![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Where did this number come from? Does this discount evangelical scholars? If you want to say "many secular and liberal Biblical scholars..." that is fine, but 90% is just a made-up number Benjaminmarsh 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
A book-- without a page number or quote-- is not even a source. Please include one or the other-- or both. You, PiCo, seem to be saying that the entire Torah and Judiasm itself was created wholesale by a priest in the time of king Josiah. I would be very surprised if John Rogerson, or any other RS, hold this view. If you have a different view then feel free to clarify. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 01:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to Rogerson's single volume commentry but it only tells me I have exceeded my allowed number of pages already. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 17:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the name of this article does not start with "Book of"? All the other articles in the Old Testament category start that way, except for four of the five books of the Torah. If there are no objections, I'll have it changed.
Death of moses should that be an article, along with death of Aaron?
Deuteronomy 6.4|9 is hugely important in both Jewish and Christian theology (the source of Jesus' 'Greatest Commandment'). Is the focus of this article such that the inclusion of information on the shema` would be inappropriate? If not, I think that it's sorely missed. Tmargheim 03:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone has written in the modern critical analysis section: "Similarly the language within the discourse refers to the land east of the Jordan as being on the other side of the Jordan, implying the author is on the west of the Jordan, a location that Moses supposedly never entered as punishment for smashing the first set of tablets to hold the Ethical Decalogue." I can see no proof of this in reading the book itself and indeed the phase "other side of the Jordan" can I find nowhere and any time "east of the jordan" is used it refers to where they where at the time not in referece to where they were not. Eleutherius 23:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thank you for clarifying. Im still a bit confused though. why is "beyond the jordon" imply the writer is not? i guess i understand why , but i dont see the certainty.. Eleutherius 11:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the section headed Aplogetics. I'm pasting it in here, with an explanation of why I removed it. The section is:
Most Orthodox Judaism scholars and Jews and many evangelical Christians believe, despite the ideas raised by the Talmudic rabbis, that the original author of the book was Moses, and that the book really was lost and recovered (e.g. [1]). Their apologetics argues that:
*The frequent references to it in the later books of the canon ( Joshua 8:31; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Chronicles 23:18; 2 Chronicles 25:4; 2 Chronicles 34:14; Ezra 3:2; Ezra 7:6; Nehemiah 8:1; Daniel 9:11–13) prove its antiquity. *Orthodox Jews point to testimony, within the Mishnah and Talmud, that Moses authored nearly all of Deuteronomy. *Christians identify further testimony of Mosaic authorship from the New Testament. Matthew 19:7–8, Mark 10:3–4, John 5:46–47, Acts 3:22 and Acts 7:37, and Romans 10:19, all establish the same conclusion.
The problem with this is that it's unscholarly, and spoils what is essentially quite a good and informative article. But to explain what I mean by unscholarly: Leaving aside the question of Orthodox Jewish scholars, the beliefs of "most Jews and many evangelical Christians" are immaterial when it comes to deciding whether or not Moses wrote Deuteronomy. If they haven't studied the scholarly debate, their opinions are uninformed. The problems of uninformed opinion are apparent from this section. It says, for example, that the book "claims to have ben written by Moses": it doesn't, in fact. What it does say is that Moses wrote a "scroll of torah" which was kept beside the Ark of the Covenant. This scroll is presumably the law-code contained in Deuteronomy, not the whole collection of 5 scrolls making up the modern Torah. And what weight are we toi give thios statement in Deuteronomy? This is where the whole scholarly debate begins: is Deuteronomy telling the truth or not? Maybe yes, maybe no, but to say that Deuternomomy must be telling the truth because it's in the bibler is a religious argument, not a scholarly one. Similarly, it says there are frequent references to the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy in "later books", and then cites Joshua - quite unaware that the scholarly view is that Joshua is by the same author as Deuteronomy. That view may be right or wrong, but the person who wrote this section was obviously unaware that it existed. Worse, it cites the views of New Testament writers as authoritative - but this is a religious argument, not a scholarly one. (Matthew may be authoritative on early Christian theology, but not on matters of OT scholarship). So for all these reasons and more, I'm deleting the section. PiCo 10:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
PiCo -
Deleting this is somewhat presumptive - it does need to be cleaned up, agreed, but that does not necessarily mean that the beliefs of Jews and evangelicals are immaterial when deciding whether or not Moses wrote Deuteronomy for it is exactly those people that claim to be inheritents of that religious tradition. This is a broader question of the value of traditional interpretations versus later scholarship and is not one to be addressed here by deleting the section. Why is it that when we look at the validity of early manuscripts (ie Homer, Roman religious manuscripts), scholars will look down the road at later translations and interpretations within the tradition to decide how an earlier manuscript might have been read or used but the same sense of the value of the internal traditional understanding is completely rejected when it comes to Christianity and Judaism. If Christ, himself a Jew, ascribes the words he cites as belonging to Moses, is that not a form of internal validation that should be accounted for in scholarship?
This section should be retained in some form - even if it is listed as "religious arguments for Mosaic authorship" or something similar.
Also, you say that "the scholarly view is that Joshua is by the same author as Deuteronomy" which is funny seeing as there is a great deal of scholarly contention about this. You have to be careful in your presentation as well, as the scholarly disagreement about the authorship of the pentateuch is as widely divided as are religious views about the pentateuch. Benjaminmarsh 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added an admittedly rough section on Evangelical scholarly views. It bears noticing these arguments given the great deal of writing done on the issue by evangelical and jewish authors. Simply removing the arguments is not warranted. Benjaminmarsh 23:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, several months later & this section is still a steaming heap of completely OR and/or mis-cited crap. I'd suggest immediate cleanup or removal. Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Why was the section on structure removed?
Unfortunately I don't own a copy of the book but I know that the orthodox rabbi gives a extensive argument against the possibility of the Documentary Hypothesis. I gave a summary of the argument as I remember it. If any one has more exact quotes feel free to adjust. Benignuman 01:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted this edit from the subsection Israel and Yahweh: "This however is contradicted by verse 4:35 "You have been shown to know that the Lord is the God, there is none beside him" [1] as well as a similar 4:39 which seem to clearly and unambiguously state that there are no other gods." : yes, they express monotheism, more or less obviously (4:39 more so than 4:35): but it's not what this paragraph is about. It's about one specific verse, which is definitely monolatrous, and it's relevance to Deuteronomy's concept of Yahweh as the god of Israel. History, not theology, is the point. PiCo 06:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Are saying that since this quote reflects the secular scholarly consensus, you are putting it in the article even though it's a lie. Wouldn't it be prudent to find another quote which also reflects the consensus but isn't obviously not true?
