Talk:Deuteronomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religious texts
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WikiProject Bible This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Judaism Portal
Deuteronomy is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 90% of scholars...

Where did this number come from? Does this dicount evangelical scholars? If you want to say "many secular and liberal Biblical scholars..." that is fine, but 90% is just a made-up numberBenjaminmarsh 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that. The majority of biblical scholars are believing jews and christians whose knowledge and understanding of the Torah far surpasses that of the secular scholars. If you count scholars of the past it's not even close.Benignuman 20:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Deuteronomy

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.

The reason the other articles start that way is because Kings, Chronicles, Samuel, Judges, Joshua, Isiah, Amos, etc. all mean other things more than they do the books in the bible. That is unlike Genesis, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, which fairly uniquely refer to the bible. Note that Numbers is Book of Numbers. --francis 20:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Death of moses should that be an article, along with death of Aaron?

[edit] Is there a reason the shema` is neglected?

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)

I agree, because "God is One" the shema is used often in Acts to discuss how the gentiles were included in the christian church, when they were not previously. Also in the Hebrew Bible because god calls pagan nations ie Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar as his "annointed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.4.227 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The other side of the Jordan??

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)

The phrase is "beyond the Jordan": specifically, Deuteronomy begins with words to the effect: "These are the words spoken by Moses to Israel beyond the Jordon." (That's a quote from memory, but the general sense is thus). This implies that the writer is currently on the opposite side from where Moses did his speaking (or else that the children of Israel were on one side and Moses on the other, speaking across the river - which is hardly likely to be what the writer had in mind). Personally, I abhore language like "discourse" and feel that the whole sentence is barely literate, not to mention horribly wrong about the reason for Moses being forbidden to enter the Promised Land; nevertheless, the point it makes is a very old one, identified several centuries ago when the tradition of Mosaic authorship was first being questioned. The usual explanation given by those who wish to preserve the tradition is that these words were written by Joshua, who acted as secretary to Moses on his deathbed. The Joshua-secretary argument isn't accepted by modern biblical scholars - and hasn't been since the time of Spinoza - but it brings comfort to those who find textual criticism confronting, and I wouldn't like to take that comnfort away from them. The problem was well-known to our grandfathers, and in consequence many English-language bibles use phrases such as "on this side of the Jordan" instead of "across the Jordan": but "across" is what the Hebrew says. PiCo 11:02, 15 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)

[edit] removing Apologetics section

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; Kings&verse=2:3&src=! 1 Kings 2:3; Chronicles&verse=23:18&src=! 2 Chronicles 23:18; Chronicles&verse=25:4&src=! 2 Chronicles 25:4; Chronicles&verse=34:14&src=! 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)

Benjaminmarsh, I must apologise for not answering your post - I don't have this page on my watchlist and simply didn't look at it agin after my visit back in February. Anyway, to come to business: My feeling is that there's no need to put Evangelical views in a separate section - they belong logically with traditional Jewish views. I'd be inclined to put all this discussion on authorship into a single section, titled Composition (or whatever you might prefer), with two sub-sections, one titled "Mosaic authorship", the other "Modern views" (taking 'modern' to mean anything after Spinoza, more specifically the development of the DH through Wellenhausen to contemporary times). It also needs to be shortened considerably. The Evangelical position can be mentioned within the first subsection - their arguments are not new, and the sentence can simply say that the Mosiac tradition is still held in Orthodox Jewish and conservative (Evangelical if you like) Christian circles. I do see a need to mention the Deuteronomistic history idea, but no more then a sentence or two. Cheers. PiCo 11:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Documentary Hypothesis has been in decline and there are many version of the theories, but Mosaic Authorship is still alive in many universities, and is not dismissed entirely. The Critical Scholarship section (which i've renamed) should be reduced to 1 paragraph
Not sure who wrote this, but it's wrong. First, the material deleted doesn't relate to the documentary hypothesis. Second, even if it did, the author is incorrect in saying that the DH is in decline, at least in the sense used here - the Wellhausian hypothesis is certainly questioned, but the idea of documents is still the dominant paradigm. PiCo 10:25, 26 September 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. HrafnTalkStalk 03:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

