Talk:Book of Numbers

I made a minor edit. I changed "Original Text" to "Original Language" since that it what was meant, in context.

I was just curious, why doesn't this article talk about stuff like the revenge on the midianites. I'm not trying to troll here, I just think it should be at least mentioned.

Boboncel (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have the same thought. The article doesn't mention the description of the war of revenge, nor Moses commanding the execution and genocide of the remaining people, nor the taking of young virgins into sex slavery. Its rather an omission. The way Moses behaved in chapter 31 is a template for the behaviour of organisations like ISIS. But its something swept under the rug in discussions of the topic as awkward and embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.177.242 (talk • contribs)

Richard Dawkins and God ABC, 26 November 2006. Quote: "The point is that whether true or not, the Bible is held up to us as the source of our morality. And the Bible story of Joshua's destruction of Jericho, and the invasion of the lebensraum of the Promised Land in general is morally indistinguishable from Hitler's invasion of Poland or Saddam Hussein's massacres of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. The Bible may be an arresting and poetic work of fiction but it is not the sort of book you should give your children to form their morals."

See also Ruml, Beardsley (2015). "Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)". p. 2. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Based on the opinion of a bookseller who described the Bible to me and my mother when I was 12-years-old, it is basically pornography mixed with violence. Dimadick (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The statement, "The composition of Numbers 22-24 can be dated with reasonable certainty to c.840-760 BC on the basis of the Deir Alla text . . ." is not borne out by the citation at the end of the sentence. In the citation, as found on the Web site given, author Charles Isbell does not date the composition of Numbers to the time of the Deir Alla text, nor does he say that Kenneth Kitchen, the author he is critiquing, does so. Since Mr. Isbell's writing does not support the statement in the Wikipedia article, this sentence should be eliminated. Chronic2 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have now replaced the statements about Deir Alla that appeared definitely to be OR with a properly documented statement. Since I have had experience recently of my entering properly documented statements, with scholarly citations, only to have them deleted outright because it conflicted with someone else's POV, I would request that anyone who does not agree with what I entered should enter their own properly documented statements and be willing to observe the proper Wikipedia policies in this matter. It would also be helpful to enter below any instance in which you think I have violated Wikipedia policy before undertaking such large-scale deletions as I have experienced, and which I see is also the experience of others with this editor. Chronic2 (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've reviewed the reference and Isbel does indeed suggest a 1st millennium date for Numbers based on the Deir Alla text. PiCo (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The words used are somewhat interesting, for instance text of 'A new census gives' was understood as a trusted person - somehow the last one was replaced by a new trusted person whom then undertook the counting of persons (no doubt some were counted twice and others excluded from the count as per human nature and the law of error - as in if it can happen it could and will) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.95.146 (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Under the "Themes" section, the following statement is made: "The message is clear: failure was not due to any fault in the preparation, because Yahweh had foreseen everything, but to Israel's sin of unfaithfulness." It is arguable as to whether the concept of "sin" is really relevant here. It may be acceptably amended to remove this word and simply refer "to Israel's unfaithfulness". BibleScholar (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

An editor has inserted an interesting but off topic copy and paste from Ketef Hinnom scrolls into the composition section. The material is very out of place in that paragraph. The scrolls page is already linked to the article and this article has no section on manuscripts. I would support creation of a balanced section on manuscripts (more than just that copy/p[asted paragraph), but at this time the paragraph just does not fit so I am going to back it out. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's not out of place at all. It's the oldest existing document from the Hebrew Bible so far found. The fact that the oldest documents currently discovered are from the Book of Numbers is extremely important for its respective article, including in the section specifically on the history of its composition. It is irrefutable evidence that at least part of the Book of Numbers already existed before the Babylonian Exile and Persian period. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:BRD I will ask you to self revert your re-insertion of the deleted material until we have editor consensus. Please do not re-insert disputed material until you have consensus. The material you inserted is literally 3 versus of the book of Numbers. It does not belong in a section looking at the overview of the composition of the whole work. Inserting that in the middle of the discussion is just confusing. We already link to it, and it doesn't prove much. It proves that the prayer predates the captivity, but it does not prove the book of Numbers as a complete work predates the captivity, and placing it there just creates confusion. IF you can get editor consensus that it belongs there, I will, of course, bow to that consensus, but until that happens, challenged material comes out. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are simply asserting your own unfounded opinion on its inclusion in this section. I also entered other content elaborating on the Priestly source material in Numbers. But the consensus of scholars IS that most of the sources for the Book of Numbers did originate mostly from material of pre-exilic origin. This does not mean that the Book in its exact, final form did, but that much of the written components for it did. The Ketef Hinnom scrolls contain an existing document from this pre-exilic period. This is the oldest existing documents of any part of the Bible and one of the most important discoveries in this area of study in the past 100 years. Of course it should be included in this article, as it is part of the Book of Numbers. It is irrefutable, physical evidence that the Priestly Blessing, and at least a part of the Book of Numbers is pre-exilic. It is also related to why an increasing number of specialists on the Priestly Source now also think it is of earlier, pre-exilic origin.

I have changed my edit to more properly flow with the context of the paragraph. It is at the end of the paragraph now where it is part of evidence that elaborates on the pre-exilic content of Numbers and also maybe of the Priestly source. There is no question that when discussing the date of composition of the Book of Numbers, we should mention that we have existing documents from an important part of it of pre-exilic origin. Considering the next oldest existing Biblical documents (thus far found) are from the Dead Sea Scrolls in the late Persian, Hellenistic and pre-Roman periods, Ketef Hinnom is of huge importance and worth mentioning. It is also part of the impetus to excavate more of the Holy Land. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I need to note here that I also entered a source from Faust clarifying that the consensus on the date of the Priestly source in general is shifting. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Faust is an archaeologist, thus not an expert in the text of the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

What?? Faust is a highly respected expert ([1]) in archaeology of the historical periods of ancient Israel and ancient texts from this period (he specializes in Hebrew and Near Eastern Studies as a whole, not just archaeology of ancient Israel). Your comment doesn't make any sense anyway, because the citation from him is merely about the changing consensus on the Priestly source among specific experts of the text, not just from archaeological finds, and thus still valid. He states that experts who do specialize specifically in the authorship of the Priestly source are increasingly asserting a pre-exilic origin. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the point is: he is not himself an expert in textual criticism, so he is speaking outside of his own academic field.

E.g. Bart Ehrman at his blogs tells his readers what the consensus is in archaeology of Ancient Israel, but he tells them that that's not his specialism. So, he knows the basic facts, but he does not say he is an authority in respect to archaeology. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

(replying to IP) So at my first comment I said I would support creation of a properly sourced and considered section on manuscripts. Maybe that was not well considered, in fact, but what could works would be the expansion of the composition section to more fully summarise the other side of the debate other than just saying "most scholars now agree". What makes absolutely no sense is to drop in some lines about 3 verses in the middle there and invite the reader to make some kind of counter conclusion. BUT, the thing is, your constant reversions of challenged material into the text make debate on this impossible, and until that stops, there is no point discussing those ideas further. I invited you to self revert per WP:BRD and instead you reinserted material AGAIN. I think you know very well that this is not how we do it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article should consider employing BCE (Before Common Era) dating terminology instead of BC (Before Christ) to align with the neutral point of view policy. This change respects the diverse beliefs of readers and maintains a more inclusive and globally sensitive perspective, reflecting Wikipedia's commitment to providing accurate information while accommodating various cultural and religious viewpoints. BibleScholar (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply