Talk:Priestly source

Newer work

I added "However Yehezkel Kaufmann and Richard Elliott Friedman dates P during the reign of Hezekiah ie. between c. 715 and 686 BC." and this was deleted saying they have few followers. Well this theory is only a couple decades old, of course there are less followers than the century old Wellhausen theory. It does deserve a mention IMO. Friedman is hardly a lunatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.195.163 (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Where are the critics?

Currently, this article biased and one-sided. Critics are not even mentioned. If you want to change this: Samuel R. Külling [1] --84.141.196.180 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have anything in english ? Would you be able to sum up the main arguments of this book ? Thanks! --Squallgreg (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ezekiel the time traveller

I have removed the following passage from the page:

However, Ezekiel, and other prophets who quote from P, date from the time of king Hezekiah, whose interests P matches, and afterwards, and thus require P to have been written before the end of Hezekiah's reign in 687BC.

Since Ezekiel lived during the exile, he could not have "dated from the time of king Hezekiah". Isaiah was a contemporary of Hezekiah, but he was not listed as having quoted from P.

Feel free to correct this. User:Ben Standeven 128.252.41.94 05:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe there is a silver vace in the Israel museaum dated 800 bc that is inscribed with the Aaronic benediction. Wouldn't that throw a wrench in this theory? 212.179.254.53 (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to the Ketef Hinnom amulets, which refer to a version of the Aaronic benediction that is similar, but not identical, to that used in the Bible. These amulets date to 600 BC, not 800, and they prove only that some form of the benediction was circulating in Judah at this time, not that the entire P text was complete.--67.87.70.243 (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Accretion of Material"

Can somebody cite a source for this? I personally think it makes sense- the Midianite War account seems to be very awkwardly placed, and the Priestly Code has some elements that have been used to argue for a Hezekian date (coincidence of P language with Hezekiah's regnal account, pre-exilic form of Hebrew; Friedman, 1987) and others that would seem to imply a post-exilic date (reference to household objects not known until that period; Dever, 2001); Halpern, 2001 has argued for a date of P contemporary with Jeremiah, since Jeremiah's apparent references to it ("It was made for a lie, the lying pen scribes!") have the tone of an attack on a recent work rather than one from a century earlier.--Rob117 20:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Unless people can say why this shouldn't be done, in a couple of days I'll remove: This article describes the opinion of the DH without taking into account alternative opinions; see the Documentary Hypothesis article for details on the disputes to this theory.

I've never seen (or there shouldn't be) an article that starts with euphemism for, "This article is biased because it doesn't taken ____ into account". If an article is so completely NPOV and incorrect, it should be deleted. If anything is NPOV, it's supposed to be deleted. At least if it's at the extent that the header says it is. If someone has issues with the article, then maybe a section on criticism, or a link to criticism is alright. But this is like starting the article on the Heaven with, "This article doesn't take into account that no one has come back with tangible proof". An article can't start with a "warning" tag that in itself can be argued against.

THAT to me seems very POV without even needing to read or understand the article.

24.91.72.168 (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the article as-is presents no sources, possible original research and speculation, and no neutral point of view. Until someone can revise the article, I think that the note at the top is necessary.—Jchthys 18:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

perhaps the article should be deleted altogether.--64.252.122.209 (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Added references.PiCo (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

USe of sources

I've recently reverted some extensive edits by Learned69. As he has reinstated some of them I'll explain my reasons here.

The main issue is one of sources - meaning the sources we use in writing articles. Learned69 (talk | contribs) wants to use traditional Jewish sources, the mishnah. This was written in the early centuries after the time of Christ, and so is very, very old. For traditionally-minded Jews, that's a strength, but for modern scholars, it's a weakness. The rabbis who wrote the mishnah were no fools, but they did not have access to the information and methods of modern scholars. It's extremely dangerous to rely on them. In writing Wikipedia articles, we have to rely on modern scholars.

A second point is that this is an article about a modern scholarly theory. The very idea that a Priestly source exists is only a theory, not a fact. This article is trying to explain that theory, nothing more - Learned69 (talk | contribs), on the other hand, seems to he trying to show that the theory is wrong. Maybe it is, but that's not our business - we just describe. PiCo (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Learned69 (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC) It would be nice if the article made clear that its a theory and may be factually wrong. There are many things in the article that are written as if they were facts. Such as a cult of the Golden Calf. There is absolutely no basis for that in fact. And the same is true for the Tazdokites. There is nothing to even suggest that the original Tzadok, priest during the time of David, was not of the Ahronic family. Or that the worship in the 1st temple was not performed by priests of the Ahronic family in a blatant violation of a Mosaic commandment. Or that there was a temple operating in Bethel throughout the existence of the 1st temple (why exactly Bethel). Reasonable people would fail to see what is scholarly about imagining a whole series of facts, in fact a complete history, without anything to remotely suggest its truth.

As for using the Mishneh, the Mishneh is in this case relevant as factual evidence, as they were real people, speaking of other real people, the Tzadokites, with whom they were personally acquainted. As such it is surely helpful in determining who the Tazdokites were. It is a pretty good guess that whoever came up with this theory had some vague knowledge of a controversial group called the Tzadokites and put this together with the priest Tzadok.

Thanks for the courteous reply.