Why was the section on structure removed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deuteronomy&oldid=152440076
Davinci616 06:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One people two worlds

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)

A lot of arguments have been made against the DH, the most important being R. N. Whybray sometime in the 70s - the article Documentary hypothesis gives an overview. There's now no univerally accepted theory on Torah origins, although miportant theories are those put forward by John Van Seters, Rolf Rendtorff, and perhaps one should mention the Copenhagen School. See also the article on Mosaic authorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 10:17, 26 September 2007

[edit] Deuteronomy 22:29 for real?

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

[edit] Yahweh and Israel

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 didn't realize that the section was dealing with only one verse. I thought it was bringing that verse as an example of the theology of Deuteronomy. I was especially taking issue with quote saying there is no unambigous statement of monotheism in Deuteronomy, when such a statement does in fact exist. This issue still stands with the current version of the article.Benignuman 02:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The point I was trying to get across is the relationship Deuteronomy sees between Yahweh and Israel: Israel is Yahweh's own people, they can have no other god; they are bound together by covenant, (Deuteronomy is cast in the form of a covenant-treaty); they must love the Lord because they are his. This verse expresses that relationship better than any other in Deuteronomy (I think). As you can see, I keep changing the heading of the section and the inclusion of the shema in that section or in a section of it's own, because I can't make up my mind.
As for the lead quote, "[T]here is no clear and unambiguous denial [in the Hebrew bible] of the existence of gods other than Yahweh 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 Yahweh," it does represent the current state of scholarly thinking - which is that Israelite religion emerged out of Canaanite culture, and only gradually became recognisably Judiasm over many centuries. There are many differences of opinion over the details, but this is the consensus on the broad picture. Unfortunately, of course, this is the viewpoint of secular scholarship (although many scholars are devout Jews and Christians): Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians take a supernaturlaist approach to scripture, holding that there is but one God and that He revealed his nature to mankind through Moses, who wrote Deuteronomy. If this is your view, I have no objection to adding it to the article, but I'd rather not try to integrate it into this section - integrating a secular worldview with a supernatural one is beyond my powers.PiCo 08:05, 21 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)

It's not a lie to say that there's "no clear and unambiguous" statement of universal monotheism (i.e., one god alone over all the world) before Deutero-Isaiah. Dtr 32:8-9 is a very unambiguous statement of the Deuteronomic position: Yahweh is the God of Israel, but other nations have their own gods. The shema describes the same position but without the background of the "heavenly council": "Hear O Israel" (i.e., it's addressing only Israel and making no statement about the rest of the nations), "the Lord our God" (Israel's god, no reference to other gods) "is One" (Israel has only one god). The verses you note, Dtr 4:35 and 4:39, can be read as monotheistic, but are not unambiguous and clear. 4:35's "Yahweh is God, there is none beside him", is still addressed to Israel, and can be read as saying that there is none beside him in Israel - the basis of the Josaic reform was that Israel should worship Yahweh alone (and, of course, in one place alone). 4:39 is much the same: "Yahweh is Elohim in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other." Again, this is addressed to Israel, and although it can be read as saying that only one god exists in heaven and earth, it can also be read as saying that Yahweh is identical with Elohim (unlike Dtr 32, which draws a distinction between Yahweh and El Elyon) and rules over Israel: there is no other elohim for Israel.
As for your second point, the (secular again) scholarly consensus is that Isaiah is made up of at least two parts, the original 8th century work which saw the Assyrians as the enemy of Israel, and a 6th century Exilic work, Deutero-Isaiah, which changed the enemy into the Babylonians. Deutero-Isaiah is dated to the late 500s on the basis of its reference to Cyrus the Persian king (plus, of course, the switch from Assyrians to Babylonians). This book review gives an overview of the scholarly argument on the origins of Isaiah. This article (I have no idea who the author is) gives an argument against.
Incidentally, there's a lot of ambiguity in that word "ehad", one. It can mean "single", but it can also mean "alone" - so the shema can be rtanslated as "the Lord is singlular" (only one god), or "the Lord is alone" (Yahweh stands alone in the Temple in Jerusalem). There's a further intriguing touch of ambiguity which isn't often noticed: the Song of Songs contains this line: "My dove, my perfect one, is the only one, the darling of her mother". This suggests that there may have been an idiomatic expression in which "one" meant "beloved" ("you're the only one"), which would be a fitting way for the verse to express the sentiment of love between Israel and Yahweh made explicit in the verses following shema.
So, I'd like to keep the current quote, as it does express the scholarly viwe on Deuteronomy's underwstanding of the relationship between Israel and Yahweh, which is what I'm trying to explain. The question of when monotheism appears in Israel is another matter, which I'd rather not go into in the article on Deuteronomy. Please bear in mind that Wiki is an open forum, and your views count as much as anyone's - don't feel I'm trying to crowd you out. PiCo 04:06, 22 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)

