Talk:Torah/Archive 2

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 pod ous  07:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Dates and Wellhausen
I think this edit by  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 ) 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 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 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. .  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)
 * I think it's helpful to give the reader a variety of reference works on the Torah, including works by secular or Christian scholars. If you object, please give us a reason based on Wikipedia policy/guidelines. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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 )&#39;Abd el &#39;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 &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've undone some of the changes to In Islam between 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.  - What the Bible Says About Muhammed (PBUH)] by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat and  Muhammad in the Bible by Prof. Jamal Badawi with {{ fact)} is improper. &#39;Abd el &#39;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. &#39;Abd el &#39;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. &#39;Abd el &#39;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. &#39;Abd el &#39;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, 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 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 V. The only source you cited that is relevant is a self-published source. However, we can take it to the 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 and Talk:Pentateuch. 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 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. '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 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 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 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 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 Nevi'im · Ketuvim Old Testament · Hebrew Bible · New Testament · New Covenant · Deuterocanon · Antilegomena · Jefferson Bible Panbabylonism · Jewish Canon · Old Testament canon · New Testament canon · Pauline epistles · Johannine works Septuagint · Samaritan Pentateuch · Dead Sea scrolls · Peshitta · Vetus Latina · Vulgate · Gothic Bible · Luther Bible · English Bibles Biblical criticism · Higher criticism · Textual criticism · Novum Testamentum Graece · NT textual categories · Documentary hypothesis · Synoptic problem · The Bible and history‎ · Biblical archaeology Inerrancy · Infallibility · Criticism · Islamic · Qur'anic · Gnostic · Judaism and Christianity · Law in Christianity --Meieimatai 05:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Biblical canon and books
 * Apocrypha: Jewish · OT · NT
 * Development and authorship
 * Translations and manuscripts
 * Biblical studies
 * Views

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,, 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)
 * My purpose here is not to further my agenda -- it is to settle this dispute. I was not involved in this or other discussions in the near past, and all that I've contributed to this and similar articles in the past few days has been as an aid to this discussion/debate.  Although I am Jewish and may have contributed to these articles in the past, I chose to contribute to this debate as a result of seeing it posted on the 3PO page.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 14:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, I should have been clear I wasn't telling anyone not to contribute. The whole "Third Opinion" thing is pretty informal, so let me emend everything I said to this: I am tangentially interested in clarity on the use of the term "Third Opinion". -Colfer2 (talk) 14:21, 11 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)


 * Please note that I did not redirect Pentateuch to the Torah article. However, When a Christian refers to the Torah, they do so using the term Pentateuch. In this they refer to the Hebrew text by reference from the Greek text since the term Torah was and largely is unknown in Christianity. To Christians therefore Pentateuch does not mean just the Greek text, but also the Hebrew text from which it was translated. However I would agree that for most Christians, and academic researchers for that matter, the Pentateuch does refer primarily to the Greek texts.


 * I agree that there is some confusion on the meaning. I will insert three meanings, the contemporary common contextualised, and the two literal from the text of Exodus 31:18


 * The article is not being edited to exclude Christian usage and views. However, Christianity does not use the Torah, and its views are reflected in several other articles which are/will be linked where appropriate--Meieimatai 01:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again: this claim is incorrect. We tend to use the terms interchangeably. For example, see the Catholic Encyclopedia articles on torah and pentateuch. Also, I don't know where you are getting this notion about the Greek. The five books have been translated directly from the Hebrew starting with Jerome in the 400s. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that his version tends to hew more closely to the LXX than to the MT, but then there's three centuries between them. Protestant bibles from William Tyndale on have translated the MT itself. Even the Russian Synodal Bible of the 1800s translated the MT. I would really expect some support for your claim, because it runs compelte against my experience. Mangoe (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What is known as the Septuagint was a translation from Hebrew to Greek in a Greek-speaking society. Do you suppose that the translation was given the name in Latin just for the fun of it so Greeks could not find it in the library for which it was intended?
 * The original "letter" that describes the event is in Greek, but is found in the Latin Octateuch catenae, so Septuagint as a Latin term is more recent than the term Pentateuch. Consequently it is more appropriate to refer to the Hebrew -> Greek translation by a Greek term than a Latin one, though in the Western canon the Latin is used as a matter of policy due to the Christian textual schism that pre-dates the Great Schism of the 11th century.
 * I suspect where you found fault with me, is that I said "When a Christian refers to the Torah, they do so using the term Pentateuch", where as I should have said "When an Early Christian refers to the Torah, they do so using the term Pentateuch" because early Christians were Greek speaking, and closest chronological contemporaries of the Torah.
 * Septuagint is really the term of the Old Latin translation used before Jerome's Vulgate. However, since the Septuagint is used synonymously with the entire Hebrew canon, and even apocrypha, I used the Pentateuch for greater precision, which is what many do to refer to the first five books of the Tanakh, or the Torah.--Meieimatai 04:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On one level your desire for greater precision is commendable, but the problem is that in doing so you are assigning idiosyncratic meanings. When a modern Christian refers to the first five books of a English translation as either the "Pentateuch" or the "Torah", does he mean that particular translation? In general, he does not. Similarly, I don't think it follows that because a Greek-speaking Christian was holding a copy of the LXX when he spoke of the Pentateuch, he meant specifically that text and excluded contemporary Hebrew. It's more reasonable to assume that he meant the text in the abstract in the same sense that an English speaker refers to reading Anna Karenina even though he cannot read Russian. Mangoe (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am 26 year old, and when I was in elementary school, the only Hebrew/English version of the Five Books of Moses was a five volume, blue hard covered text entitled "The Pentateuch," and I think it was published by Birnbaum, but I could be wrong about the publisher. Anyway, this version possessed a terrible translation according to today's standards.  Every verse than began with the letter vav was translated as "and," even though the letter vav does not indicate "And God said to Moses..." but rather "God said to Moses."  The vav is a grammatical tool used to revert a future tense word into past tense (this is a construct that is perhaps unique to Hebrew).  However, this is something that is not understood by persons who do not know Hebrew.  The translation also included words like "hath," "thee," "thy," and many other words that don't mean anything to the average person today.  Basically, this blue Pentateuch used by any observant Jew who wanted an English translation was a Christian translation that had Rashi on the bottom, and even though Rashi was translated by Jews (I don't think Christians have or know or care about Rashi), it was translated in the same fashion as the biblical text.  So, in essence, yes, the Pentateuch is the Five Books of Moses.  That's its definition.  But its connotation has changed.  It will be quite difficult to find a Jewish person who speaks of the Torah in terms of its rabbinical commentaries, integral relationship with the Talmud and all of the many surrounding Jewish aspects of the written text and who refers to it as the Pentateuch.  I suppose this began as a cultural breakthrough sometime in the last 20 years that has allowed Jews to use Hebrew terms as though they belong in the vernacular (together with rabbi, kosher and shabbos (like medical schools having a shomer-shabbos residency for those who are shomer, or keep, the sabbath) -- we now use the term torah all the time and the term pentateuch none of the time.  The Pentateuch has come to connote the Christian view of their relgious texts, devoid of all adjacent and ancillary inspiration and influence of Judaism.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 14:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See thread below. If folks believe that Pentateuch has particular connotations, please provide reliable sources. Tx. HG | Talk 14:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Article issues
This article is distinctly presented from a particular point of view, with "outsider views" tacked on at the end. This bias even comes across blatantly in section titles, such as "Foreign analysis of the Torah". The article needs a lot more sources and the article needs a drastic reworking/rewrite in accordance with the whole of reliable sources. Obviously, the Jewish perspective of the Torah and scholarly analysis of its place and meaning in Judaism will occupy a significant portion of this article. However, the presentation should present a neutral dispassionate tone and the use & meaning of the Torah in other religions (and in secular history) should also be presented in proper proportion. Separating out the various views of the topic into the "Jewish" article of Torah and the "Christian" article of Pentateuch (and so on) is utterly inappropriate. Vassyana (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm working on it, however, regarding some points you made:


 * "outsider views" tacked on at the end - the article is currently structured chronologically, that is, it starts with the earliest conceptualisation of the Torah, and lists most recent contributions last. What do you see as a problem with this? Do you suggest I adopt the method used in the Aeneid, or do you advocate Use of Weapons?


 * "Foreign analysis of the Torah" - It seems to me the title is rather literal. Septuagint and the Pentateuch represent in turn the Egyptian and Italian translations of the Torah, while Islam originated in Mecca, some distance from Israel. Julius Wellhausen represents the Central and West European thinking of the 19th century that is even further removed geographically from Israel. Seems like foreign points of view to me.


 * The article needs a lot more sources and the article needs a drastic reworking/rewrite in accordance with the whole of reliable sources - could not agree with you more.


 * the presentation should present a neutral, dispassionate tone - One can hardly be neutral about the core text of a religion, and one not written in English, but I will try. However, I wonder where you see "passion" in the contents?


 * the use & meaning of the Torah in other religions (and in secular history) - Well, other religions don't use it! Their meaning is derived from translations covered by other articles. Secular history? There is the The Copenhagen School (theology) which thinks it worthless. Is that the sort of "use & meaning" you wanted to include? I'll see what I can do.


 * proper proportion is not same as WP:UNDUE (undue weight). If for example the Jews used the Torah 365 days a year, Christians used it on 242 days a year and Islam on 121 days a year, one could say that a proportionate representation would demand at least 66% of the article to be inclusive of Christian use and 33% inclusive of Islamic use, but that is not the case since neither Christianity nor Islam make use of the text! I will endeavour to locate any reliable sources that would help me in this, but I doubt they are there.