I'm also confused about how this fits in with the composition section. There it says that Deuteronomy was "discovered" by King Josiah. He lived after the time of Isaiah so even according to the secular theory of the evolution of judaism, it makes sense that Deuteronomy would be monotheistic. Benignuman 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
32:8-9 as quoted in the article is a mistake. The verses actually read (I transalated as literally as possible) as follows: "When Supreme alotted nations, when he spread out children of man, he set the borders of peoples (or nations)to the number of Children of Israel. For the portion of The Lord (yhvh)is his people, Jacob the rope of his inheritance". This poetic verse makes no mention of other dieties at all, are we using a different text? It also uses the term Elyon not El Elyon.
While tortured reading can ignore the significance of 4:35 & 39. I think that the plain reading of the text (as well as the traditional understanding) indicates monotheism. In both verses the original hebrew is "Lord he is the God" "Yhvh hu HaElokhim". I agree that the echad in shema is ambigous. Traditionally it is understood to mean both singular and alone. But not alone in the temple which didn't exist yet rather alone in that it has no peer.
My knowledge of Isaiah is weak but I've always thought it weird that the mentioning of Cyrus garnered it a later date. Isaiah claims to be a prophet, the secular assumtion is clearly that prophecy doesn't exist. In other words (secular) biblical scholars have a priori dismissed the possibility of divine authorship. Benignuman 21:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert but I was under the immpression that there were various different versions of most of the books of the bible in the dss. I also recall reading that the majority were proto-masoretic. If only some of those scrolls have your version it makes your case a good deal weaker. Furthermore "angels of G-d" makes sense too and is still monotheistic (and fits 4:35. It also happens to be part of the tradition that each nation has an angel governing it and argueing for it before G-d. That being said ancient jewish commentaries have given explanations for the verse (which is poetic in nature) as well as explanations for the question Wellhausen raised about prior knowledge of G-d's name.
I wasn't advocating that everyone except without question that the bible is the word of G-d, but it sure makes a difference if it is or isn't and therefore an honest truth seeker should investigate both possibilities with an open mind and not just disregard one side a priori.
You might find it iteresting that our tradition views the idolatrous views of the Canaanites and the other middle eastern nations as being a corruption of the montheism that was originally known. Origins must come before meaning, it is the bedrock upon which rests everything else. Benignuman 20:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Kevin Bennett ekv ( talk) 01:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
There Is No Section of criticisms of deuteronomy.I Mean Like Rules Of War.For Example,Qur'an Criticism Is There Of It Being 'voilent' But There is nothing about Deuteronomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Actionfury199 ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
From Chronic2 ( talk) Except in one instance, this article is written with the viewpoint that all 'scholars' accept the Documentary hypothesis or some form of it for the origin of Deuteronomy. Just now (7 April 2009) I entered some alternative scholarship, but there is much more in this article that is from a biased POV and does not properly cite sources. Much has been published that refutes the ideas of Wellhausen and De Wette advocated in this article; where is there any representation of this scholarship, except in the one instance (uncited) of a scholar named Meredith Kline, who is condescendingly said to have "wished to restore the case for the book's Mosaic provenance," as if that had not been adequately defended by the highest level of scholarship ever since De Wette and Wellhausen promoted their theories? These theories were based on the presupposition that either God does not exist, or, if He does, He never intervenes in human history and the Pentateuch is one set of lies after another. Will the position of the abundance of alternative scholarship that does not agree with this viewpoint be allowed in this article, or will it be deleted by an unscrupulous editor as "tendentious"? Chronic2 ( talk) 17:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This paragraph was added a couple of years ago and didn't fit my rewrite. Maybe someone could rework it and integrate at a later stage for the sake of NPOV. -- Knobbly ( talk) 03:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Polytheism was a feature of Israelite religion down through the end of the Iron Age. [1] "[T]here is no clear and unambiguous denial [in the Hebrew bible] of the existence of gods other than YHWH before Deutero-Isaiah in the 6th century B.C. ... The question was not whether there is only one elohim [god], but whether there is any elohim like YHWH." [2]. The theological position underpinning Deuteronomy, according to this interpretation, is that YHWH is the patron god of Israel, as Chemosh was the patron of Moab and Marduk of Babylon: "When the Most High (" El Elyon") apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods, the Lord's ("YHWH's") own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share" (Deuteronomy 32:8-9).
I'm not sure how to go forward on this section because John McKenzie isn't making a direct comment about the book of Deuteronomy and Mark S. Smith is only making a general comment about Israel and not about the theological theme of YHWH in the book of Deuteronomy. So how about these two paragraphs?
Wright says "Deuteronomy is uncompromisingly, ruthlessly monotheistic." [3] The focus of most of the book is YHWH. Throughout Deuteronomy either his actions, attributes or purposes are in view. [4] To the exclusion, notes McConville, of other deities. [5] However some scholars assert Polytheism was a feature of Israelite religion down through the end of the Iron Age. [6] For example John McKenzie writes; "[T]here is no clear and unambiguous denial [in the Hebrew bible] of the existence of gods other than YHWH before Deutero-Isaiah in the 6th century B.C. ... The question was not whether there is only one elohim [god], but whether there is any elohim like YHWH." [7].
-- Knobbly ( talk) 14:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
(A great discussion.)
I'm glad you enjoy the discussion :). Getting back to the passage itself and how it fits into the overall article, I'll just paste it here so that I can make some comments:
(1) While some scholars such as Mark Smith assert polytheism was a feature of Israelite religion down through the end of the Iron Age. (2) The book of Deuteronomy presents only YHWH as the God of Israel and speaks against the worship of other gods. (3) For example in chapter 17 Israel is warned against worshiping the gods of other nations. (4) This focus on the exclusive worship of YWHW has lead some scholars such as Wright to say "Deuteronomy is uncompromisingly, ruthlessly monotheistic." (5) The focus of most of the book is YHWH. (6) Throughout Deuteronomy either his actions, attributes or purposes are in view. (7) To the exclusion, notes McConville, of other deities.
The first sentence seems to me to relate to composition rather than to theology and themes, which is the title of this overall section (the subsection is YHWH).
Sentences 2 and 3 could be combined - sentence 3 is simply restating the last part of sentence 2.
Sentence 4 I'm uneasy about - I believe Deuteronomy is about monolatry rather than monotheism. But I leave it to you - just look into the question of whether Wright represents the mainstream of modern thinking on the subject (he sounds rather evangelical to me, which is not a fault, but is certainly partisan - can you look up Wenham, who goes to considerable pains to be impartial despite his evangelical roots?)
Sentence 5 is true, but perhaps glosses over the way in which YHWH is the focus. YHWH is actually speaking! These are laws from God's own mouth (or whatever it is that equates thereto). Sentence similarly glosses over some interesting material - what exactly are these actions, attributes and purposes? The reader would like to be informed.