Your literal translation of 32:8-9 is correct, but only for the standard modern Hebrew text, based on the Masoretic text-tradition. The Dead Sea Scroll and LXX texts are different: they say "sons of God" or "angels of God" instead of "children of Israel". Biblical scholars believe that the DSS and LXX are more accurate than the Masoretic at this point, as the "sons of god" reading makes sense in the context, while "children of Israel" doesn't. It also makes sense in terms of what's known about Near Eastern mythology of the period (1st millenium BC, and also late 2nd millenium): El (the Canaanite supreme god) and his sons made up a divine council. The word for this council was "elohim", the gods. As monotheism developed in Israel/Judah the plural meaning of elohim was lost and the word merged with El - and the council was, after all, singular (one council).
The secular assumption always has to be that prophecy is impossible, and that any accurate prophesy must ipso facto have been written after, not before, the event. To allow supernatural explanations would destroy the basis of logical deduction - any argument about history or meaning could be cut short with the statement, "But it must have happened that way/must mean that, because the bible says so and the bible is the word of God." As an example, one of the big arguments in the last century has been over exactoly this question, of the origins of Judaic monotheism. According to the bible itself, god revealed his unique nature to Moses "I am that which I am", a nature which is also his name (YHWH); and after that, his law. 19th century scholars saw problems: God says to Moses in Exodus that he is revealing his name and nature for the first time, yet in Genesis we find many uses of the word YHWH. Then Julius Wellhausen wrote his book Prolegomena to the History of Israel, tracing a history of Israel based entierly on the OT itself, from polytheism to montheism. Other scholars attacked this: William Albright decided, on the basis of archaeological evidence, that Israel had been monotheistic from the earliest times, totally distinct from the Canaanites; and a famous Jewish scholar whose name I forget (sorry - but was it Kauffman?) argued that the ancient Jews were incapable of even understanding the concept of multiple gods (an idea which Albright found far-fetched). The current positoin is closer to Wellhausen: the Israelites were originally Canaanites, sharing the Canaanite mythology, and full-blown monotheism didn't arrive until after the Exile; yet even now the argument isn't settled, and Ziony Zevit has published a well-received book arguing that that the Israelites were not Canaanites at all. And so it goes on. To my mind it's a bit dry - I'd prefer to talk about meaning rather than origins. PiCo 04:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I should have added: This is what I'm trying to do in this section headed Themes - discuss the meanings (pluraol intentional) of Deuteronomy. What the original author/s meant, what it means to later generations - the call to Israel, the shema, the idea of the Chosen People, and whatever else needs to be discussed. PiCo 04:15, 24 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)

I've re-checked my on-line sources and found that they actually conflict, slightly. I've therefore revised both subsections (i.e., the shema subsection also), relying more heavily on Mark Smith, who I believe is a more widely-quoted scholar. I also, personally, feel that the whole section now makes more sense than it did before - those sections of Deuteronomy certainly look monotheistic to me. But, please have a look at the sources yourself and see what you think. PiCo 14:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Of Deuteronomy

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)