 * The same applies to the textual criticism literature. I'll include it in, but it represents barely 100 years of research (4.3% of verifiable documented Jewish sources' history) by maybe several thousand people as part of their academic careers. The Jewish literature available to me, aside from the Torah itself, represents at least 2,300 years of research, with many contributions made by individuals for whom the Torah had a very personal and daily life source of role and meaning. One can hardly be neutral about rejecting this sort of research data! If I was to place the textual criticism literature section at the forefront, and dedicate even a 10th of the article size to it, the content would be significantly unbalanced, non-proportionate and utterly inappropriate! It would in fact show considerable bias against the Jews, with expected and justifiable claims of my POV! No thank you. I would rather not be accused of anti-Semitism in Wikipedia--Meieimatai 08:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of Wikipedia, particularly in relation to NPOV and undue weight. We present subjects in proportion to how they are treated in modern reliable sources, not upon the weight of history or the prominence of use within a particular tradition. While the place and meaning of the Torah within Judaism is a significant portion of this coverage, Christian and secular historical views of the topic are also significantly prominent. Vassyana (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Vassyana, it seems to me that you are coming from a perspective that the subject of religion is a monad -- a single unitary subject -- and that different religions represent different perspectives on the one subject. A different point of view would be that religions are themselves subjects, not just viewpoints. It's been the considered view of WP:BIBLE for some time to have separate Old Testament and Tanakh article for very much these reasons. Given these and numerous other precedents, it seems to me that you have to say more than "it's completely inappropriate", you have to articulate some sort of rational case, for not taking the corresponding route of having separate Torah and Pentateuach articles, particularly because "Torah" can have very different connotations in Judaism. --Shirahadasha (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Old Testament and Tanakh are legitimately treated as distinct issues to a certain degree, because there are a number of functional differences. Most prominently, the canon and division of both collections is distinct from each other. As an example, the majority of Christians use an Old Testament that contains a number of writings not contained within the Tanakh, and even includes some differing versions of the books (usually additional material, such as in the Book of Daniel). This distinction is not present between the Torah and Pentateuch, where we are dealing with the same collection of books (the "five books of Moses"), from the same source (Masoretic Text). Vassyana (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That said, I completely agree that recent efforts to try and rewrite the article even more entirely from a traditional Jewish point of view than it was before, and to further to de-emphasize and relegate other points of view, are neither wise nor consistent with policy. Finally I'll say that as that just as there isn't necessarily a unitary subject-matter, there isn't necessarily a unitary conception of reliability. Weighting issues are perhaps best resolved by adding content on underrepresented viewpoints, and I'd certainly welcome more and more representative contributions. Ultimately the article or series of articles is going to have to accomplish each of the multiple objectives -- it is going to have to let Orthodox Jewish traditionalists present what Torah is from an Orthodox traditionalist perspective, let contemporary scholarhip present academic perspectives on its origins, history, and influence, etc. All are legitimate objectives, and each significant perspective is entitled to its best sources and a sensitive exposition of its viewpoint. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I agree that reliables sources and notable content do justify separate articles for each of the major terms, all of which have important semantic/scope differences. (Torah, Pentateuch, Hebrew Bible, etc.) However, I agree that none of the articles should sound like the writing is owned by a religious perspective of any kind -- each should be presented neutrally, charitably to any religious views that use the term, buttressed by academic & similar knowledge. Ideally, the articles should be far better coordinated to avoid overlap. For instance, the section here "Modern analysis of Torah" should be merged with relevant coverage of the scholarship, probably to be placed in Hebrew Bible or Pentateuch). Likewise, in my view, the "Structure" and "Contents" ideally should be covered by Hebrew Bible or the like, with the emphasis here on how Jewish exegetical and religious understandings make it the Torah.


 * Also, the article should differentiate among the full range of Jewish views of Torah. Currently, the reprentations is too flat and not nuanced. Medieval versus modern views, liberal vs Orthodox views, Modern Orthodox vs haredi, etc.


 * The heading "Foreign analysis of Torah" is inapt. Torah is primarily a Jewish religious term, so the article should mostly deal with the Jewish view of Torah (again, presented in a neutral NPOV manner) and this heading should be something like "Other religions and the Torah" probably with the content limited to usage/views of the Torah per se (rather than the whole Bible, etc). Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 13:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I should note that Hebrew Bible is another example of an inappropriate content split. It is simply a synonym for the Tanankh and we don't segregate articles by views (in that case "academic"). Vassyana (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Vassyana. Well, I didn't mentioned Tanakh. Yes, good reasons for merging Tanakh/Mikra and Hebrew Bible. But Torah is different and has a whole associated set of religious information/views/theology/exegesis etc that isn't covered by Hebrew Bible (though it could be set up as a spinout summary style from HB) or OT or Pentateuch. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Pentateuch and Torah are interchangeable terms referring to the same topic (the five books of Moses) in the vast majority of reliable sources. While there may be a diverse variety of views on the topic, it is our job to present them appropriately, not to segregate them into separate articles. Vassyana (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Foreign was chosen because secular bible critics who may be "irreligious" are not included within the confines of "other religions."  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. It belies a clear bias and POV, which is highly inappropriate. We should present various points of view, but not write from them. Vassyana (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely going to defend Hebrew Bible as a separate article, but in its present state it maintains that the term is used among scholars to avoid the religious implications inherent in Tanakh. Those implications are clearly functioning to create the current debate. See, in the large we are talking about not just the scriptures used by modern Jews, but also what is used by Samaritans and various groups of Christians, not to mention the Jews of earlier ages and whatever honor is ascribed to them by muslims. When talking about the five books of Moses as a group, which everyone does, it makes sense to start with what is held in common by all groups, deal with the textual issues for all together (making sure, of course, to carefully indicate who accepts/rejects what) and then treat each religion/sect/era/whatever separately. The Jewish section is going to be by far the longest, of course, but it has to be presented as one position among many, and neutral to the rest. At present, the presentation is "this is a Jewish thing which has been co-opted by these outsiders". Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is a Jewish thing that has been co-opted by outsiders. That is not even disputed -- the Jews had the Five Books of Moses long before Saul of Tarsus, Jesus and the rest of the Jews who decided Judaism was no longer for them decided to make the Torah the first volume of two, of which the second is more important.  How could one even suggest that the Torah isn't a Jewish thing -- perhaps what it has become within the hands of others may differ from the original, but then again, that new entity would not be the Torah.
 * It's like suggesting that Arizona secedes from the US, but maintains the Constitution of the US as its founding document. Then, it slowly undoes what most of the judicial and legislative powers have done in terms of their interpretation of the Constitution as the US still maintains it, so that there are now two Constitutions of the US -- the original that is still adhered to in body and spirit by the now 49 states of the US, and the newfangled, stripped Constitution of the US that is held sacred by constituents of Arizona.  Does Arizona complain when Nebraska says "The Constitution of the US is ours -- what you call the Constitution of the US is not the Constitution of the US.  Call it the Constitution of Arizona," but Arizona rebuffs them saying, "No, we are maintaining it -- you, Nebraska, and the other 48 states have perverted and modified it -- we are the keepers of truth and you and your silly rules and traditions and statutes of law and precident have destroyed it -- we have rescued it and now hold near and dear the real Constitution of the US."  DRosenbach  ( Talk 17:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a great debate for a discussion forum, but not Wikipedia. The "Torah" is treated (as a topic) as "the "five books of Moses" by the vast majority of reliable sources. This treatment includes a wide variety of views, including Christian and secular views of the books. Sure the Torah is quite clearly "a Jewish thing" and has its obvious origins in ancient Judaism, but it is also "a Christian thing" and "a historical thing" in the body of reputable references. The basic principles of Wikipedia demand that we stick to the sources and that we do not endorse one view or another. Vassyana (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're pushing the institutional analogies beyond what they can take, if for no other reason then that the wording of the constitution is not in dispute and is not a fixed thing anyway. But the bigger problem is that both Christianity and modern Judaism represent two millenia of evolution from the former's origins. As I understand it, the positions of modern Judaism, Orthodox or not, cannot be generically ascribed to first century Jews. But also, your statement of what Jesus and Paul did has a decidedly Jewish POV. As a Christian, I say that they never ceased being Jews, and that Jesus transformed true religion in a way that most Jews of the era refused to accept. If I were Eastern Orthodox I indeed might say that the Torah belongs to the church now, and not to modern Judaism. To be neutral, what we write here cannot endorse either claim. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From social sciences point of view the Torah is a part of cultural heritage of the Jewish people protected by the Convention of Cultural rights, and not "a Jewish thing". Its translation used in Christianity is a borrowing, and Islam can't even claim that. Given the Torah is still actively used in the religion, it is not "a historical thing" either. Secular views are inherently biased in religion analysis, and those of non-orthodox Jewish groups are usually inherently so due to the defensive stance they often take, as do any group faced with an "orthodoxy" in anything--124.183.5.148 (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So this article should be renamed as Pentateuch and Tawrat should be merged. Why is there an article entitled with a Hebrew word?  It doesn't make any sense.  When the newly entitled Pentateuch article exceeds its kilobyte limit because of its extensive "Christian view...", "Jewish views..." and "Islamic views of the Pentateuch," then each section can be split into its own article, keeping its section title as the title of a new article.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mergers with and splits from the Pentateuch article
This article has been merged with Pentateuch and then split back into two articles several times since 13 September 2007. Some discussion can be found elsewhere on this Talk page. Helpful links:
 * Version of Talk:Pentateuch before merger, 10 July 2008 - some additional discussion of the merge/split issue.
 * Article history of Pentateuch - the merge/splits can be identified by the article size: less than 300 bytes means merged.
 * 19:10, 10 July 2008 Vassyana (19 bytes) (redirect, we don't seperate articles based on views in this fashion (WP:POVFORK))
 * 17:04, 9 July 2008 DRosenbach (2,189 bytes)
 * 21:28, 22 May 2008 Serendipodous (294 bytes) (Merging with Torah)
 * 15:34, 19 April 2008 84.86.218.144 (8,003 bytes) (Undid revision 157582675 by Dbachmann)
 * 10:03, 13 September 2007 Dbachmann (19 bytes) (merging)

By the way, in no case was the Help:Merging and moving pages procedure followed, nor consensus reached before the change. Sometimes a notification template was left on one page before the merger, but never on both. The split template was never used.

I have created a new notification box to describe this situation and will place it at the top of the article.