I'm not sure what sentence 7 and McConville are getting at - I'm not at all surprised that other gods don't figure in a book about YHWH and his laws and plans for his elected people, so why is this worth mentioning?
Hope this helps - don't feel obliged to change anything just because I've written here, I'd like to be at least as humble as Moses...a pride in humility, very dangerous! PiCo ( talk) 07:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moving per logical requested move with unanimous support.- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 15:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The Book of Deuteronomy → Book of Deuteronomy — Wikipedia:TITLE#Avoid_definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_the_start_of_names. Neon Merlin 00:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I have added a short, one line sentence stating the traditional view of the authorship of Deuteronomy. This is the second major view today, certainly a minority view, but I would estimate held by 25% of scholars. I also edited the critical scholarship view and made it to be about 4 times longer in content, than the traditional view. This is proper because it is more widely held today. SAE ( talk) 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This quote follows the statement that the shema yisrael is a significant verse.
"Another significant verse is Deuteronomy 22:20, which promotes the stoning to death of any woman who has sex before marriage: "But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought a wanton deed in Israel.""
The poster doesn't identify what makes this a significant verse. Do they mean that it is widely used or quoted verse, or that it is central to the message of the book or the identity of the Jewish people? Neither of these things is true, to the best of my knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.218.14 ( talk) 23:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Deuteronomy 22:20 is significant because it shows a glossing over by establishments which use Deuteronomy as an authoritative code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuzzletop ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I was forced to revert your recent change, as you gave no explanation or citations, and made no attempt to get consensus despite the controversial nature of your proposed change. This is your chance to explain and defend your view, but if you edit-war, I will report you and have you blocked from further editing. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 00:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I moved this from Contents (meaning the contents of the book) because it doesn't describe or summarise the contents of Deuteronomy. Nevertheless, the weekly torah portions are very important in Judaism, so I've moved it down to the Judaism section and given it a new subsection, under Shema. It needs some explanation - what are the portions, and why are they important in Judaism. PiCo ( talk) 01:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I found a part of Deuteronomy in the net, the english version is like this:
'She must marry the rapist, because he has violated her. And so long as he lives, he may not divorce her.'
but the portuguese version is diferent, and don't use the word rapist or rape, but is ambiguous enough. Any thoughts? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.241.255.250 ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 2 October 2007
"modern scholars now see its origins in traditions from Israel (the northern kingdom) brought south to the Kingdom of Judah in the wake of the Assyrian destruction of Samaria"
Saying that "modern scholars" believe something, is like saying "however top scientists now believe that this technique is no longer feasible."
On wikipedia I want to see sources, not "experts say" "top scientists agree" "according to modern scholars" and similar. -- 67.247.20.71 ( talk) 17:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2, the material is relevant to history, and is included in the relevant article(s). Deuteronomy is relevant to that history. But the history is not relevant to Deuteronomy. The point is that this article is about the book itself, its origins and writing, not about subsequent history, especially so long after its writing. That history also alleges a use by Muslims. Why is that relevant, when the Muslim scripture is the Quran? There is no material under a section "Influence on Islam", as there is for Christianity and Judaism? Is this material supposed to show that influence? Do Muslims continue to be influenced by any of the Pentateuch? These are questions that might fit into this article, but this material does not address them.
Why "alleged use"? The authors Peterson and Lings are prominent enough, but Peterson is a Mormon apologist; Lings was a Muslim himself. What is it about their writings that are merely allegations here, and how is this article to remain neutral or balanced? Yet for all of that, Peterson and Lings are mentioned in only one sentence out of three paragraphs on Muslim history, which is presented without further connection to Deuteronomy. As I have said, the material has its place, but as written here, its place is not in this article. Its relevance and connection to the book is not sufficiently supported or explained to merit anything like the volume presented here. Evensteven ( talk) 18:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
This article only included the positive aspects of this Biblical text. A lot of negative contents of this book has been left off. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 12:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The "Structure" section notes the opinion of Meredith Kline that the closest extrabiblical analogy for Deuteronomy is to be found in second-millennium Hittite treaties. This is a minority view (possibly a fringe view, but I'm not certain if it's quite fringe), and should be treated as such in the article. I may get to it, but I have other priorities here at the moment, especially given that pushing back against the POV expressed in the "Structure" section is likely to require very time-consuming discussion. Alephb ( talk) 07:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
After an unexplained edit by an IP address, a sentence in the lead reads as follows: "Traditionally seen as the words of Moses delivered before the conquest of Canaan, some modern scholars now see its origins in traditions from Israel (the northern kingdom) brought south to the Kingdom of Judah in the wake of the Assyrian conquest of Aram (8th century BC) and then adapted to a program of nationalist reform in the time of Josiah (late 7th century BC), with the final form of the modern book emerging in the milieu of the return from the Babylonian captivity during the late 6th century BC." Where it now reads "some scholars," the page previously read "modern scholarship." So the question is this -- do we characterize the modern interpretation described as something on which scholarship is unanimous, or as simply an opinion of some scholars? Only one source is cited to support this sentence, which is a commentary by Rogerson. I looked up the appropriate place in Rogerson's commentary, and he describes this modern view as a "broad consensus." Se we should not downgrade the view to a mere "some scholars" unless there is some compelling evidence given, in the form of a citation, which shows that Rogerson is overestimating scholarly support for the position. On the other hand, there may be something legitimate in the anonymous editor's concern about this modern view being described as unanimous, when Rogerson does not quite describe it that way. I will make an edit that conforms the sentence as closely as possible to the source it cites. Alephb ( talk) 19:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
User Korvex wishes to add a paragraph on the view that Deuteronomy reflects a Hittite (15th century BCE) treaty structure. He ascribes this view to Meredith Kline, which is fair enough though Kline wasn't the only one to hold it. Nevertheless, it doesn't belong in our article. Kline's book came out in 1963, which is to say getting on for half a century ago. Scholarship has moved on since then, and it's now accepted by the majority of scholars that the closer parallel is to Assyrian treaties of the mid-1st millennium.
Kline's conclusion back in 1963 was that Deuteronomy was evidence of a historical Moses, and that this Moses, living in the mid-2nd millennium, was indeed the author of Deuteronomy and of the Torah. In this he was arguing against the conclusion of source criticism, which was that the Torah had many authors and that its composition took place over many centuries. It was, in short, an ultra-conservative position. Today the standard theory (and I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it's standard) is that the Torah began with the Book of Deuteronomy and that the preceding books were written substantially in the post-Exilic period (although with sources reaching back to the monarchic period). Deuteronomy itself, the first book written, had a long and complicated history, but began with some form of vassal treaty in the period of the kingdom of Israel in Assyrian times. One reason leading to this conclusion is that the structure resembles Assyrian treaties more closely than Hittite ones.
