Talk:Priestly source

message: 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)
thread_title: Newer work

message: Currently, this article biased and one-sided. Critics are not even mentioned. If you want to change this: Samuel R. Külling  --84.141.196.180 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Where are the critics?

message: 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)
thread_title: Ezekiel the time traveller

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Accretion of Material" 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misleading statement and citation