Note, editors may have been unaware of the merge/split status when making contributions to the article and comments here. -Colfer2 (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I fail to understand why the Pentateuch was ever a part of this article, and is now again. One is a Hebrew text variously dated to 12 or 10th centuries BCE while the other is a Greek translation from the 3rd century BCE. The fact that the later was a translation of the former in no way makes them the same. It seems to me the articles should be unmerged and stay that way--Meieimatai 13:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)
 * You are making a distinction that quite simply does not exist in general modern scholarship or common usage, as correctly pointed out by Mangoe a bit up the page. Nearly all modern Christian Bible translations of the "Pentateuch" are based on the Torah of the Masoretic Text, not some Greek translation. What you suggest would be same as having separate articles for the book of Judges and the book of Shoftim, written from Christian and Jewish perspectives (respectively). Vassyana (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Vassyana, what was the Greek name for the first Torah translation into Greek made in Alexandria?--Meieimatai 02:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)
 * This is not the place for that discussion. What matters is the current usage of the term in the body of reliable sources, as myself and other editors have been trying hard to relate. Vassyana (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I'll tell you what, you go and find a source, because it is a Fallacy. You can not have a Latin name for a body of Greek literature before Latin had become the lingua franka of the early Christian church, particularly when the original translation was not made for the purpose of worship. If others like to show of their ignorance in public by putting it in their published works, that is not a reason to adopt their less informed POV--Meieimatai 06:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)
 * You are still arguing about the ancient use of the term, as opposed to the modern usage of it. Again, this is not the place for this debate. I will pull up a few clearly reliable sources that show the modern usage to show the point. Regarding your last statement, you are obviously unfamiliar with (or have a substantial misunderstanding of) the basic principles of Wikipedia and the basics of modern scholarship. We simply report in proportion what is reported by the body of reliable sources (Neutral point of view) and we do not argue with or go beyond those sources (No original research). This is not the place for general debate about topics or presenting your pet ideas (What Wikipedia is not). Please take the time to familiarize yourself with modern writing on the topic and the basic principles of Wikipedia. Vassyana (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If that be the case -- and it appears that it is -- let it redirect to Torah and there shall be an elaboration within Torah of what, why and how it relates the two terms are related.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Major overhaul?
With respect to the major contributions of the main editors here (and thank you for your contributions!), this article needs a major overhaul. Just a brief glance shows about a dozen major problematic areas just at the level of writing and organization, even putting aside the major theological arguments above. Two of the first three sentences of the introduction start with "Because," and there are undefined terms everywhere (what is the meaning of "attested" or "textual" in the introduction, and how to explain to a lay reader?). Kaisershatner (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I will actually try to build this article up, but apologise for overuse of terms that are in constant use in the linguistics--Meieimatai 12:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)
 * No problem! If you have that kind of specialized knowledge, you can share it with general readers by putting it into the article, maybe under "name" or someplace, or even parenthetically.  Kaisershatner (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything takes time, and the most time-consuming thing about editing is citing references. As a self-punishment trait of my personality, I also like my citations to come from published works that are appropriate to the context in which they are used, and not just link an entire website to an article as I do not think Wikipedia is here to spam.--Meieimatai 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

You are cordially invited...
...to my "everything by the kitchen sink" version of Torah article restructure here to comment. Feel free to make comments on the talk page, or insert them alongside or under the current version structure. I only ask that nothing is struck-through. Cheers--Meieimatai 15:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, this seems like an expanded outline for the same one-sided treatment as is present here, even further excluding "foreign" views. What you are trying to accomplish would be appropriate for Wikinfo, the Judaism Wiki, or the Jewish Ideas Wikia. However, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia, as we present all views of a topic and do not segregate topics based on views of them. Vassyana (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * what part of "cordially" did you not understand?--Meieimatai 01:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

Redraft
So forgetting this new outline/format idea, I've redone both the introduction as well as the first section entitled "Names and meanings." How's it look so far?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 16:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "So forgetting this new outline/format idea" - care to explain why?--Meieimatai 01:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Vassyana made a point that was contested by none.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 14:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Vassyana makes lots of poits that are not contested. The point he failed to make is that to get a whole-article approach, one has to have some overall structure to start with. As the article stands now it is vastly inadequate, which makes it B rating quite curious. I did not suggest that there need to be 20-30 sections, but the subjects that are included in my sandbox actually come from a Judaica library cataloguing system referenced to Torah, i.e. all the subject areas that a reader may be interested in learning about the Torah if he/she was to go to a library, but did not have the opportunity and decided to look up in Wikipedia.
 * The only problem that appears to be Vassyana's claim that the structure for my article is overerly Jewish in content, something that should not have been a surprise given the subject fo the article. --Meieimatai 06:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears as though consensus is taking us far, far away from anything that would ever be found in a Judaica library. For better or worse, then, it appears that your outline has been wholely rejected by not only Vassyana but by HG and Shirahadasha as well.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 22:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, DRosenbach, I'd appreciate it if you would not speak for me. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Torah and Pentateuch
Addressing the point that the terms are used interchangeably in modern scholarship for the five books of Moses: Although the Dead Sea Scroll pĕšārîm are often adduced as the closest antecedents to midrashic (rabbinic) commentary, 22 in many ways the commentaries of Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 B. C. E-ca. 50 C. E.) offer a more important corpus for purposes of comparison and contrast, in part because of their greater volume, but also because they attend, as do our earliest rabbinic collections of commentary, not to prophetic books (the sole focus of the continuous pĕšāarîm commentaries) but to the Torah (Pentateuch).

But the Book of Deuteronomy is also the most explicit of the books of the Pentateuch in stressing the role of the priests, here being the descendants of Levi, as the authoritative teachers of God's revelation and as the judicial authorities for the implementation of Israel's convenantal laws. Deuteronomy, thus, presents the early rabbinic exegetes and the redactors of the Sifre with numerous opportunities to assert the importance of study of Torah as a central religious obligation upon which Israel's covenantal fortunes rest, while challenging them to express their claims to be the paramount authorities in matters of Scripture and Jewish law in exegetical engagement with a biblical text that associates that authority with the hereditary priesthood.

Indeed, from the Pentateuchal writings, we can hardly construct the particular politics, including the mythic component thereof, that operates. First of all, the Written Torah does not prepare us to make sense of the institutions that the politics of the sages designs -- government by king and high priest, rather than, as in the Pentateuch, prophet. Second, and concomitantly, the Pentateuchal myth that legitimatizes coercion -- rule by God's prophet, governance through explicitly revealed laws that God has dictated for the particular occasion! -- plays no active and systemic role whatsoever in the formulation and presentation of the Mishnah's theological politics.

This interchangeability is even used in Jewish sources to refer to the first division of the Tanakh, such as: This last point might possibly be considered debatable because there is a controversy among halakhic authorities as to whether the ten verses recited in each section of the three must conclude with a verse from the Pentateuch or from the Prophets.

In this manner they parade about the bimah, older Jews bearing the Torah Scrolls, youngsters bearing illuminated flags, all chanting alphabetically arranged songs of prayer.

The morning prayers last till afternoon. But right after the early part of the services the worshipers begin to partake of food and drink. This is done in the synagogue, and also in private homes, while the last section of the Pentateuch is being read in the synagogue.

This reading of the Pentateuch drags on for hours and hours on this day. Again and again the last section is read, until every member of the congregation has been called to the bimah to witness the reading and to recite the benedictions. The service would never end if each member were called up individually, so two men mount the bimah together. There are two benedictions to be repeated over each reading of the Torah, one before the reading and one after, and the two men called up share the benedictions.

A randomly selected list of several academic sources that use the terms interchangeably:
 * Michael Fishbane, The Garments of Torah: Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992)
 * Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993)
 * Jacob Neusner, The Four Stages of Rabbinic Judaism (London: Routledge, 1999)
 * Louis Jacobs, A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)
 * John Riches, The Bible: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)
 * B. Barry Levy, Fixing God's Torah: The Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)
 * Norbert M. Samuelson, Revelation and the God of Israel (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2002)
 * James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005)

Can we safely lay this point to rest now? Vassyana (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Vassyana, I don't have a very strong opinion as to whether there should be one or two articles, although I think two articles might be administratively easier and there would be at least some content differences. However, if there is one article, I believe it will need to explain that there are multiple definitions used in multiple contexts. My understanding is that the expansive concept exists only in traditional Judaism, which needed a concept under which the Oral Law had the same authority as the written law. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see this as something of a "top-level" article, providing an overview of a very large concept with a lot of reliable material out there. Some of the sections should eventually expand sufficiently to create additional articles, leaving summary style one or two paragraph sections in this "overview" article. Some modest caution may be required to avoid unbalanced forks, but it should not be a major concern. Even a lot of the splits will probably need to split off further articles, if properly expanded. This is rich subject matter with immense amounts of top-quality sources available. Vassyana (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The reality of the matter is that there are virtually no Jewish communities today that use the Pentateuch as a commonly used term in reference to the Torah, not even the Conservative to whom Hertz belonged. Te Soncino Press which publishes it, lists it on their site as Pentateuch & Haftorahs The classic Hertz Chumash. The price has been reduced yet again, because the standard text for synagogue use now appears to be the Artscroll Chumash. I have even seen it in the home of a confirmed atheist, which tells me that she bothered to spend the money on it even if she already has three other translations. The last Pentateuch & Haftorahs edition that went into print was in 1992 which means the stock being sold now is 16 years old.
 * The use of Pentateuch is very editorially based, and not dependant on the author. The standard English education of the 19th century for non-orthodox children probably did include "Scripture" and the need to learn Christian concepts and Christian terminology, which was also prevalent in the society from which Hertz came. Always consider the work in its chronological and social setting and not as just a title. Wikipedia exists in a setting that could not be more different.
 * Lastly, the use of Pentateuch to refer to the Torah, as I pointed out elsewhere, is a fallacy. The Torah has always been written or printed in Hebrew. Referring to a work in one language by a name of another is at best creating confusion, and at worst promoting cultural colonialism. The Pentateuch is, and always was a Greek name for the translation of the Torah which continues to be used in the Eastern Churches, including Greek Orthodox, printed in Greek. I am not aware of any attempts that had been made to print the Greek version in a modern Hebrew translation even for missionary purposes. It therefore seems to me that in the real world there is already a real separation of the two, the Torah and the Pentateuch. One hopes that Wikipedia will one day reflect the real World--Meieimatai 13:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to put too fine a point on it, but Vassyana has produced cites, and you haven't. And I have yet to see any evidence that anyone uses "Pentateuch" to specifically mean the LXX version. Even Orthodox Christian reference works under the theory that the LXX version is a better testimony to the "original" than the MT; but it is to the books in the abstract that they refer, not just to their preferred version. It wouldn't surprise me that some Jews try to force a distinction between the two terms, but I'm telling you that as far I have seen, Christians don't make that decision. And since the dispute seems to be to some degree about who "owns" the terms (and the subject), it certainly follows that if "Pentateuch" is a Christian term, then you should be respecting the Christian usage that the two words are, in one application at least, synonymous. Mangoe (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, here is an even finer point - Wikipedia is a reference work! In a reference work, when discussing a given published work, the publication date of the work needs to be clearly stated because there are often variations between editions. Now, was the Torah called the Pentateuch from the first written edition? Second? Third? The average Torah scroll can last 300 years, so according to the Jewish chronology the current scrolls are of the 12th edition from the original. The Pentateuch was translated from the 4th edition. Islam came to be in the final years of the 7th edition. So which edition do the Christians refer to when they say "Pentateuch, 1st, 4th, 12th?--Meieimatai 07:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)