The current consensus is described in Rogerson's contribution on Deuteronomy in Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible, edited by James Dunn. This is the one we quote in our article, so I won't repeat it, but I want to point out that Rogerson does explicitly describe this as a consensus. So Kline's (quite old now) identification of a Hittite model is outside that consensus. I believe that our article reflects the current state of scholarship, and that mention of Kline's suggestion (with its overtone of a historical Moses) is therefore unwarranted. PiCo ( talk) 02:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Deuteronomy is supposed to be the oldest book in the Biblical canon? Curious. I was aware of its central significance, but most sources associate it with the reign of Josiah (c. 641-609 BC). Some of the Books attributed to prophets seem to be older. For example, part of the Book of Isaiah (the first 39 chapters) may have been written in the 8th century BC and it describes Assyria as an enemy power.:
"the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria."... "behold, the Lord brings upon them the mighty flood waters of the River: the king of Assyria and all his glory. It will come up over all its channels, and go over all its banks" Dimadick ( talk) 22:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Given that this article covers a topic that is of significance to both academic scholars, Christians and Jews, should not the dating reflect the more neutral and scholarly BCE rather than the current BC? BibleScholar ( talk) 21:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
/info/en/?search=Book_of_Deuteronomy
This page uses the word 'Yahweh' instead of the neutral, standard English 'God'. The term Yahweh is at best a very inaccurate transliteration of the Hebrew Tetragrammatan יהוה. It is not the standard English word for the monotheistic Deity. Which would be God. When I made the edit, with thorough explanation, I received a response from the re-editor "we can't pander to every religion". I find it odd that the person demanding non-standard usage, presumably because of their religious beliefs, is accusing me or demanding "pandering to a specific religion" by using a standard neutral English word. Personally I would prefer that 'G-d' be used, because I am an Orthodox Jew and that is our usage. But I know it is not standard English, so I don't demand that it is used. Similarly we are not going to write in English language articles; 'HaShem', 'Allah' or any other religion specific terms. The same standard should be applied in this, and all similar English language articles. Thank you, Moshe Kalonymus Fink MosheKalonymusFinkTsfas@GMail.com 185.32.177.161 ( talk) 15:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
"YHWH" would be acceptable in place of Yahweh. "God" is not acceptable because it carries a baggage of implicit assumptions about the nature of the deity concerned - the authors of Deuteronomy didn't conceive of YHWH as we do of God. PiCo ( talk) 00:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) 80.246.137.48 ( talk) 18:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "God" is not acceptable because it carries a baggage of implicit assumptions about the nature of the deity concerned What would those assumptions be about the word G-d? Regarding "YH-WH" as acceptable: Within the Book of Devarim / Deuteronomy even the literal "יהןה" which you are transliterating as which is complete incorrect, and the corresponding slightly better "YH-VH" is not the only name of G-d used. Perhaps this is where some people come up with inaccurate claims of polytheism. It is accepted in Rabbinical literature that each of these names reflects a different "aspect" of G-d. Metaphorically, G-d is white light coming through a prism refracted in to the primary colors, in this metaphor the colors ROYGBIV represent how G-d is perceived by people. The aspect of an all giving G-d represented in "YH-VH", and the aspect of strong discipline of "Ado-nai", etc. To give over all of this in this article would be overly lengthy, and unnecessary. To use "YHVH" which makes the assertion that there is one manifestation is equally misleading. The English language word G-d makes the assumption of a monothestic G-d, without the manifestations or G-d being specified. This neutrality serves the needs of this article quite well. @ Moshe Kalonymus Fink"
On the internet there are a lot of suggestions that Deuteronomy involved genocide. In some form the article must be changed to note this claim and deal with it. The current failure to do that is a very serious flawin the article. Therefore i will put up cleanup tag. 73.131.211.85 ( talk) 05:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The opening text appears to present the text at face value. Yet the article itself links to a page that casts grave doubt on the text being a historical account. /info/en/?search=Moses#Historicity
92.22.40.187 ( talk) 19:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
While this article does have a couple references for its claim that there is a "broad consensus" that Deuteronomy began to be written in the northern kingdom in the 8th century BCE, and was then fleshed out during the reforms of King Josiah in the 7th century BCE, it seems highly dubious to me that there is actually a solid "consensus" on this as of 2019. I've been doing a lot of research for an upcoming article on the composition of the Torah, and it seems that numerous scholars, possibly a majority, now reject the idea of it having roots in the northern kingdom. The earliest date that is commonly considered for Deuteronomy is during the time of Josiah, with many authors dating it to the Persian period (e.g. Philip R. Davies) or even the Hellenistic period (Russell Gmirkin, Niels Peter Lemche, Philippe Wajdenbaum). As soon as I get the time I'll try to update the page with more recent scholarship. Montgolfière ( talk) 23:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Editor2020: Ah thanks for fixing that, I mistook my source a bit (Van der Toorn, Karel (2007). "Authorship in Antiquity: Practice and Perception". Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Harvard University Press. p. 34.). I feel like this might need an additional citation though since Bos 2013, p. 133 only indirectly mentions Mosaic authorship. Oeqtte [t] 01:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
If this article were called "Devarim", it should be as it is now. But it's called "Deuteronomy". That's Greek, as in the Septuagint, which hasn't been recognised by Judaism for a while now (go ahead, count the millennia), but is the base of the Christian Old Testament. So it's about the fifth book of the Old Testament, or the "Fifth Book of Moses". This I call article highjacking. One can write & edit a humongous article on Devarim, and add a paragraph on Deuteronomy, or exile it to a stub and connect it under "See also". But, shalom haverim, one cannot highjack articles like this. Even if yeshiveh students seem to be by far more active with editing Wiki than the various strains of seminarists of the world. It's called chutzpeh and worse. But this won't stop you. Arminden ( talk) 21:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Card-carrying: If we make abstraction of the narrator's voice, the narratives of the Bible are dystheism.
Otherwise, while ethnic feuds were rather common, the genocides described in the Bible are mostly imaginary. And they did not commit genocides for a simple reason: for most of the Antiquity, the Jews were oppressed rather than oppressors. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if that's the best translation. 'Devar' is a tricky word to translate, but I haven't heard of it translated as such. Could it be that the author what confusing it with 'Shemot' (Exodus), which is indeed translated as names? I think a better translation would be "Words" or "Speeches", or maybe even "Things". What's important to keep in mind is that readings and books are usually given their names from one of the first words of the first verse of that area, and for Devarim that would be the second word of the first verse of the first chapter of the book. That means that in context ( https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9965#v1) it would probably be more accurate to translate it to the words I have listed above. If I'm mistaken here then please excuse me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BytDwd ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC) -- BytDwd ( talk) 12:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)BytDwd
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Where did this number come from? Does this discount evangelical scholars? If you want to say "many secular and liberal Biblical scholars..." that is fine, but 90% is just a made-up number Benjaminmarsh 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
A book-- without a page number or quote-- is not even a source. Please include one or the other-- or both. You, PiCo, seem to be saying that the entire Torah and Judiasm itself was created wholesale by a priest in the time of king Josiah. I would be very surprised if John Rogerson, or any other RS, hold this view. If you have a different view then feel free to clarify. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 01:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to Rogerson's single volume commentry but it only tells me I have exceeded my allowed number of pages already. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 17:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the name of this article does not start with "Book of"? All the other articles in the Old Testament category start that way, except for four of the five books of the Torah. If there are no objections, I'll have it changed.