(1) Yes, of course the Priestly source is a theory (hypothesis would be a better word), along with the other sources, and indeed the idea that these sources are there at all. It would be possible to work something into the lead about that - but it should avoid saying "according to the Documentary Hypothesis", because it's not. The DH is a way of using the sources, but it's not the origin of them. It's more like according to modern biblical scholars - I'm not aware of a single major scholar who denies the existence of sources in general, and the Priestly source in particular.

(2) The first major section, on Background, does say it's making a summary of major current theories on the historical background to the Priestly source.

(3) The second section is a history of scholarly study of the sources, and the last sentence of the first paragraph says that the existence of sources is a "conclusion" reached by scholars.

(4) As for your points about the golden calf etc, I can only say again what I said before: this article is about the Priestly source, not about ancient Israelite religion. We're describing the source as it's described by modern scholars, but we don't give our own assessment of what they say - which, essentially, is what is happening if you say you disagree with them. PiCo (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Learned69 (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC) This should conclusively settle whether the Tzadokite priests were Levites or some alternative order of priests who were engaged in a centuries long conflict and power struggle with the Levites as the theory in the article suggests. This is what Ezekiel 40:45 and 46 state; He said to me, “The room facing south is for the priests who guard the temple, and the room facing north is for the priests who guard the altar they are the sons of Zadok who are the descendants of Levi, who come near to the Lord to minister unto Him.” And Ezekiel 43:19 And thou shalt give to the priests, the Levites who are of the seed of Zadok, who approach Me to minister unto Me, saith the Lord God, a young bullock for a sin offering. And Ezekiel 44:15, But the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok that kept the charge of My sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from Me, they shall come near to Me to minister unto Me, and they shall stand before Me to offer unto Me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord God. The bible cannot get more explicit than that.

There is a difference between a hypothesis and an idea that is known to be false. Now that it is known that the theory in the article is false perhaps, at a minimum, this should be noted in the article. This is but another example of how Critical Biblical Scholarship and Biblical Scholarship are two distinct disciplines.

You're certainly doing this the right way - that's exactly how the scholars come to their conclusions, by studying texts like Ezekiel and setting them off against other tests - sometimes there are contradictions that need to be explained, or nuances of meaning. But there's not much point telling this to me, I didn't write the scholarly sources we're using. The source for our section on the history of the priesthood is a book by a man called Min (a Korean I gather). He's the one you're arguing with. I suggest you read the chapter or section of his book that's being referenced as the source, and see if the article is an accurate reflection of what he says. Then see if there are problems with using him as a source - is he reflecting general opinion, or is he advancing a new theory? These are the questions for a Wikipedia editor, because we simply try to reflect other people's opinions, not our own ideas. PiCo (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Misleading statement and citation

The paragraph in the final section labelled date is misleading and also uses a citation misquotes the author.

1) In the cited page (p. 57) of Van Seters , the above paragraph claims "these arguments have not convinced a majority of scholars". Van Seters never says that.

The paragraph implies that Hurvitz is among those who "have not convinced". However, Van Seters /never/ talked about Hurvitz. He was talking about a man named Yehezkel Kaufman. Also Hurvitz in the cited page is expressing his personal feelings/beliefs about Kaufman, NOT making an assessment about judgement of mainstream biblical scholarship. He does say that many of Kaufman's views are no longer supported but does not specify by whom and then follows it up with examples where a few of Kaufman's views still do have adherents. He mentions Haran and then presents his personal arguments against Haran , but does NOT claim to be making a statement about what /others/ think beyond himself.

Thus the final sentence of that paragraph "These arguments have not convinced the majority of scholars, however.[35]" comes across as a misrepresentation of the source cited in footnote 35.

Hurvitz and Kaufman are very different scholars and are not part of a unified "school" - Hurvitz is a linguist who is very careful to argue only from the basis of his linguistic knowledge. Kaufman is not a linguist and is best known for his theories about the development of monotheism - his speciality is the development of Jewish thought in the biblical period. They are also separated by more than a generation. Kaufman was retired by the time Hurvitz started his career and Hurvitz was in the early years of his career when Kaufman died in 1963. Hurvitz's most important works were written 20 years after Kaufman's death.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to find sources that actually critique Hurvitz on the merits of his ideas rather than just assume that since they are both israeli they represent a single school of thought and any claim about one applies to the other?

2) I also have concerns about even using Van Seters to summarize criticism of the Israeli school without also making clear that he views any claim of antisemitism as inherently ideological and therefore false. (he's very explicit about that in the cited page - p 57). He seems to think that is such an adequate argument that he doesn't even bother to actually discuss the substance of Kaufman's thought.

The logic here is no different than saying that anyone is the USA that talks about racism is being political simply because they are claiming racism therefore one can ignore everything else they say. There are in fact people that have that point of view. But there are also people that strongly disagree that "claims of predujice are themselves a form of predjudice". If wikipedia is unwilling to take a position in that debate due to NPOV, then at the very least wikipedia ought to inform the reader of Van Seters own position in that debate? That would allow a the reader who does have a POV in the debate about "any claim of racism is racist" to make their own judgement about whether they agree with his reasoning.

2A02:ED0:6FBF:D200:143E:4E39:F5A9:7F3D (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)