 * I have two questions then -- 1) Why isn't this article called Pentateuch? 2) Why is there a separate article for Tawrat. If the Torah and the Pentateuch are one and the same, then, this being an English encyclopedia, should entitle articles with English words -- Torah is a Hebrew word.  And Tawrat is merely the Arabic version of the word Torah -- and refers directly to the Pentateuch.  The article should be renamed Pentateuch and the Tawrat article should be merged into Pentateuch.  There should be 3 sections within Pentateuch -- Christian views, Jewish views and Islamic views.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As a layman and non-Jew, my understanding is that the Pentatuch is the first five "books" of the Torah. Just as the Gospels are part of the New Testament of the Bible, and people often refer to the whole of the NT as "the Gospels," I've heard folks use "the Pentatuch" to refer to the Torah. (My sister converted and married into a Reform Jewish family, and I've heard them use the term as above.) The proper name for the whole document is the Torah, but the term Pentatuch is apparently used as a synonym. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Meieimatai, your response is particularly baffling since I even bothered to provide a couple of example Jewish sources showing the synonymous nature of the words. Again, your musings are not really appropriate to our purposes and we stick to what the body of reliable sources appears to present (which in this case is that the terms are synonymous, even to religious Jews). Vassyana (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Vassyana, how do you decide if a book is "Jewish"? The vast majority of Jewish books are in fact published in Israel, and many published elsewhere are not readily found in Amazon.com. The authors you refer to are almost all either Reform or Conservative who actually represent the minority publishing volume as a percentage of total published works by Jewish authors--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I use some common sense. The two example sources that I provided were published by the Jewish Publication Society and explicitly about Jewish religious matters. I was not using Amazon.com for my research, but rather my access to full library materials. I am somewhat familiar with Orthodox sources. I have only encountered the folk story of the Pentateuch as a specific Greek corruption of the written Torah from writers who are part of (or describing) specific subsects of the most conservative branch of Orthodox Judaism. Finally, if you're familiar with Orthodox Judaism in English-speaking areas, I can hardly believe that you've never encountered The Pentateuch and Haftorahs. The Hertz Chumash is well-known among most English-speaking Orthodox communities (and many synagogues outside of the Orthodox tradition). As a further example of Orthodox usage, the Orthodox Union specifically uses "Pentateuch" as a term interchangeable with "Chumash" and the "Five Books of Moses". Vassyana (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should clarify the question here? As I understand it, the question Vassyana was attempting to address was whether "Torah" and "Pentatuech" were used interchangably in modern academic scholarship. A list of modern academic sources is appropriate for this question. I would agree the question of how these terms are used either in classical or contemporary traditional Jewish religious scholarship is a different question. Perhaps it would be useful for editors with ready access to identify a list of highly-regarded religious sources describing the religious meaning and use of the term, similar to the one Vassyana has provided above for academic usage. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Vassyana is giving us both good info, like cites above, and WP policy considerations. Still, I wonder if Vassyana might be open to thinking about this somewhat differently, for two reasons. First, while Pentateuch and Torah are sometimes used synonymously, I doubt that they can always be used interchangeably eg in academic writings. This is because the meanings are not exactly the same. I'm not sure I can define the difference myself but let me try by saying that the Pentateuch refers to the texts or document(s), whereas 'Torah' refers to both the texts and the Jewish understanding & beliefs etc about the text. Even with an article that defines Torah = Written Torah (vs the Oral Torah tradition), the Torah as scripture implies a broader meaning & contextualization than the Pentateuch document (its books, verses, etc). The scholars cited above, Fraade, Fishbane, Neusner, understand the difference and they do not use the terms "interchangeably" except in specific sentences & situations. If you did a "global replace" of 'Pentateuch' for 'Torah' in their books, you would distort the meaning of their scholarship (or make many page incoherent).