Death of moses should that be an article, along with death of Aaron?
Deuteronomy 6.4|9 is hugely important in both Jewish and Christian theology (the source of Jesus' 'Greatest Commandment'). Is the focus of this article such that the inclusion of information on the shema` would be inappropriate? If not, I think that it's sorely missed. Tmargheim 03:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone has written in the modern critical analysis section: "Similarly the language within the discourse refers to the land east of the Jordan as being on the other side of the Jordan, implying the author is on the west of the Jordan, a location that Moses supposedly never entered as punishment for smashing the first set of tablets to hold the Ethical Decalogue." I can see no proof of this in reading the book itself and indeed the phase "other side of the Jordan" can I find nowhere and any time "east of the jordan" is used it refers to where they where at the time not in referece to where they were not. Eleutherius 23:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thank you for clarifying. Im still a bit confused though. why is "beyond the jordon" imply the writer is not? i guess i understand why , but i dont see the certainty.. Eleutherius 11:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the section headed Aplogetics. I'm pasting it in here, with an explanation of why I removed it. The section is:
Most Orthodox Judaism scholars and Jews and many evangelical Christians believe, despite the ideas raised by the Talmudic rabbis, that the original author of the book was Moses, and that the book really was lost and recovered (e.g. [1]). Their apologetics argues that:
*The frequent references to it in the later books of the canon ( Joshua 8:31; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Chronicles 23:18; 2 Chronicles 25:4; 2 Chronicles 34:14; Ezra 3:2; Ezra 7:6; Nehemiah 8:1; Daniel 9:11–13) prove its antiquity. *Orthodox Jews point to testimony, within the Mishnah and Talmud, that Moses authored nearly all of Deuteronomy. *Christians identify further testimony of Mosaic authorship from the New Testament. Matthew 19:7–8, Mark 10:3–4, John 5:46–47, Acts 3:22 and Acts 7:37, and Romans 10:19, all establish the same conclusion.
The problem with this is that it's unscholarly, and spoils what is essentially quite a good and informative article. But to explain what I mean by unscholarly: Leaving aside the question of Orthodox Jewish scholars, the beliefs of "most Jews and many evangelical Christians" are immaterial when it comes to deciding whether or not Moses wrote Deuteronomy. If they haven't studied the scholarly debate, their opinions are uninformed. The problems of uninformed opinion are apparent from this section. It says, for example, that the book "claims to have ben written by Moses": it doesn't, in fact. What it does say is that Moses wrote a "scroll of torah" which was kept beside the Ark of the Covenant. This scroll is presumably the law-code contained in Deuteronomy, not the whole collection of 5 scrolls making up the modern Torah. And what weight are we toi give thios statement in Deuteronomy? This is where the whole scholarly debate begins: is Deuteronomy telling the truth or not? Maybe yes, maybe no, but to say that Deuternomomy must be telling the truth because it's in the bibler is a religious argument, not a scholarly one. Similarly, it says there are frequent references to the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy in "later books", and then cites Joshua - quite unaware that the scholarly view is that Joshua is by the same author as Deuteronomy. That view may be right or wrong, but the person who wrote this section was obviously unaware that it existed. Worse, it cites the views of New Testament writers as authoritative - but this is a religious argument, not a scholarly one. (Matthew may be authoritative on early Christian theology, but not on matters of OT scholarship). So for all these reasons and more, I'm deleting the section. PiCo 10:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
PiCo -
Deleting this is somewhat presumptive - it does need to be cleaned up, agreed, but that does not necessarily mean that the beliefs of Jews and evangelicals are immaterial when deciding whether or not Moses wrote Deuteronomy for it is exactly those people that claim to be inheritents of that religious tradition. This is a broader question of the value of traditional interpretations versus later scholarship and is not one to be addressed here by deleting the section. Why is it that when we look at the validity of early manuscripts (ie Homer, Roman religious manuscripts), scholars will look down the road at later translations and interpretations within the tradition to decide how an earlier manuscript might have been read or used but the same sense of the value of the internal traditional understanding is completely rejected when it comes to Christianity and Judaism. If Christ, himself a Jew, ascribes the words he cites as belonging to Moses, is that not a form of internal validation that should be accounted for in scholarship?
This section should be retained in some form - even if it is listed as "religious arguments for Mosaic authorship" or something similar.
Also, you say that "the scholarly view is that Joshua is by the same author as Deuteronomy" which is funny seeing as there is a great deal of scholarly contention about this. You have to be careful in your presentation as well, as the scholarly disagreement about the authorship of the pentateuch is as widely divided as are religious views about the pentateuch. Benjaminmarsh 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added an admittedly rough section on Evangelical scholarly views. It bears noticing these arguments given the great deal of writing done on the issue by evangelical and jewish authors. Simply removing the arguments is not warranted. Benjaminmarsh 23:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, several months later & this section is still a steaming heap of completely OR and/or mis-cited crap. I'd suggest immediate cleanup or removal. Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Why was the section on structure removed?
Unfortunately I don't own a copy of the book but I know that the orthodox rabbi gives a extensive argument against the possibility of the Documentary Hypothesis. I gave a summary of the argument as I remember it. If any one has more exact quotes feel free to adjust. Benignuman 01:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted this edit from the subsection Israel and Yahweh: "This however is contradicted by verse 4:35 "You have been shown to know that the Lord is the God, there is none beside him" [1] as well as a similar 4:39 which seem to clearly and unambiguously state that there are no other gods." : yes, they express monotheism, more or less obviously (4:39 more so than 4:35): but it's not what this paragraph is about. It's about one specific verse, which is definitely monolatrous, and it's relevance to Deuteronomy's concept of Yahweh as the god of Israel. History, not theology, is the point. PiCo 06:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Are saying that since this quote reflects the secular scholarly consensus, you are putting it in the article even though it's a lie. Wouldn't it be prudent to find another quote which also reflects the consensus but isn't obviously not true?
