experience comes from WP:AfC, and helping various users address their (possibly) problematic edits, or start new articles. Sort of like a crash course. People seek help when they really want to publish something, and I helped them find out if it’s appropriate. You’re not a totally new user, but if you ever wanna check out the relevant policies, I have a quick reference on my user page. Thank you again. But, I’m just a dude who learned the ropes. It’s easier to learn the “ins and outs” when you’re practicing it regularly, as opposed to just reading it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

14 cent BCE???
The introduction states "The actual age of the present manuscript is of little consequence, since it conveys in its orthography an early Jewish tradition of writing going back to at least the 14th-century BCE." Let me state it politely, no serious scholar backs that "opinion". That sentence is to be deleted. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Historical Background
That is another funny paragraph in the article. The sentence: "Although secular linguistic experts agree that the Ashurit script (i.e. the modern square Jewish Hebrew alphabet) evolved from the earlier Paleo-Hebrew script via the Aramaic alphabet —their secular consensus view is based on palaeographic evidentiary discoveries, the timelines and assigned eras of those discoveries, and the slowly evolving letter/character morphologies as they offshoot from earlier scripts— the question remains undecided among Jewish religious sages as to whether or not the discovery of the 11QpaleoLev scroll has implications on what the original script of the first Torah was." includes several mistakes. First of all, the Jewish square script did not evolve "from the earlier Paleo-Hebrew script via the Aramaic alphabet" since the Aramaic alphabet is not a direct descendant of the Old Hebrew script. Second, "secular linguistic experts" is wrong, it's the scholarly consensus. Whether those scholars are religious or not does not make any difference, but surely not all of them, maybe not even the majority, would call themselves "secular". Such unfounded adscription is a violation in WP:NPOV. Third, whether some "Jewish religious sages" debate the significance of the scroll may or may not be true, the statement is unsourced and does in any case not belong here. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Rabbnic discussions
Rabbinic discussions about the use of scripts for the Tora are fascinating. However, the article quotes those passages as if the sages were discussing the importance of the scroll: That is unencyclopedic. If modern scholars refer to those passages when discussing the script of the scroll, we can cite it. Anything else is a violation of basic wiki principles like WP:NOR. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Among some Jewish religious sages, the find of 11QpaleoLev would corroborate one rabbinic view that the Torah was originally written in the paleo-Hebrew script,[11] which is one view found in Talmudic commentary. According to another rabbinic view in the 5th-century CE Babylonian Talmud, conversely, the find of 11QpaleoLev is inconsequential since they regard the Torah to have been given by Moses already in the "Assyrian script" (Ktav Ashuri, also known as “Ashurit”- the current modern printed Hebrew script), but then later changed to the paleo-Hebrew script, and, once again, returned to the Ashurit script during the time of Ezra the Scribe in the 5th century BCE.[12] This latter view, however, is incongruous with secular linguistic findings. Nevertheless, the matter remains undecided and in dispute among Jewish religious sages, with some holding the opinion that the Torah was originally inscribed in the Old Hebrew (Paleo-Hebrew) script,[13] while others that it was not."