 * Secondly, I'm not quite sure why Vassyana uses the Wikipedian term "view" to describe the Jewish term Torah. I think this is a bit confusing. Yes, POV is an important concept. But do we say that Judaism has a POV about the Pentateuch? That strikes me as odd. Judaisms have exegetical traditions and understandings etc about the (Written) Torah. But the Jewish concept of Torah is a fine topic for scholarship and neutral, encyclopedic exposition. Do you see what I mean? And anyway, I disagree that Wikipedia does not allow religious "views" as article topics because these are "POV" forks. For instance, there are articles about the Jewish "view" of abortion and homosexuality etc. I don't agree that "Torah" is the Jewish POV on Pentateuch, but I suppose you could conceive of a Torah article in that manner. Generally, I don't think we need to think of each religion or philosophy etc as a "POV" about reality, but if you want to do so, the (Jewish) Torah is still a distinct and notable topic from secular or other understandings of the Pentateuchal documents. Thanks. Hope this is constructive. HG | Talk 13:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments are very constructive and understandable. I believe that my comments may have lacked clarity, or that I failed to properly express my misgivings. My concern is not so much the presentation of religious views of a particular topic, but rather religious views replacing an appropriate overview of what reliable sources state about the topic as a whole. I believe it is inappropriate for a top-level article in the topic to specifically present one religion's view of the matter. The "views" articles you mention are specifically (implicitly or explicitly) labeled as such and those views are dealt with as the topic of the article. For example, there is a world of distinction between the article "homosexuality" being blatantly written from a conservative Christian perspective and an article titled "Christianity and homosexuality" or "Christian views of homosexuality". Does that help clarify where I am coming from? Vassyana (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may interject here: thanks for addressing this. I'm not sure we should assume that Torah is a top-level article on a topic, or that article hierarchies are linear. Torah might be seen as sub-level to Hebrew Bible (or Tanakh, if not merged). Torah, even defined as Written Torah, is also sub-level to Judaism, because it is a core Judaic concept. As I said, I don't think Torah should be considered a "view" (in WP sense) or a title for a views-style article. Vassyana, I certainly agree that Torah should not be written from any Jewish POV, i.e. from a POV editorial slant. But the topic Torah itself is something different than a "view" of, say, the Pentateuch or Scripture. See also Shirahadasha below. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) No problem. I usually try my best to explain my understanding and clarify my points. This communication medium being what it is makes it very easy to unintentionally talk past each other, so taking a bit of effort to be clear and talk things out can be essential for good communication. I think we are largely on the same page here. Certainly, I agree with your comments here about the topic and views. Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On the concerns of terminology, the vast majority of sources (in my experience) is very explicit when discussing the "Oral Torah", due to the default implication of the written Torah when simply using the word "Torah". It is very rare to encounter sources that use "Torah" (as such) in a broader meaning, except in Jewish sources and sources explicitly discussing the broader concept of the Torah within Judaism. (However, even then many sources take pains to distinguish the Oral Torah.) As a thought, perhaps Torah could serve as a disambiguation page, linking to "Torah (Written)", "Torah (Oral)" and "Torah (theology)" (respectively, the written Books of Moses, the accompanying Jewish oral tradition, and the Judaic theological concept of "Torah"). Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To reply to your specific pts: If I'm reading you right, I believe you happen to be reading the reliables sources and scholarly literature too narrowly. I would say that many authors, such as Fraade and Fishbane above, are constantly making use of the multiple meanings of Torah. They are not simply using Torah to mean Written Torah nor are they explicit on Oral Torah. Indeed, the whole dichotomy is subverted by much contemporary scholarship, since they could say that Written Torah has no independent/objective meaning except as it is understood hermeneutically, e.g. via Oral Torah.
 * Of course, the dichotomy of Written and Oral Torah is ancient and notable. But the dichotomy itself is Judaic concept and it would be a bit simplistic to reduce the notion of Written Torah to the text/document(s) of the Pentateuch. HG | Talk 18:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From Torah, there could be a summary style spinout to Oral Torah. (The dichotomy is itself a subtopic within the latter.) I'd be inclined to keep the main scope as is, rather than a DAB. Also, I'm afraid that "Torah (theology)" or "Torah (Jewish thought)" is not what you have in mind. You seem to be looking for the philosophical essence of Oral Torah, whereas "Torah (theology)" sounds more like a subtopic in Modern Jewish Thought, e.g. Rosenzweig on Torah, etc. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant to refer to the philosophical concept of the Torah as an entire whole (written, oral, practical application), which is certainly a feature of Jewish theology. Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that a set of religious beliefs can often be regarded both as representing a subject in its own right and as representing a view on some other more general subject, and how to treat it isn't necessarily obvious in any given case. However, when the article is on a concept central to the religion, it seems more reasonable to treat it as a subject even when the concept has elements which are shared with other religions. By way of analogy, the articles President of the United States and Constitution of the United States handle the subjects as if they were distinct subjects in their own right, rather than simply an American POV on the subjects of Presidency and Constitution. Although one can imagine a political science perspective which would treat them as a POV, such a concept would be strange to most ordinary Americans. The Jewish concept of Torah has a similar centrality to the religion as these political concepts do to American political life, and most Jews similarly regard it as a concrete subject rather than simply a view of something more general. To treat it as if the generalization were what is real and the specific nothing more than a view of reality could be regarded as over-generalizing. From the point of view of the practitioner within a culture, the specific is what is sure and demonstrable, while the general typically involves a theory, which could be wrong, that certain elements of different cultures and societies are related and should be treated similarly. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said. I would expand one pt. It isn't simply that most Jews don't regard "Torah" as a view of a general topic, it is that most scholars and reliable sources don't either. Were Torah simply a POV of Pentateuch, then every well-balanced scholarly article on Torah would have to address the other POVs (e.g., the Christian "POV"). Scholars need to address competing POVs. However, Torah isn't a POV in the academic world. It is optional to discuss alternative hermeneutical-theological conceptions of the Pentateuch, and that's called comparative religion (etc), not simply covering the POVs in one's discipline. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Shirahadasha, I believe we may be getting tripped up over the concepts of views and topics, being much closer than may initially appear. That said, I don't think the analogy you provided is an apt one. The analogy you provide relates the distinction between general concepts and specific entities. It is far more illustrative of the distinction between the topics sacred scripture and Tanakh, than it is relevant to the discussion here. Here we have the same object being viewed differently by different groups. As I mention above, the Torah in Judaism should obviously occupy as large place in the article (as it occupies a large place in the body of reliable sources). I'm not looking to omit the importance and centrality of the Torah in Judaism. I'm simply looking for all significant perspectives to be proportionately represented according to the founding content principle (NPOV) of Wikipedia, without employing inappropriate forks. Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * HG, I am not asserting the Torah is a POV. I am asserting it is a object of discussion and that there are a number of views regarding it. Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, good. I think we agree that all the views (on Torah) should be presented neutrally within one article, with due proportionality. For me, I'd add that any given view can be spun out summary style as needed, e.g., Reconstructionist Judaism and Torah, but only to cover aspects of their view that are too detailed for the main article. Right? Thanks. HG | Talk 11:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Spot on. Vassyana (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So this translates as strong support for a merge of Tawrat.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, DRosenbach, it would probably be best if you simply spoke up about your own views, not others. I do not agree with the merge. In any case, the thread on Tawrat is not here but below. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Tawrat
Tawrat, currently a separate article in need of work (referencing, depth of coverage, etc.), is nothing more than the Arabic translation of Torah. While there might be some inconsistencies between the two terms, these alleged inconsistencies are not entirely accepted by all -- some feel that they are indeed indentical. It is inappropriate for there to be an article on Torah from an Islamic perspective when there is not articles on Torah from the perspective of any other religions. Since it is apparently a point of bitter contention whether or not there can be such articles from Christian or Jewish perspectives, there seems to be no rational support for the Tawrat article. The articles should be merged, the article renamed Pentateuch, and sections within should provide the views of the various religions.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tawrat should be merged. I could provide several sources, similar to how I provided sources about the terms Pentateuch and Torah in the so-named section above. However, I do believe that "Torah" is the most appropriate location for the main top-level article. I have several reasons for this belief, including the idea that "Torah" is much more recognizable of a term to the general public than "Pentateuch". I can elaborate further, if necessary. Vassyana (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters what is more recognizabe to the general public -- that's the beauty of redirection. The vast majority of people think root canal is a procedure, when in fact, it is an anatomic entity -- root canal therapy, more formally known as endodontic therapy is the correct term for treatment provided to the root canal.  The article is thusly entitled as the latter ("et") with the former ("rct") serving as a redirect, even though most people have never heard of "et".  If the first paragraph thoroughly explains the 'how' and 'what' of naming conventions, the redirect can be accepted by all.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 14:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tawrat should be merged even more so than the Pentateuch because there is no Arabic translation for the Torah, so its just the Arabic name for it--Meieimatai 06:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I believe Tawrat is a useful expansion of the "Islamic view of Torah" section here.  To fit our top-level article on Torah into 32K, per summary style it's going to have to summarise some material, merely introducing more expansive treatments that can be found in more detailed articles.  As I understand it, the Islamic view of Tawrat can be quite complex, nuanced and debated; with some sources distinguishing "Tawrat" from "Torah", arguing that the original divine "Tawrat" text may have been substantially different from the current "Torah" text, which they see as perhaps corrupted from its original form.  I don't think WP's entire discussion of this point, and the history of Islamic theology around it, can or should be shoehorned merely into a couple of paragraphs of this article.  Jheald (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think your point is incompatible with the approach being discussed above. There's no reason an article on Islamic perspectives cannot be split off after expansion with reliable sources produces more material than is appropriate for an article section (following WP:SPLIT). However, it is inappropriate to segregate various views of the main topic into distinct independent articles (following WP:POVSPLIT). Certainly, there is a middle ground, and the best way to approach it (in my opinion) is by starting off with a top-level article and letting further articles split off naturally by expansion with modern reliable and independent references. As appropriately presented sections start to outgrow the "parent" article, it is a simple matter to split the material into a distinct article and summarize the material in the "main" article. Does that make sense? Vassyana (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The islamic view of Torah should be reviewed here, since this is the top-level article on the Torah. But I don't think there is anything to be gained by trashing the current Tawrat article, which is already far more than could be accommodated here.  Jheald (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, and I mean no offense, there's not really much material worth keeping in the current version of the Tawrat article. It depends entirely on primary source interpretation (which is problematic) and (for one claim) an internet source of questionable reliability. To me, it would be much better to redirect it for now, and split off an article on Tawrat when there are sufficient reliable sources provided to justify such expansion. Vassyana (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Vassyana is correct -- there is not much material. There are 3 short sections of roughly a paragraph each, plus an elongated section that indicates various places where the Torah (n.b. the article says Torah, not Tawrat) are quoted in the Qur'an.  That is significantly less then there is about the Jewish perspective of the Torah in the Torah article.  With this logic, there should be an article dedicated to Jewish perspectives of the Torah.  If Jewish perspectives are removed, there should similarly be a Christian perspectives on the Torah, which will markedly decrease if not eliminate completely the current content of the Torah article, except for basic comments about structure.  And the claim that there is so much content in the current Tawrat article as support for there being a seperate article on it, besides the fact that this claim is a dubious one, for the above stated reasons, the Jewish content in the current Torah article far outweighs (in mass, not in importance) that of the Muslim contents of even the Tawrat article.  The basis for its existance must be applied consistently -- either no Tawrat, or three articles (or more) listing Torah in each religion.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 19:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that the Torah article already uses summary style, to spin out multiple articles on aspects of Jewish perspectives on the Torah. Jheald (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry -- what did you just say?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This article gives an overview of all perspectives on the Torah. Additional detail on the Islamic view of the Tawrat can be expanded at Tawrat, just as there are already multiple articles giving additional detail on various aspects of Jewish perspectives on the Torah, that are already spun out from the article with main templates.  Jheald (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I checked Google Scholar. There seem to be quite a few sources that could be used to expand Tawrat and better explain the Islamic view of the Tawrat. Seems to me that such sources justify a separate article. Rather than discuss it here, if folks believe otherwise, why not go ahead an propose an Afd? Thanks. HG | Talk 11:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are also numerous articles on Islamic views on particular facets of life -- that's not the point. The point is whether or not there should be an article on the Islamic view of the Torah itself, not whether or not spin off articles the likes of Homosexuality and Islam, Animal welfare in Islam, Judaism and abortion or the Jewish views on evolution have a right to exist.  If there is an article dedicated to the Islamic view of Torah, which there is, there should also be an article on the Jewish view of Torah, which there isn't.  Currently, the Jewish view is being subsumed within a general article on Torah and the Jewish viewpoint is either under attack as POV or likely to soon be.  Topics must be treaded upon lightly and political correctness threatens to strangle the essence of Judaism from what many had, perhaps erroneously, thought was a topic dedicated to Judaism.  If, in fact, the Torah doesn't "belong" to Judaism, then the article should be written from an entirely neutral point of view, with no excess discussion of Judaism or its clip-ons to the main topic (i.e. Oral Torah, Talmud, Sofer, Hagbah + Gelilah, etc.) -- all of these should go into an article on Jewish views of the Torah, similar to the article on the Islamic view of the Torah, in which the Islamic view is not suppressed for fears of creating an illegally POV article.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Idea and Form used. I oppose the merger of Tawrat on the grounds that as a major religious influence to the Islamic faith, that article could be overhauled and expanded with a clear focus on the effects of Torah in Islam. It certainly needs expansion on that idea that Jews corrupted it. I further oppose the slipping in of a 'hey, let's rename this article while we're at it'. First, Torah is a common term, and denotes a very specific thing, the holy scripture of the Jews. Pentateuch is a Greek word for the five books as a part of the christian bible. Pentateuch can go in as a word in the 'Bible article or something. Also, Torah is on a special scroll, Pentateuch are in books, and the significance of the scroll, breastplate, pointer, and crown, as well as the eternal flame over the ark would be lost on a Pentateuch article about a book that can and does sit on a shelf. Further, torah has certain anthropological connotations and information, like that what, 5? characters have changed over 2000 years, and that's all in Hebrew, whereas the Pentateuch get translated over and over and can change meaning. People who want their kid to know what he'll see at a Bar Mitzvah look up Torah, and expect to see an article ON Torah. Pentateuch means something vastly different than Torah. ThuranX (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The terms are interchangeably used consistently throughout a broad variety of sources and (as you well know) we stick to the sources in Wikipedia, not personal opinions. See Talk:Torah. Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana -- Would your argument for a merger be weaker if (1) Tawrat refers not merely to the Pentateuchal text but to the associated Islamic concept/doctrine(s) regarding the text, or (2) Tawrat is sometimes used to refer to the entire Hebrew Bible, not only the Pentateuch? I'd say (1) seems logical and (2) is found in sources, e.g. Waardenburg p.138. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding (1), I do not believe that the close association of a point of view for a particular term disconnects the term from its object. Let me reiterate that I have no problem at all with establishing a separate Tawrat article, or any number of appropriate articles reporting what reliable sources say about subtopics of this main article, after sufficient sources are provided to justify the spin-off. Regarding (2), Rodopi Publishers has a shaky reputation in religious studies and is reiterating a small minority view (or misunderstanding, according to many) that is most common in dated and less reliable sources (though it on rare occasion makes an appearance in more reliable references). "Tawrat" refers to the Torah, just as "Zabur" refers to the Psalms. Illustrating my point, the Zabur is not usually held to be part of the Tawrat, but rather considered a separate book. However, a small minority (almost exclusively Jewish and Christian apologists) have asserted that "Zabur" refers to all of the books of the Ketuvim. Additionally, Arabic-speaking Jews refer to the Torah as the Tawrat, just as Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians refer to God as "Allah". If it is absolutely necessary, I am willing to provide a bulk of sources demonstrating the interoperability of the terms, as I did with Pentateuch and Torah. Vassyana (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Intro
Hi everyone. I got to editing the intro and probably went too far, sorry. Please take it in good faith. Principally, in the hope of finding a succinct definition, I checked the Jewish virtual Library definition of "Torah" and I thought they did a pretty good job (see here). On a separate note, I removed this sentence and put it in the first subsection. It strikes me as unencyclopedic in tone, but either way, doesn't belong in the intro. How does Birnbaum know what have forever been barriers to Christians? Is it a barrier to Jews too? Kaisershatner (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC) The inaccurate rendering of "Torah" as "Law" has forever been a barrier, preventing non-Jews from understanding the ideal that is summed up in the term talmud torah (תלמוד תורה, "study of Torah,"), characterized in Jewish tradition as excelling all things.