I'm also confused about how this fits in with the composition section. There it says that Deuteronomy was "discovered" by King Josiah. He lived after the time of Isaiah so even according to the secular theory of the evolution of judaism, it makes sense that Deuteronomy would be monotheistic. Benignuman 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
32:8-9 as quoted in the article is a mistake. The verses actually read (I transalated as literally as possible) as follows: "When Supreme alotted nations, when he spread out children of man, he set the borders of peoples (or nations)to the number of Children of Israel. For the portion of The Lord (yhvh)is his people, Jacob the rope of his inheritance". This poetic verse makes no mention of other dieties at all, are we using a different text? It also uses the term Elyon not El Elyon.
While tortured reading can ignore the significance of 4:35 & 39. I think that the plain reading of the text (as well as the traditional understanding) indicates monotheism. In both verses the original hebrew is "Lord he is the God" "Yhvh hu HaElokhim". I agree that the echad in shema is ambigous. Traditionally it is understood to mean both singular and alone. But not alone in the temple which didn't exist yet rather alone in that it has no peer.
My knowledge of Isaiah is weak but I've always thought it weird that the mentioning of Cyrus garnered it a later date. Isaiah claims to be a prophet, the secular assumtion is clearly that prophecy doesn't exist. In other words (secular) biblical scholars have a priori dismissed the possibility of divine authorship. Benignuman 21:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert but I was under the immpression that there were various different versions of most of the books of the bible in the dss. I also recall reading that the majority were proto-masoretic. If only some of those scrolls have your version it makes your case a good deal weaker. Furthermore "angels of G-d" makes sense too and is still monotheistic (and fits 4:35. It also happens to be part of the tradition that each nation has an angel governing it and argueing for it before G-d. That being said ancient jewish commentaries have given explanations for the verse (which is poetic in nature) as well as explanations for the question Wellhausen raised about prior knowledge of G-d's name.
I wasn't advocating that everyone except without question that the bible is the word of G-d, but it sure makes a difference if it is or isn't and therefore an honest truth seeker should investigate both possibilities with an open mind and not just disregard one side a priori.
You might find it iteresting that our tradition views the idolatrous views of the Canaanites and the other middle eastern nations as being a corruption of the montheism that was originally known. Origins must come before meaning, it is the bedrock upon which rests everything else. Benignuman 20:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Kevin Bennett ekv ( talk) 01:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
There Is No Section of criticisms of deuteronomy.I Mean Like Rules Of War.For Example,Qur'an Criticism Is There Of It Being 'voilent' But There is nothing about Deuteronomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Actionfury199 ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
From Chronic2 ( talk) Except in one instance, this article is written with the viewpoint that all 'scholars' accept the Documentary hypothesis or some form of it for the origin of Deuteronomy. Just now (7 April 2009) I entered some alternative scholarship, but there is much more in this article that is from a biased POV and does not properly cite sources. Much has been published that refutes the ideas of Wellhausen and De Wette advocated in this article; where is there any representation of this scholarship, except in the one instance (uncited) of a scholar named Meredith Kline, who is condescendingly said to have "wished to restore the case for the book's Mosaic provenance," as if that had not been adequately defended by the highest level of scholarship ever since De Wette and Wellhausen promoted their theories? These theories were based on the presupposition that either God does not exist, or, if He does, He never intervenes in human history and the Pentateuch is one set of lies after another. Will the position of the abundance of alternative scholarship that does not agree with this viewpoint be allowed in this article, or will it be deleted by an unscrupulous editor as "tendentious"? Chronic2 ( talk) 17:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This paragraph was added a couple of years ago and didn't fit my rewrite. Maybe someone could rework it and integrate at a later stage for the sake of NPOV. -- Knobbly ( talk) 03:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Polytheism was a feature of Israelite religion down through the end of the Iron Age. [1] "[T]here is no clear and unambiguous denial [in the Hebrew bible] of the existence of gods other than YHWH before Deutero-Isaiah in the 6th century B.C. ... The question was not whether there is only one elohim [god], but whether there is any elohim like YHWH." [2]. The theological position underpinning Deuteronomy, according to this interpretation, is that YHWH is the patron god of Israel, as Chemosh was the patron of Moab and Marduk of Babylon: "When the Most High (" El Elyon") apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods, the Lord's ("YHWH's") own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share" (Deuteronomy 32:8-9).
I'm not sure how to go forward on this section because John McKenzie isn't making a direct comment about the book of Deuteronomy and Mark S. Smith is only making a general comment about Israel and not about the theological theme of YHWH in the book of Deuteronomy. So how about these two paragraphs?
Wright says "Deuteronomy is uncompromisingly, ruthlessly monotheistic." [3] The focus of most of the book is YHWH. Throughout Deuteronomy either his actions, attributes or purposes are in view. [4] To the exclusion, notes McConville, of other deities. [5] However some scholars assert Polytheism was a feature of Israelite religion down through the end of the Iron Age. [6] For example John McKenzie writes; "[T]here is no clear and unambiguous denial [in the Hebrew bible] of the existence of gods other than YHWH before Deutero-Isaiah in the 6th century B.C. ... The question was not whether there is only one elohim [god], but whether there is any elohim like YHWH." [7].
-- Knobbly ( talk) 14:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
(A great discussion.)
I'm glad you enjoy the discussion :). Getting back to the passage itself and how it fits into the overall article, I'll just paste it here so that I can make some comments:
(1) While some scholars such as Mark Smith assert polytheism was a feature of Israelite religion down through the end of the Iron Age. (2) The book of Deuteronomy presents only YHWH as the God of Israel and speaks against the worship of other gods. (3) For example in chapter 17 Israel is warned against worshiping the gods of other nations. (4) This focus on the exclusive worship of YWHW has lead some scholars such as Wright to say "Deuteronomy is uncompromisingly, ruthlessly monotheistic." (5) The focus of most of the book is YHWH. (6) Throughout Deuteronomy either his actions, attributes or purposes are in view. (7) To the exclusion, notes McConville, of other deities.
The first sentence seems to me to relate to composition rather than to theology and themes, which is the title of this overall section (the subsection is YHWH).
Sentences 2 and 3 could be combined - sentence 3 is simply restating the last part of sentence 2.
Sentence 4 I'm uneasy about - I believe Deuteronomy is about monolatry rather than monotheism. But I leave it to you - just look into the question of whether Wright represents the mainstream of modern thinking on the subject (he sounds rather evangelical to me, which is not a fault, but is certainly partisan - can you look up Wenham, who goes to considerable pains to be impartial despite his evangelical roots?)
Sentence 5 is true, but perhaps glosses over the way in which YHWH is the focus. YHWH is actually speaking! These are laws from God's own mouth (or whatever it is that equates thereto). Sentence similarly glosses over some interesting material - what exactly are these actions, attributes and purposes? The reader would like to be informed.
