Talk:Torah

Talk:Torah

Sock edits

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

Torah and Pentateuch

Latest comment: 1 year ago17 comments4 people in discussion

As I've indicated via my edit summaries, the idea that "Pentateuch" is a Christian name is without foundation. It's an entirely neutral name. Torah and Pentateuch are not even necessarily the same thing, see e.g. Knoppers, Gary N. and Levinson, Bernard M.. The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, University Park, USA: Penn State University Press, 2007. https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1515/9781575065854 . The blurb of this scholarly book: Since antiquity, the five books of Moses have served as a sacred constitution, foundational for both Jews and Samaritans. However long the process of accepting the Pentateuch as authoritative tōrâ (“instruction”) took, this was by all accounts a monumental achievement in the history of these peoples and indeed an important moment in the history of the ancient world. In the long development of Western societies, the Pentateuch has served as a major influence on the development of law, political philosophy, and social thought. The question is: how, where, and why did this process of acceptance occur, when did it occur, and how long did it take? On the other hand, both Ngram and Google scholar seem to confirm that there are more hits for "Torah". I suspect that we would need to ask someone actually versed in the scholarly literature to give a definitive statement on which is more common and in what sense.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Another source, Burge, Stephen R., Elliott, Mark, Gertz, Jan Christian, Klumpenhouwer, Samuel and Sweeney, Marvin A.. "Pentateuch". Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception Online, edited by Constance M. Furey, Peter Gemeinhardt, Joel Marcus LeMon, Thomas Chr. Römer, Jens Schröter, Barry Dov Walfish and Eric Ziolkowski. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2024. https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1515/ebr.pentateuch. Accessed 2025-01-21.
“Pentateuch” is the typical scholarly term for the first five books of the HB/OT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The term, first used in Alexandria in the 2nd century CE, was adopted by the Western church in a Latinized form as pentateuchus (liber). The complete expression in Greek is ἡ πεντάτευχος βίβλος, “the five-part book” (τεῦχος, meaning “jar,” is a metonym for a papyrus scroll; in antiquity, scrolls were often stored in jars). The Jewish tradition refers to the books as tôrā (Heb.), transliterated as “Torah,” meaning “teaching” or “instruction.” [...] The name “the five books of Moses” was used primarily by the churches of the Reformation, but it also found its way into usage in other denominations.
So "Five Books of Moses" is specifically Christian, originally Protestant, but Pentateuch is neutral and scholarly, and Torah is specifically Jewish.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Further down in the same source Although some might view “Pentateuch” as a term employed for the Torah in Christianity in keeping with Enlightenment efforts to “protestantize” American – or even German – Judaism (cf. “Old Testament III. Judaism”; Blau: 51–53), the Greek meaning of the word indicates that it is particularly suitable to translate the Hebrew expression Ḥamishah ḥumshei Torah (the five fifths of the Torah), which is commonly employed in Judaism as a title for a Torah or Pentateuch commentary (e.g., Hertz). [...] The term “Pentateuch” was employed by leading figures in modern Western Orthodoxy, apparently because it corresponded well to the traditional title for a Torah commentary and because it signaled a connection to modernity on the part of modern Orthodox Judaism.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Pentateuch is a Christian name because it is the name used by the vast majority of Christians. Vpab15 (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
What's your source for that when we literally have sources saying it's a scholarly name and also used by Jews that I've already cited with full quotations above?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I said the name is the one used by Christians, not that Christians are the only ones to use it. Vpab15 (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
That's not clear from the wording in the article. If your only concern is the mention of Christians, they're mentioned below in the third paragraph of the lead.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
... it is the name used by the vast majority of Christians. Just curious, as a non-Christian person who's spent his life surrounded by Christians: Outside of scholarly writings, do most Christians ever refer to the five books at all? I hear and see them write about the Gospels, the Epistles, the Old Testament and New Testament, the Ten Commandments, and, of course, individual books. The first five books, as such, are not something I'm accustomed to them saying anything about at all, by any name. If that's the case, then I'd say that the vast majority of Christians don't call them, as a collection, anything at all. Largoplazo (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I'd say the term Pentateuch is relatively well known by Christians and many or most will know that it refers to the first five books of the Old Testament. Vpab15 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
You didn't say, and I didn't ask for confirmation, that they're aware of the term. You were implying an abundance of use of the term in discourse throughout the Christian population of the world, and I'm doubting that there's even an abundance of references to the five books among those people using any term. Largoplazo (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have added a Britannica reference to the article. the vast majority of Christians don't call them, as a collection, anything at all. That is not true, it is a very widely used term in Christianity, which you can easily find. Vpab15 (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
But I could find a reference to allow us to say "In Judaism and Christianity..."[1] and then we're back to where we started. StAnselm (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I can easily find it how? Where can I find sources establishing that the first five books of the Hebrew Bible are spoken of collectively by the majority of Christians? Largoplazo (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
The article goes on to say the term was first used in the Hellenistic Judaism of Alexandria. StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Vpab15 - you seem to be ignoring the basic point. Saying "In Christianity" implies that no one else calls it that. We have several sources that say other groups also call it that, including secular scholars and Jews! Also, Britannica is not a very good source, as has been established numerous times (see WP:BRITANNICA). We have better sources that I've cited above. Why are you so insistent on this particular wording?--Ermenrich (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
To be clear: I think we need to mention that "the Five Books of Moses" is a Christian name, but this name is missing from the body currently. I don't have much time, but I will try to rectify the "Alternative names" section when I get a chance with the source(s) already cited above. Then a slight change can be made to the wording of the lead.
I think that, generally, this article has too heavy a focus on the Jewish reading of the Torah/Pentateuch, to the exclusion Christianity, which is shunted into a three sentence section under "Other religions", as though the vast majority of readers of the Pentateuch were not Christians. This is no doubt in part because the article is titled "Torah". But I leave that to others to fix--or not.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it would be better to move the article to Pentateuch, as both more common and more neutral. StAnselm (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2025

