Talk:Torah
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Torah article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Sock edits
editRobert Wagner has been blocked as a notorius sock of Dalai lama ding dong. Unfortunately, he made a huge amount of controversial edits that were often reverted, some were not. I'd suggest going through them and seeing if anything is there that should not be, and reverting if required. --
Is this sentence accurate?
editThe sources cited for this sentence are all from 1998 to 2002. Is it still accurate?
“The majority of Biblical scholars believe that the written books were a product of the Babylonian captivity (c. 6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, and that it was completed with final revisions during the post-Exilic period (c. 5th century BCE).”
What do scholarly sources since 2002 say? Do all the part of the sentence still hold majority opinion? IncandescentBliss (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to update the final part of the sentence—-“it was completed with final revisions during the post-Exilic period (c. 5th century BCE)”
- This seems to be regarded as the case anymore. Regarding the Joseph story, see Römer:
- “The date of the original narrative can be the late Persian period, and while there are several passages that fit better into a Greek, Ptolemaic context, most of these passages belong to later revisions."
- T. Römer, “How “Persian” or “Hellenistic” is the Joseph Narrative?”, in T. Römer, K. Schmid et A. Bühler (ed.), The Joseph Story Between Egypt and Israel (Archaeology and Bible 5), Tübinngen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021, pp. 35-53
- Genesis 14 is regularly dated to the Hellenistic period:
- https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/8/632 IncandescentBliss (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- To not be regarded* IncandescentBliss (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The Hellenistic period didn't start at 333 BCE, it was a year later.
editAlexander's army entered Palestine/Israel after the siege of Tyre, in 332 BCE, the date of 333 BCE for the start of the Hellenistic period is inaccurate. 79.116.76.190 (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Can we improve on this wording and sources?
edit“Though hotly debated, the general trend in biblical scholarship is to recognize the final form of the Torah as a literary and ideological unity, based on earlier sources, largely complete by the Persian period”
Römer (2008) in Composition section seems especially pertinent as a source for the lead. I think the first two references currently in the lead are too old. Even this Römer one is a bit old. Schniedewind (2022) seems solid though.
Römer (2008) clarifies that its the *proto*-Torah that’s released in the Persian period, not the final form (that would be in the Hasmonean period presumably). I’m open to including something about ideological unity of the proto-Pentatuch if it’s stated in recent scholarship. As far as my current understanding goes, I don’t think there’s an academic consensus about that and I don’t think it should be in the lead. IncandescentBliss (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)