I'm not sure what sentence 7 and McConville are getting at - I'm not at all surprised that other gods don't figure in a book about YHWH and his laws and plans for his elected people, so why is this worth mentioning?
Hope this helps - don't feel obliged to change anything just because I've written here, I'd like to be at least as humble as Moses...a pride in humility, very dangerous! PiCo ( talk) 07:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moving per logical requested move with unanimous support.- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 15:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The Book of Deuteronomy → Book of Deuteronomy — Wikipedia:TITLE#Avoid_definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_the_start_of_names. Neon Merlin 00:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I have added a short, one line sentence stating the traditional view of the authorship of Deuteronomy. This is the second major view today, certainly a minority view, but I would estimate held by 25% of scholars. I also edited the critical scholarship view and made it to be about 4 times longer in content, than the traditional view. This is proper because it is more widely held today. SAE ( talk) 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This quote follows the statement that the shema yisrael is a significant verse.
"Another significant verse is Deuteronomy 22:20, which promotes the stoning to death of any woman who has sex before marriage: "But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought a wanton deed in Israel.""
The poster doesn't identify what makes this a significant verse. Do they mean that it is widely used or quoted verse, or that it is central to the message of the book or the identity of the Jewish people? Neither of these things is true, to the best of my knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.218.14 ( talk) 23:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Deuteronomy 22:20 is significant because it shows a glossing over by establishments which use Deuteronomy as an authoritative code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuzzletop ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I was forced to revert your recent change, as you gave no explanation or citations, and made no attempt to get consensus despite the controversial nature of your proposed change. This is your chance to explain and defend your view, but if you edit-war, I will report you and have you blocked from further editing. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 00:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I moved this from Contents (meaning the contents of the book) because it doesn't describe or summarise the contents of Deuteronomy. Nevertheless, the weekly torah portions are very important in Judaism, so I've moved it down to the Judaism section and given it a new subsection, under Shema. It needs some explanation - what are the portions, and why are they important in Judaism. PiCo ( talk) 01:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I found a part of Deuteronomy in the net, the english version is like this:
'She must marry the rapist, because he has violated her. And so long as he lives, he may not divorce her.'
but the portuguese version is diferent, and don't use the word rapist or rape, but is ambiguous enough. Any thoughts? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.241.255.250 ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 2 October 2007
"modern scholars now see its origins in traditions from Israel (the northern kingdom) brought south to the Kingdom of Judah in the wake of the Assyrian destruction of Samaria"
Saying that "modern scholars" believe something, is like saying "however top scientists now believe that this technique is no longer feasible."
On wikipedia I want to see sources, not "experts say" "top scientists agree" "according to modern scholars" and similar. -- 67.247.20.71 ( talk) 17:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2, the material is relevant to history, and is included in the relevant article(s). Deuteronomy is relevant to that history. But the history is not relevant to Deuteronomy. The point is that this article is about the book itself, its origins and writing, not about subsequent history, especially so long after its writing. That history also alleges a use by Muslims. Why is that relevant, when the Muslim scripture is the Quran? There is no material under a section "Influence on Islam", as there is for Christianity and Judaism? Is this material supposed to show that influence? Do Muslims continue to be influenced by any of the Pentateuch? These are questions that might fit into this article, but this material does not address them.
Why "alleged use"? The authors Peterson and Lings are prominent enough, but Peterson is a Mormon apologist; Lings was a Muslim himself. What is it about their writings that are merely allegations here, and how is this article to remain neutral or balanced? Yet for all of that, Peterson and Lings are mentioned in only one sentence out of three paragraphs on Muslim history, which is presented without further connection to Deuteronomy. As I have said, the material has its place, but as written here, its place is not in this article. Its relevance and connection to the book is not sufficiently supported or explained to merit anything like the volume presented here. Evensteven ( talk) 18:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
This article only included the positive aspects of this Biblical text. A lot of negative contents of this book has been left off. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 12:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The "Structure" section notes the opinion of Meredith Kline that the closest extrabiblical analogy for Deuteronomy is to be found in second-millennium Hittite treaties. This is a minority view (possibly a fringe view, but I'm not certain if it's quite fringe), and should be treated as such in the article. I may get to it, but I have other priorities here at the moment, especially given that pushing back against the POV expressed in the "Structure" section is likely to require very time-consuming discussion. Alephb ( talk) 07:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
After an unexplained edit by an IP address, a sentence in the lead reads as follows: "Traditionally seen as the words of Moses delivered before the conquest of Canaan, some modern scholars now see its origins in traditions from Israel (the northern kingdom) brought south to the Kingdom of Judah in the wake of the Assyrian conquest of Aram (8th century BC) and then adapted to a program of nationalist reform in the time of Josiah (late 7th century BC), with the final form of the modern book emerging in the milieu of the return from the Babylonian captivity during the late 6th century BC." Where it now reads "some scholars," the page previously read "modern scholarship." So the question is this -- do we characterize the modern interpretation described as something on which scholarship is unanimous, or as simply an opinion of some scholars? Only one source is cited to support this sentence, which is a commentary by Rogerson. I looked up the appropriate place in Rogerson's commentary, and he describes this modern view as a "broad consensus." Se we should not downgrade the view to a mere "some scholars" unless there is some compelling evidence given, in the form of a citation, which shows that Rogerson is overestimating scholarly support for the position. On the other hand, there may be something legitimate in the anonymous editor's concern about this modern view being described as unanimous, when Rogerson does not quite describe it that way. I will make an edit that conforms the sentence as closely as possible to the source it cites. Alephb ( talk) 19:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
User Korvex wishes to add a paragraph on the view that Deuteronomy reflects a Hittite (15th century BCE) treaty structure. He ascribes this view to Meredith Kline, which is fair enough though Kline wasn't the only one to hold it. Nevertheless, it doesn't belong in our article. Kline's book came out in 1963, which is to say getting on for half a century ago. Scholarship has moved on since then, and it's now accepted by the majority of scholars that the closer parallel is to Assyrian treaties of the mid-1st millennium.
Kline's conclusion back in 1963 was that Deuteronomy was evidence of a historical Moses, and that this Moses, living in the mid-2nd millennium, was indeed the author of Deuteronomy and of the Torah. In this he was arguing against the conclusion of source criticism, which was that the Torah had many authors and that its composition took place over many centuries. It was, in short, an ultra-conservative position. Today the standard theory (and I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it's standard) is that the Torah began with the Book of Deuteronomy and that the preceding books were written substantially in the post-Exilic period (although with sources reaching back to the monarchic period). Deuteronomy itself, the first book written, had a long and complicated history, but began with some form of vassal treaty in the period of the kingdom of Israel in Assyrian times. One reason leading to this conclusion is that the structure resembles Assyrian treaties more closely than Hittite ones.