 * In general an article should never claim that reliably sourced information is "inaccurate" because an editor agrees with a different position. Doing so violates WP:NPOV. --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, Shira, maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I didn't remove RS information, just moved a sourced statement out of the intro.  I don't think you are asserting that Birnbaum is a reliable source about what is a barrier to the understanding of non-Jews (are you?).  About the earlier clause (inaccurate rendering) I don't disagree.  Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow -- this is waaay too much analysis of nothing. Torah may contain Law, and may thus be referred to, by some, as "the Law", but that's not a translation.  For people who think it might be (either because they don't know Hebrew are are relying on this article for their definition, or some other reason), its important that pe::ople understand that Torah may be equivalent to law, but doesn't translate as Law.  That's all.  Nothing was removed from the article.  And Sherman probably didn't think Torah "meant" Law anyway: it was a loose translation.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, this is from [thefreedictionary.com] -- Hebrew tôrâ: law, instruction, from hôrâ: to throw, direct, teach. Law is derived from a smoothening out of "instruction," which is derived from "direct" and "teach" -- hardly translated as Law.  While Torah may refer to Jewish law because it is the essence of the source of Jewish Law, it is so much more than the black-and-white translation that uneducated people might misunderstand -- that's what Birnbaum is saying.  It's like having some crazed fanatics who study the Constitution all day, delving into its inner recesses to discover what was really meant by this word and comparing this word to that word and making inferences based on an oral tradition of what the Founding Fathers used to talk about in the bar after work -- because no one can understand the Torah from a Jewish perspective until they understand it from a Jewish perspective, relying on loose definitions causes vast misunderstanding, especially when Wikipedia would say "Torah is also translated as Law" and people think, OK, its the law book and thats it.  That's what Birnbaum meant.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 20:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I left the main quote in the article body, but tried placing a neutral and factual statement about the errancy of the translation in the lead (supported by two disparate refs). Does that work well? Vassyana (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with those changes. Kaisershatner (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely happy with the bald statement that "The popular translation of Torah as "Law" is considered to be inaccurate and misleading." Rather, sometimes this translation may be misleading. But sometimes it is exactly correct.  For example, here's an interesting comment from Louis Jacobs, A Jewish Theology (1973), p. 201:
 * "The very concept of the Torah itself, for instance, has had a long history. In the Pentateuch the term torah refers to a specific law or rule not to the Pentateuch itself.  For example, the verse recited when the Torah is lifted up for the congregation to behold in the synagogue - "And this is the Torah which Moses set before the children of Israel"  - refers in its original context only to the particular law mentioned there and not, as it was much later understood, to the Pentateuch as a whole."
 * The word torah can mean "law". The point I think being made is that Torah, when being understood in its widest sense to mean "the whole body of traditional Jewish teaching" (sense 2, Collins Concise Dictionary, 1999) is more than just a list of negative restrictions and positive commands, that might be understood from the word "Law", but is interpreted as an entire God-given system for being.
 * But I think that may be a more complex thought than can be captured in just half a line. Jheald (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The word torah is best translated as "teaching" or "instruction". The translation of "law" is very broadly considered problematic. (I can illustrate this point by providing several more sources from a broad variety of views, if necessary, but I hoped two disparate reliable sources would be sufficient to illustrate the wide acceptance of the claim.) It is one of the words used in the Torah for mitzvot, and so in context it certainly can refer to a law or rule, but that does not make "law" or "rule" an appropriate translation. Vassyana (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, well perhaps (1) Extend the sentence (added text in bold) to read: "The popular translation of Torah as "Law" is considered to be inaccurate and misleading. A better translation is "teaching" or "instruction".(refs) "; and (2) In the refs section, quote the sentences in the refs as to why "Law" is considered inaccurate or misleading, and why they say teaching/instruction is to be preferred. Jheald (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

multiple meanings
All this is turning into a philosophy-fest. As a reference article the contents need to reflect how the subject is referred to in various ways. Just like a dictionary will have several different meanings for any given word using different contexts of use, so does the Torah have its contexts, including:
 * Torah users - largely Orthodox and Conservative Jews (including exegetical analysis in conjunction with Talmud)
 * Torah "acceptors" - all other Jewish denominations
 * Torah borrowers - Christians
 * Torah acknowledgers - Muslims
 * Torah literary analysis’s - academics
 * Torah the text
 * Torah as a system of legal and behavioural obligations
 * Torah as a historical document
 * Torah as a source of moral standards
 * Torah as a spiritual guide
 * Torah as a social guide
 * Torah as a basis for an economic system
 * Torah as a source of Jewish culture
 * Torah as an influence on non-Jewish culture

Different perspectives are likely to express different points of view depending what they are talking about. In the firm belief that the whole is greater than its parts, it seems to me that only those that have the concept of the "Torah as a whole" point of view can be used as definitive sources, though no doubt reflections form specialised perspectives above need to be included. As it happens, the only sources that attempt the "whole Torah" approach are Orthodox because of the aspect of applied use, as opposed to partial application or pure theory in the case of all other points of view listed above. This approach is not, as some have said, a biased POV approach, but is indeed the standard approach in any academic discipline that always considers applied and practical expression of any given concept to be valued more then a purely theoretical one. Name any discipline, and the same approach is taken because if something does not work in practical application, it is not considered worth the basic (pure theory) research. This is just a reality of life in academic research. Getting all philosophical about it really does not and will not change how the academic world functions.

Based on the above, it seems to me that this approach is just as applicable to any article in Wikipedia, and to this one regardless of divergent opinions of who's religion sees Torah as what. In the first instance a social scientist has to ask, where does the concept applies, and who are the users. The rather inescapable, if maybe unpalatable for some, conclusion is that the concept of Torah is applied predominantly in Orthodox Jewish society. A social scientist does not choose where the research takes the course, only in the evidence it uncovers. Evidence about the application of the Torah can not be uncovered in any meaningful way from either Christian, Muslim or purely academic approach to the understanding and analysis of Torah.

Regardless of what people think, the subject of this article is for all intents and purposes unique to Judaism, and I intend to approach it from this, though not exclusive, perspective--Meieimatai 02:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Meiematai: there may need at some point to be an article purely on how the concept of Torah is applied specifically in Orthodox Jewish society. But this is not it.