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The following two ideas/statements are tremendously confusing and frankly just do not make sense as written. 'The term "Torah" is used in the general sense to include both Rabbinic Judaism's written and oral law, serving to encompass the entire spectrum of authoritative Jewish religious teachings throughout history, including the Oral Torah which comprises the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Midrash and more.' 'The Torah is the compilation of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, namely the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.' That the torah *is* the first five books genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers and deuteronomy, but the term torah *means* that and whole bunch of other stuff too is incoherent. some kind of explanation or context is required and it needs to be directly addressing this difference in meaning.

the second paragraph which introduces the article should be changed to 'The Torah to [whatever group of worshipers who believe this version of the meaning of "torah" or whatever context where this meaning is relevant] is the compilation of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, namely the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. It also includes the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Midrash and more for worshipers of the [whatever group believes this version of the meaning of "torah" or whatever differing context where this meaning is relevant]' the first paragraph should probably stay the same since that seems to be the more general or wider context relevant meaning. Lortig (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This proposal brings more confusion than it solves. The primary meaning of Torah is "the Pentateuch". Other meanings are secondary and usually qualified (e.g. the Oral Torah).--Ermenrich (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Your proposed paragraph has brackets that wouldn't be appropriate to include, so this is not a proper edit request, which needs exact language that can be copied.

It also proposes deleting sourced material and definitions of terms that are needed for understanding the article as a whole. I'm not convinced it is better than what is there. meamemg (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neo-DH

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@שמזן: According to Joel S. Baden, neo-DH is not so new, but a return to the old ways of DH. I.e., there are four plot threads, that's the only relevant aspect distinguishing the four documents. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Tgeorgescu, If I understand correctly, Schwartz (his teacher) says the same (see: Baruch Schwartz, "The Torah: Its Five Books and Four Documents", Zipora Talshir (ed.), The Literature of the Hebrew Bible: Introductions and Studies (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2011), pp. 161–226 [Hebrew]). I'm not really sure I understood your comment, would you mind explaining what you think should be adjusted in my edit? SHAMZAN talk 11:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@שמזן: It was just a comment about it being "new". tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.