The current consensus is described in Rogerson's contribution on Deuteronomy in Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible, edited by James Dunn. This is the one we quote in our article, so I won't repeat it, but I want to point out that Rogerson does explicitly describe this as a consensus. So Kline's (quite old now) identification of a Hittite model is outside that consensus. I believe that our article reflects the current state of scholarship, and that mention of Kline's suggestion (with its overtone of a historical Moses) is therefore unwarranted. PiCo ( talk) 02:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Deuteronomy is supposed to be the oldest book in the Biblical canon? Curious. I was aware of its central significance, but most sources associate it with the reign of Josiah (c. 641-609 BC). Some of the Books attributed to prophets seem to be older. For example, part of the Book of Isaiah (the first 39 chapters) may have been written in the 8th century BC and it describes Assyria as an enemy power.:
"the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria."... "behold, the Lord brings upon them the mighty flood waters of the River: the king of Assyria and all his glory. It will come up over all its channels, and go over all its banks" Dimadick ( talk) 22:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Given that this article covers a topic that is of significance to both academic scholars, Christians and Jews, should not the dating reflect the more neutral and scholarly BCE rather than the current BC? BibleScholar ( talk) 21:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
/info/en/?search=Book_of_Deuteronomy
This page uses the word 'Yahweh' instead of the neutral, standard English 'God'. The term Yahweh is at best a very inaccurate transliteration of the Hebrew Tetragrammatan יהוה. It is not the standard English word for the monotheistic Deity. Which would be God. When I made the edit, with thorough explanation, I received a response from the re-editor "we can't pander to every religion". I find it odd that the person demanding non-standard usage, presumably because of their religious beliefs, is accusing me or demanding "pandering to a specific religion" by using a standard neutral English word. Personally I would prefer that 'G-d' be used, because I am an Orthodox Jew and that is our usage. But I know it is not standard English, so I don't demand that it is used. Similarly we are not going to write in English language articles; 'HaShem', 'Allah' or any other religion specific terms. The same standard should be applied in this, and all similar English language articles. Thank you, Moshe Kalonymus Fink MosheKalonymusFinkTsfas@GMail.com 185.32.177.161 ( talk) 15:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
"YHWH" would be acceptable in place of Yahweh. "God" is not acceptable because it carries a baggage of implicit assumptions about the nature of the deity concerned - the authors of Deuteronomy didn't conceive of YHWH as we do of God. PiCo ( talk) 00:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) 80.246.137.48 ( talk) 18:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "God" is not acceptable because it carries a baggage of implicit assumptions about the nature of the deity concerned What would those assumptions be about the word G-d? Regarding "YH-WH" as acceptable: Within the Book of Devarim / Deuteronomy even the literal "יהןה" which you are transliterating as which is complete incorrect, and the corresponding slightly better "YH-VH" is not the only name of G-d used. Perhaps this is where some people come up with inaccurate claims of polytheism. It is accepted in Rabbinical literature that each of these names reflects a different "aspect" of G-d. Metaphorically, G-d is white light coming through a prism refracted in to the primary colors, in this metaphor the colors ROYGBIV represent how G-d is perceived by people. The aspect of an all giving G-d represented in "YH-VH", and the aspect of strong discipline of "Ado-nai", etc. To give over all of this in this article would be overly lengthy, and unnecessary. To use "YHVH" which makes the assertion that there is one manifestation is equally misleading. The English language word G-d makes the assumption of a monothestic G-d, without the manifestations or G-d being specified. This neutrality serves the needs of this article quite well. @ Moshe Kalonymus Fink"
On the internet there are a lot of suggestions that Deuteronomy involved genocide. In some form the article must be changed to note this claim and deal with it. The current failure to do that is a very serious flawin the article. Therefore i will put up cleanup tag. 73.131.211.85 ( talk) 05:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The opening text appears to present the text at face value. Yet the article itself links to a page that casts grave doubt on the text being a historical account. /info/en/?search=Moses#Historicity
92.22.40.187 ( talk) 19:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
While this article does have a couple references for its claim that there is a "broad consensus" that Deuteronomy began to be written in the northern kingdom in the 8th century BCE, and was then fleshed out during the reforms of King Josiah in the 7th century BCE, it seems highly dubious to me that there is actually a solid "consensus" on this as of 2019. I've been doing a lot of research for an upcoming article on the composition of the Torah, and it seems that numerous scholars, possibly a majority, now reject the idea of it having roots in the northern kingdom. The earliest date that is commonly considered for Deuteronomy is during the time of Josiah, with many authors dating it to the Persian period (e.g. Philip R. Davies) or even the Hellenistic period (Russell Gmirkin, Niels Peter Lemche, Philippe Wajdenbaum). As soon as I get the time I'll try to update the page with more recent scholarship. Montgolfière ( talk) 23:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Editor2020: Ah thanks for fixing that, I mistook my source a bit (Van der Toorn, Karel (2007). "Authorship in Antiquity: Practice and Perception". Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Harvard University Press. p. 34.). I feel like this might need an additional citation though since Bos 2013, p. 133 only indirectly mentions Mosaic authorship. Oeqtte [t] 01:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
If this article were called "Devarim", it should be as it is now. But it's called "Deuteronomy". That's Greek, as in the Septuagint, which hasn't been recognised by Judaism for a while now (go ahead, count the millennia), but is the base of the Christian Old Testament. So it's about the fifth book of the Old Testament, or the "Fifth Book of Moses". This I call article highjacking. One can write & edit a humongous article on Devarim, and add a paragraph on Deuteronomy, or exile it to a stub and connect it under "See also". But, shalom haverim, one cannot highjack articles like this. Even if yeshiveh students seem to be by far more active with editing Wiki than the various strains of seminarists of the world. It's called chutzpeh and worse. But this won't stop you. Arminden ( talk) 21:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Card-carrying: If we make abstraction of the narrator's voice, the narratives of the Bible are dystheism.
Otherwise, while ethnic feuds were rather common, the genocides described in the Bible are mostly imaginary. And they did not commit genocides for a simple reason: for most of the Antiquity, the Jews were oppressed rather than oppressors. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if that's the best translation. 'Devar' is a tricky word to translate, but I haven't heard of it translated as such. Could it be that the author what confusing it with 'Shemot' (Exodus), which is indeed translated as names? I think a better translation would be "Words" or "Speeches", or maybe even "Things". What's important to keep in mind is that readings and books are usually given their names from one of the first words of the first verse of that area, and for Devarim that would be the second word of the first verse of the first chapter of the book. That means that in context ( https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9965#v1) it would probably be more accurate to translate it to the words I have listed above. If I'm mistaken here then please excuse me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BytDwd ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC) -- BytDwd ( talk) 12:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)BytDwd