 * Per WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK, this article gives an overview of all perspectives on Torah. Including those who believe the Pentateuch is an entirely human document; and/or those who reject in whole or part much of what the Oral Torah has to say about it.  This is not just an article about ultra-Orthodoxy.  Orthodox POVs must be given; but where there are contrasting or complementary POVs and meanings and discussions opened up inside Judaism, and outside Judaism, and even in entirely non faith-based academic discourse, these must also be given.  Jheald (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Other pts: (1) The Tanakh isn't the "most holy" of the sacred writings of Judaism, it is the only holy text, right? Indeed, see sacred writings. Rabbinic lit isn't "holy" in the technical Judaic sense. (2) Current: "In Talmudic literature, the word "Torah" includes" better would be "In rabbinic literature, the word "Torah" may refer to...." (3) "The Torah contains the 613 mitzvot" would be better explained/qualified with "According to rabbinic tradition,..." or the like. (4) "The five books are primarily a collection of ostensibly historical narratives rather than a continuous list of laws." This strikes me as weak. Here's a rough suggestion: "The Torah is written through different [literary genre]], including stories, historical narrative, poetry, etiology, genealogy, and the exposition of various types of law." How does that sound? Thanks. HG | Talk 12:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why there should be a new article on Jewish views of the Torah, just like there currently exists an article on Islamic views of the Torah (see discussion above). If the article has to maintain such a sterile perspective, the sentences will read with so much intensity of parentheticals, qualifying subordinate clauses and conditions of validity that it will prevent even the most educated reader from understanding what is trying to be said.  Must every sentence in an article be qualified?  If Islam may have its article on the Torah, so may Judaism.  Then the qualifications can be removed and the sentences can flow instead of being strangled by modifiers are every turn.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, not sure about your pt. After all, the main article should and does present Jewish views of the Torah. It just needs to do so with a neutral (sterile? c'mon!) perspective. We don't need another article, just make sure we're clear to differentiate between what's a Judaic belief/thought and what's non-religious knowledge (aka fact). It's not a qualification to attribute a given statement to a source or a body of belief/thought. HG | Talk 23:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (Also, DR seems to be addressing my pt (3) attribution. I suggest (3) because the 613 is clearly a traditional belief, even a contested one in a sense, so it's not like a non-adherent can simply look at the Chumash and identify the 613 mitzvot. HG | Talk 23:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC))
 * But the article reads like a censored, politically correct shadow of what Judaism believes the Torah to be. Why isn't there mention in the tefillin article that the rules governing tefillin are only Jewish, and that the specifications that tefillin are prepared to are not agreed upon by Christians, in whose Old Testament they are mentioned?  Because that would be ridiculous -- the article, and any other article about anything in Judaism that is sourced in the Torah (pretty much all of Judaism!) would read with such restrictive clauses and modifiers that they would be unreadable.  Why is Torah different -- because enough non-Jews are interested in topic, that's what.  It seems entirely arbitrary that articles on Midrash, Aggadah, Mishnah, Gemara, Tosefta, Baraita, kiddush, techeilet, tzitzit, tallit,  Torah reading, milk and meat, tefillin, Shabbat, Jewish holidays, mitzvah, shofar and Rosh Chodesh are written from entirely Jewish perspectives while things that hold the same, if not more, importance in Judaism are relegated as being told from a -- yes -- sterilized perspective.  People are questioning the validity of sourcing from the texts that shape and support everything Judaism stands on -- it's no wonder this article is a mess and there is almost as much content about the article as there is in the article.  Torah, according to Judaism, is a Jewish possession as much as tefillin and Shabbat.  It is undisputed that it was given to the Jews and, according to the Jews, taken, modified, altered, perverted and adulterated by people who don't understand the first thing about it because they don't possess the methods by which to understand it (the Oral Torah).  What kind of sense is there to demand that Judaism's founding document be presented from what is diplomatically being referred to here as NPOV when really what it amounts to is that an article about a document which existed initially in Hebrew and possessed initially only by Jews is to be presented here from a religiously shared perspective while keeping all views in check with opposing views that will all be presented fairly and equally?  That may work great for the articles on kilts and orioles, but not for the one on Torah.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The real distinction is that most of the concepts you list above are treated by reliable sources as exclusively, or nigh-exclusively, Judaic topics. The Torah, on the other hand, is not treated as an exclusively Judaic topic by the body of reliable sources. There is no reason that the Judaic view of the Torah should be excluded or marginalized (quite the opposite, since the Torah in relation to Judaism is widely discussed in reliable sources). However, it should not be presented to exclusion or marginalization of other views. Also, no article should be written from a religious view or biased towards a religious view, but rather should neutrally describe those views and beliefs. If NPOV (and it's accompanying consequences) are overly distasteful to any given editor, there are plenty of other wikis and projects that promote original research, sympathetic writing and/or the appropriate religious perspective. Vassyana (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC) To note, I take my own advice given here. There are some topics and subjects where I cannot maintain a reasonable objectivity. On those topics, I participate on a variety of user-content projects and forums to express my knowledge, views and opinions.
 * 1) So why is Tawrat allowed to exist? ...or...
 * 2) The Christian approach to Torah cannot be combined effectively with the Jewish approach. The Jewish approach to Torah attributes divine participation into a text that contains all of the secrets of Judaism that can only be unlocked if the code of the oral transmission is employed, while the Christian view is that it's basically obsolete because a new testement has replaced it.  It's not just two perspectives of one item that can be melded into a cohesive article -- they are two opposing views that are yielding contradictions even in the arguments made above.  Shirahadasha bemoaned the Birnbaum quote that called the "Law" translation a "mistranslation" on the grounds that...
 * In general an article should never claim that reliably sourced information is "inaccurate" because an editor agrees with a different position. Doing so violates WP:NPOV. --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC) 
 * ...but the intro to this article now contains a sentence stating that "In Islam, the Torah is seen as an authentic revelation from God that has been corrupted and altered by men." This is a claim that reliably sourced information is "inaccurate" because another religion agrees with a different position, and it violates NPOV.  But if this sentence is not present, the intro in unbalanced.  Settling this argument by demanding that all points be presented equally and fairly is not settling the argument at all.  Either the rules are broken or the rules are broken.  Then the content of the article continues on, slanted against Judaism.  The article states:
 * According to Moses Maimonides, the 12th Century rabbi and philosopher, Moses was the Torah's author, receiving it from God either as divine inspiration or as direct dictation in the Hebrew year 2449 (1313 BCE).[18][19] However, over the years several questions have arisen, one popular example being the record of Moses' death in Deuteronomy 34. The Talmud explains this by saying that Moses wrote it in tears in anticipation of his death; another tradition is that Joshua added these words after Moses died (the next book is the Book of Joshua which, according to Jewish tradition, was written by Joshua himself), and that the final verses of the book of Deuteronomy read like an epitaph to Moses.
 * If Judaism asserts that the Torah is of divine origin (which it does), the question of Moses writing about his own death has been answered prior to it even being asked -- God knew what would happen, because God exists outside of time and is not restrained by the limited vision of a mortal. The text of the article as is suggests that "questions over the years have arisen" -- Rashi quotes the Talmud in giving these two explanations, yet the term "questions over the years have arisen" suggests that these questions have arisen recently.  Perhaps they have arisen recently in Christian circles, where the Talmud is absent and the Torah must be interpreted by and only by reading the verses, but this is now a violation of NPOV.  Then the documentary hypothesis is mentioned, which is in direct opposition to the fundamental tenets of Judaism -- namely that God gave the Torah, the whole Torah and nothing but the Torah to the Jews.  Identifying the documentary hypothesis is a violation of NPOV, because it is a claim that reliably sourced information is "inaccurate" because another religion (or non-religion) agrees with a different position.  The entire article will be a string of violations, or each point will have to be made in triplicate (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc. and this will still likely be a violation of NPOV) or ideas and views will be suppressed, as they are now even with many things in triplicate and recurring violations of NPOV, and the article will remain sorely underdeveloped.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 06:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you are misunderstanding both Shirahadasha'a point and NPOV. Shirahadasha's point was that an editor's disagreement with sources should not be represented in the article. We should present conflicting points of view that occur in reliable sources (as that is part of the essence of NPOV). We do not need three or four views for every fact and point in the article. That kind of "balance" is not at all what NPOV means, and indeed is contrary to NPOV. The "neutral" in NPOV is essentially two-fold: 1) We should present our information in approximately the same balance as seen in the total body of reliable sources. 2) We should use a "neutral tone" avoiding language and presentation that belies a bias, simply reporting what is said in reliable sources, neither endorsing nor marginalizing what we report.
 * There's no problem in splitting off any number of articles about particular views, provided that there are enough reputable independent sources to support a complete article.
 * On Tawrat, I supported a merge below due to the lack of substantial sourced material to support a distinct article at the moment. Vassyana (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Literal word
I'm not sure the intro is as precise as it might be regarding acceptance as the literal word of God. Isn't that true for Orthodox Judaism but not as much in Conservative or Reform? Kaisershatner (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the Talmud makes a statement on interpretation of the Torah literally being a heretical mode of interpretation, or something to that effect (need a reference)--Meieimatai 02:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)
 * As stated above, the problem here is language -- "literal" has different meanings in different contexts, and applications of the different meanings occur in different places. (The following acc. to OJ:) To say that Moses actually saw the back of God because that's what the verse says (Exodus 33) is heretical -- God has no back or front or side.  Classical Jewish biblical commentators explain this as God allowing Moses to understand the complexity of certain things that occurred only after they occurred (his back) but not allowing him to see things and understand their meanings as they actually play out (his front).  In regards to milk and meat, three identical verses (Exodus 23:19, 34:26 + Deuteronomy 14:21) repeat that one shall not "Boil a kid in its mother's milk," yet this rule applied equally to the calves of oxen as it does to the kids of goats -- another abandonment of literal interpretation, so to speak.  Then there is the Jewish slave who would like to remain with his master.  There is a double instance of non-literal interpretation here (Exodus 21:2-6) -- "forever" is taken to mean only until Yovel, which occurred every 50 years, and a piercing performed through his ear into the "door or doorpost/lintel" was actually performed only into the door itself.  Both of these non-literal interpretations are embraced by the Talmud.  But then there are times when the verses are taken so literally that it appears almost absurd -- when the produce is brought back from the field, it is only subject to tithes once it sees the "face of the house," interpreted as the front door; should the produce be brought into the house through a window, the biblical requirement to tithe has not yet come upon the food.  And when a document of divorce is given over to a soon-to-be ex-wife, it must be placed into her hand (Deut 24:3), literally, or something that (through talmudic exegesis) is thoroughly equivalent to her hand, such as her guarded, fenced in yard, etc.  So both literal as well as non-literal interpretations are not only appropriate, but rather demanded by, Orthodox Judaism.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 05:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "unaltered" word of God, leaving to one side the question of interpretation, would be more appropriate. Jheald (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

By way of comparison, it might be worth noting the view of what is probably the most left-wing interpretation of Orthodox Judaism that has any currency, so left-wing a number of the participants in this discussion wouldn't necessarily consider the person who said it (Avi Weiss) to be Orthodox:

"The belief in Torah mi-Sinai is, for all Orthodox Jews, the foundation of faith and at the core of the halakhic process....The fundamental difference between Sinaitic and non-Sinaitic law, according to Maimonides, is that laws from Sinai, coming as they do directly from God, are free from controversy. There is only one view on every issue. Non-Sinaitic law, on the other hand, which is the result of rabbinic interpretation, is subject to controversy. After all, two rabbis of equal piety, intellectual ability, or stature may disagree - and both may be right. Thus, Halakha has a degree of flexibility. While bordered by a system that is external to humankind - the God-given law, Torah mi-Sinai, to which Jews are subservient - it also contains laws derived by the rabbis, to which there may be more than one view. It follows, therefore, that Halakha is a living structure that operates within absolute guidelines, yet one which is broad enough to allow significant latitude for the posek (decisor) to take into account the individual and his or her circumstances. Simply put, within airtight parameters, Halakha is flexible."

The right wing tends to regard even Rabbinic law as at least divinely inspired and not subject to re-interpretation by Moderns. But in the very act of arguing that Rabbinic law has some flexibility, the left wing of Orthodox Judaism goes out of its way to re-enforce that the Torah comes from Sinai and that Sinaitic law is infallible. It should be noted that in the 2006 series of responsa on homosexuality, Rabbi Joel Roth, in a majority CJLS opinion representing the right wing of Conservative Judaism, took the position that the the Torah is "legally infallible" for decision-making purposes even though it may have been compiled or redacted. --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, good info. But I'm not sure where this thread is going, in terms of editing choices. The article should include the different approach to Torah mi-Sinai and related terms -- but how are these explained in the article? It's not always a matter of the "literal" word at all, except where the rabbinic interpretation is literal (per our interpretation). Nor is it a matter of "infallibility," which I don't think appears much in the secondary literature. I'd recommend something like "divine revelation" etc. Anyway, aside from noting the importance of Torah, we quickly need to rely on reliable sources to differentiate the streams and to offer a balanced (or multiple) description of pre-modern Jewish beliefs. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Shira -- your argument is invalid because your premise is false. No one disagrees with Rabbi Avi Weiss in the statement you quoted above.  That's a fundamental tenet of Judaism -- eilu v'eilu divrei elokim chayim ("these and those are both the living words of God").  As long as deduction and inference follows the proper framework set forth by the thirteen principles of Talmudical Hermeneutics, all laws are valid -- they may not be agreed upon by the majority, and therefor not accepted as binding law, but they are valid.  That's all Weiss said above -- he didn't mention anything about modern distortions and their subsequent following in the Judaism of today.  I think your distortion of his words may negatively impact this discussion, as it seems to legitimize the left-wing at the expense of the right-wing, as though the right-wing does not accept the above comments of Weiss.  Weiss's comments of "airtight parameters" is to exclude the positions held and the deductions and inferences made by Conservative Judaism, which operate using methods other than the agreed upon hermeneutics of the sages.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I used Avi Weiss only to illustrate general agreement on this issue within Orthodox Judaism. Anything else may have been distracting. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your statment, Shirahadasha:
 * By way of comparison, it might be worth noting the view of what is probably the most left-wing interpretation of Orthodox Judaism that has any currency...
 * is false and misleading. This quote forms the foundation of Judaism and its inclusion both belittles as well as undermines Orthodox Judaism as well as misrepresents its dedication to halacha.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, DRosenbach, if you don't mind my saying so, you're jumping too quickly to harsh (, hyperbolic,) and unnecessary language with another editor. In addition, it's incorrect to think that this quote can fully characterize the "foundation of Judaism" because there are different Jewish approaches or theorizations of halakhah. For instance, R. Bleich would far more likely than Weiss focus on the objectivity of halakhah rather than its degree of flexibility.
 * Anyway, we're not here to discuss the topic --> What are the specific editing suggestions for the article? HG | Talk 10:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Pentateuch as Christian?
Forgive me for raising Pentateuch again, but the current text seems intent on arguing that the Pentateuch is a Christian or non-Jewish term. Current article states: "It is therefore generally a Christian (or at least non-Jewish) term,...." and "Jews may use "Pentateuch" to signify versions or translations of the Torah by non-Jews." Well, first off, an encyclopedia usually doesn't use argumentation rhetoric like "therefore" because we're trying to describe, not prove points ourselves. More importantly, unless I'm mistaken (yikes!), these points are not justifiable and not supported adequately by most sources. The term Pentateuch may have more currency nowadays among Christians than Jews, but this doesn't mean much, it isn't notable or sourced much. Jews have used the term Pentateuch a great deal, just like the awkward "Five books of Moses." Even if Pentateuch has fallen out of favor currently among Jews, that doesn't make it Christian. (Words that Christians use more than Jews are not necessarily "Christian" terms.) So, I'd like to revise these sentences in the article. Unless somebody has significant sources that say otherwise? Thanks. HG | Talk 11:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Apart from examples like the Hertz Chumash etc.,  the word Pentateuch has often been used by Jewish writers, for example writing on the Torah, when they want to precisely distinguish the written contents of the books of Moses, from Torah in its wider sense.


 * My impression is that Chumash is often used to refer to the bound book, but Pentateuch is often used to refer to its contents. Jheald (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With the new information provided by Birnbaum, I recanted my previous stance that Pentateuch is anything other than a synonym for the Five Books of Moses. But because the Pentateuch is embraced by non-Jews who have a different agenda, the term "Pentateuch" can be construed as possessing an entire construct (or "baggage, so to speak) that surrounds it and accompanies it much like "Torah" has all of the things that Jews assert surround it and accompanies it.  So, purely in that sense, Jews who are dedicated to the continuity of the traditions as they emanate from Sinai are unlikely to utilize the term Pentateuch.  For those Jews who do, it is either because they are not dedicated to this continuity, or because they don't embrace the Hebrew language enough to use the term "Torah" with any sort of confidence or because they are too assimilated to realize the depth of Torah creating the sort of aforementioned "baggage", or a combination of the three.  It's like a discussion on any synonyms -- two words will never mean the same thing, or there would be no need to have two words.  In translation, things are lost, and the term Pentateuch, as utilized by anyone but observant Jews, will necessarily lack the sort of worly view of Judaism that the term "Torah" expresses.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, I was just thinking about this as well. I have started reading the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on the Torah (here) and noted this line: "The expression "the five books," which is the origin of the term "Pentateuch," occurs only in Jewish tradition, which has also been the source for "Genesis," etc., as the names of the books of the Pentateuch (see Blau, "Zur Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift," pp. 40-43)."  I guess times have changed?  Kaisershatner (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When was this encyclopedia published?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 18:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is seeming to me that our safest course is to simply note "Pentateuch" as a synonym for the five book division of the Tanakh and leave it at that. It seems to me more and more that the connotations are so context-sensitive that we cannot really accurately convey them. It also seems to me that we need a more organized presentation of "Torah" as the five books, and "Torah" in the more encompassing sense. Right now there's a lot of shifting back and forth in a way that I find confusing. Mangoe (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The only way to accomplish what you just stated is to have an article entitled Jewish views on Torah, similar to the article espousing Islamic views on Torah. How in the world can there be an article written from a NPOV about the fundamental basis of a religion that necessarily views it entirely different from anyone not beholden to that religion.  To use an example mentioned above, its like having Americans and Brittains get together to write an article on "Constitutions" when each has a very distinct view of constitutions.  Americans probably think their constitution is very much a prototype example, while Brittains would laugh at that.  Americans utlize common law while Brittain uses case law -- they will never agree how to speak about constitution.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 18:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We do manage to have an article on Constitution, you know; and one on Common law, both of which manage to survey all the traditions :-) . BTW, the use of the term "case law" in English law is just a piece of terminology - English law and American law are in fact both very similar in respect of their common law heritage.  Jheald (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the connotations are different. But the key point is this -- it's not our insight into the connotations that matter, it's whether we find significant and reliable sources that make something of the difference nuances. Otherwise, let's just treat Pentateuch as a Greek synonym for the Five Books of Moses. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So is it that there isn't enough in the article to support a new article on Jewish views of Torah? It's not like there is enough to support the article on Islamic views on Torah.  And I am, and perhaps others are, hesistant to add content to this article for fear that it will be distorted or deleted before it has a chance to give some of you the opinion that these varying views are too far from each other to be neatly and nicely included within a sinlge article.  I retract my comments on case law -- I was pulled from my computer before I was done and hadn't developed it or decided that it perhaps was not a good example.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 07:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There wouldn't be a problem with splitting off appropriate articles regarding the various Judaic views of the Torah and related issues after enough reliably sourced material is added that continuing to add it here would cause the section to expand out of balance. The religion coverage as a whole in Wikipedia is already sorely below any reasonable standards. Splitting off articles from poorly-sourced and poorly balanced sections almost always creates more of a sprawling mess, instead of serving our purposes in any useful fashion. This is the same opinion that I express about Tawrat above in the merge discussion. Vassyana (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Similar to Vassyana, I'd say a split is unnecessary at this juncture because the main article should provide lots of good, balance coverage of the Jewish "views" (that is, beliefs, thought, theologies, concepts, disputes, etc) of Torah. Still room in the article for neutral and sourced coverage of pre-modern, Orthodox and other conceptions of Torah. That said, there's the potential for many spinout or sub-articles, e.g. "Orthodox Judaism and Torah," "Maimonides and Torah," but we aren't close to that yet. Anyway, let's try to keep this thread to the Pentateuch. I'm not aware of any reliable source that even discusses the connotations of Pentateuch in contemporary discourse, though I'm open to any info otherwise. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Focus
The majority of the above discussion revolve around one point of interest that perhaps manifests itself in two or more aspects of editing, so it has been spread around under different headlines and the conversation is thus broken and nonlinear. I could not in good faith put effort into editing this article any more than I did because I sense that the consensus of the other contributing or editing authors are more interested in debating merits than authoring text. This is not an evaluation of any of you -- it is merely an evaluation. Instead, I have been doing lots of work in other articles, adding sections and sections, but I could not do that here, with a feeling in my heart that it would be contested and edited out and condemned. I'm am earnestly sure that each of you do whatever it is you can to further Wikipedia, and it seems that you may have been doing that in other places, but not this article. I sense that we talk and talk and talk, but little gets done. That is why I tried to summarize debates and bring them to a head with some meaningful conclusion -- it was not my intention to speak for others or distort others' statements or assertions. The quote from Rabbi Avi Weiss has not only been distorted as I said, but even my assertions about it have been distorted; I did not write that Orthodoxy focuses on flexibility. I happen to believe that it does, even though it may appear from the outside (outside of Orthodoxy) that Orthodoxy is rigid and inflexible -- but I hadn't written that, and for HG to comment that, in fact, Orthodox supporters the likes of R' Bleich tend to focus on objectivity rather than flexibility, that may be because it is not the flexibility that is under attack in the modern world, but rather the objectivity. He needn't lend support for flexibility, because people tend to flex themselves -- it is much less common for people to be objective, and he and others buttress that aspect on their crusade to save Orthodoxy from liberalism. But that doesn't mean the fundamental message of eilu v'eilu isn't basic and accepted by all. One may not be able to focus on it's pervasiveness in all circles, because those who don't understand it will distort that as well, but it certainly exists and is accepted by anyone who considers himself Orthodox.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 16:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifing your involvement and thinking. Are you also making a suggestion here about how to write/revise the Torah article? I happen to agree that eilu v'eilu is a fundamental concept but it strikes me as more relevant for articles on Oral Torah, Rabbinic literature, etc., because it's less relevant for this article, which focuses on the Written Torah. Are you proposing a revision of the article here? Thanks. HG | Talk 16:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you so confrontational? You take this debate as seriously as sworn testimony, so upset that I mentioned your name above.  Another editor wanted to know why I rolled over his suggestion, and after merely pointing out that the other editors have been posting to other sections but have not spoken up about his point and letting him know that it appeared as everyone had rolled over his point and it was only I who had overtly mentioned it, you suddenly speak up, asking me not to talk for you.  Then you deride my attempt at reaching a solution by summarizing the discussion -- informing me that editors are to speak for themselves, as though that isn't a cardinal rule in debating.  Then you complain that I speak out in defense of Orthodoxy against what appeared to me as a subtle undermining and belittling (albeit, probably unintentional) by Shirahadasha.  Then you protest that I am veering off course in discussions.  I don't think Torah will ever be a good article, in that it will be impossible to properly portray the Jewish view without it being undermined by having clauses attached to every sentence (or every sentence followed by Christian and Islamic doublets of conditions and refutation) by an attempt at NPOV by matching the assertions with those of the secular/Christian/Islamic/atheist perspective.  The shuttle method of writing (that each POV of each item is listed in series, rather than the block method, in which each POV would be listed as a whole in parallel) won't work, and the block method will be three articles tacked on to each other.  Of course I am proposing a revision -- but I see it's not working because some of the contributors to this argument must not truly understand the Jewish point of view -- because the Jewish perspective is that the Written Torah is utterly worthless without the Oral Torah.  They may be able to be discussed separately, but they cannot be analyzed (at least not from a Jewish persepctive) as though they can exist without each other.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 19:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you. You mention that you are "proposing a revision -- but I see it's not working." Fair enough. I'll check back later in case you have recommended revisions that you think would work. Meanwhile, take care. Thanks again. HG | Talk 21:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a new article on the Jewish view of Torah will work. You and others seem to think a new article will only be necessary when there is enough content, while I contend that the lack of another article is repressing said content.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure why a (large) section regarding "Jewish view of the Torah," or "The Torah in religious Judaism" or "Orthodox view of the Torah" or something is a controversial idea. If anything, the current article underweights Jewish commentary on the Torah.  Kaisershatner (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At this juncture with the article, it's sufficient to improve/expand the section on "Torah and observance" -- which I propose renaming as "Torah and Judaism." A "Jewish" version of this article would be inappropriate. Still, if the "Torah and Judaism" section expands to the point where subsections need to be spun out (as we've discussed above), that's fine. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)