Talk:Mosaic authorship

message: good source. Wolf2191 05:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I made your latest into a new section, as the page was getting a bit long and unweildy). Yes it is a good source - by Gil Student I gather?. I have a little trouble distinguishing his own ideas from those of others that he summarises. But it would make a good basis for organising the article - on the basis of various ideas on just how Moses wrote the Torah, whether by direct dictation and all at one time, by dictation but not all at one time, whether Genesis was based on written sources available to Moses, etc. PiCo 06:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good source 

message: I like very much this article but would like the mention of some of the oldest manuscripts of the torah so as to show that the latest possible date for the writing of the torah i know there are manuscripts predating that of the dead sea scrolls but I am not sure what they are named--75.43.79.238 11:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That the amulets are dated to the 7th century only proves that Blessing inscribed on them was known in the 7th century, not that the entire Torah was known. But yes, there is room in the article for a paragraph on archaeological and other evidence of the antiquity of the Torah. But (again a "but") be sure to quote reputable academic/scholarly, sources, don't rely on your own deductions. PiCo 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article

message: In general, Wiki articles try to avoid lists and use normal prose instead - do you think you could re-write your new section as paragraphs, using lists only when you need to? (Or at the very least, introducing lists with short prose paragrpahs explaining what they mean) PiCo (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible evidence of Mosaic authorship 

message: Java, you really do have a repeated line - your 8th dot-point reads: "The Torah uses phrases which are of Egyptian origin in which the words are translated verbatim", and your 10th: "Furthermore, the Torah uses phrases which are of Egyptian origin in which the words are translated verbatim". The footnotes for both refer to the same book and same page-number.PiCo (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My deletion from the Evidence section 

message: Thanks Java, IMO it reads much better this way. I wonder if you could go even further - under the subheading "Other", some points deal with archaeological evidence, others with critical views, and some with linguistic evidence - perhaps the linguistic material could be joined with the Egyptian material and two new subheadings made for the other material? (Incidentally, this illustrates why prose is so often preferred to dot-points - it helps to structure the material, as well as in constructing an "argument", although of course we're not supposed to argue cases on Wiki).PiCo (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why the sentence starts with "Certain forms in standard Biblical Hebrew are borrowed from second-millennium Egyptian" is because different dialects of Egyptian have existed over time and the Egyptian found in the Torah was used during 2000-1000 BC if the Torah had Egyptian from say 500BC this would say the text was authored in 500BC. Furthermore it is very strange that if J document, E document, P document, D document were supposedly developed over a span of time starting at about 900BC after the dialect of Egyptian used in the Torah was already extinct! --Java7837 (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand my point: I was saying that you could shorten the paragraph, and thus make it more readable, by dropping the introductory sentence and going straight into the main subject: something like this: "According to James Hoffmeier, the Torah uses words and phrases of 2nd millenium BC Egyptian origin - Hoffmeier cites the words used for basket, bulrushes, pitch, reeds, river, and river-bank in the narrative of Moses' nativity, and the word for magician, among others, in the Joseph narrative. Hoffmeier concludes... (and then give a quote from Hoffmeier saying what conclusions he draws from this). This would be much more succinct and would also source your material in Hoffmeier much more securely. (Incidentally, I think you'll find you've misused the word "verbatim" in your present text - it has no connection with translation). PiCo (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I should have congratulated you again on the work you've done on this section - it looks much more professional now. I really would find another word or phrase for "verbatim", though - it looks very odd to a native English speaker).PiCo (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of the Evidence section 

message: According to what I know, the Torah's language lead people to believe it was written during the era of the Second Temple... Siúnrá (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point being made in the quoted sentence (taken from our article) is that the language used is never unambiguous - it's never clear whether the "this" of "this torah" means the Five Books or a specific instruction. But I think Siúnrá might actually be talking about the wider question of whether the Hebrew of the Pentateuch can be identified as belonging to the 5th century and later. I'm not sure of the answer to that (if that is the question). Certainly there are good reasons, on quite other grounds, for believing that the Torah was given its current form in the 2nd Temple period, but this doesn't rule out a core tradition dating from a much earlier period. (Amos and Hosaea, for example, both writing in the 8th century, make reference to an Exodus, which suggests that the Exodus as a tradition dates from at least that period). PiCo (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, the statements about "this torah" are always referring to a document - as in the torah in Deuteronomy which Moses sets on a scroll beside the Ark. The question is always just where the "edges", so to speak, of each torah-scroll lie - the Deuteronomy scroll seems to refer to the law-code in Deuteronomy, for example, and the other references are also mostly to law-codes (the major exception probably being the injunction against the Amalakites in Exodus). But are you saying that our article is inadequate in expressing this? PiCo (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: I saw how brief the Mosaic Authorship article is compared to the Documentary Hypothesis article, so I added this category. I would assume that most college students, like me, are bombarded with the JEDP hypothesis and its apologetic concessions. Too often, apparent contradictions are portrayed as absolute, and the documentary hypothesis is portrayed as "What all modern scholars accept". I also read that there used to be an evidence category- it might be nice to get that back. We could use the same format as the the second website's format, embellishing it with details from a variety of books and websites.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.18.184 (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "Extended Links" category 

message: From the introduction: "Among scholars, Mosaic authorship continues to be defended by some conservative religious scholars, who seek to reconcile it with modern scholarly findings."
Although the preceding statement makes it clear that "some conservative religious scholars" still believe in and defend Mosaic authorship, what it does not make clear enough is that the large majority of modern scholars deny the possibility that Moses wrote the Torah. In other words, there is an accumulating body of archaeological and linguistic evidence in support of the notion that multiple authors wrote the Torah, whereas there is little or no evidence that it was authored by a single person, namely Moses.
76.123.177.103 (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is far too kind toward the notion of Mosaic authorship 

message: This passage doesn't seem to make sense - can someone explain what it's saying?
"At least one Rabbinic tradition (Baraitha) teaches that "...even if he asserts that the whole Torah is from Heaven, excepting a particular verse, which [he maintains] was not uttered by God but by Moses himself, he is included in 'because he hath despised the word of the Lord.'""
What exactly is "he" being included in? (I think this needs to be changed from a quote to a paraphrase). PiCo (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passage that doesn't make sense 

message: Refs #9-19 can be cited as 1 source if anyone has the time. Post any objections at my talkpage. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 08:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: The entire sub-section: "Text of the Torah in Talmud and rabbinic tradition" cites one source, Marvin Zelkowitz, a University of Maryland professor. Unfortunately, his professorship is in computer science, and this paper was written for the University of Maryland Osher Lifelong Learning Institute, a program of the University of Maryland that requires no entrance exams or anything of the like, according to its website. He taught a course in 2006 on the origins of the bible. I think it highly suspect that the whole section of such an important topic is based on an article (whose one of three sources is wikipedia) authored by a professor writing outside of his field of specialty, and on the subject of the documentary hypothesis. More reliable sources (ideally primary) should be referenced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.144.172 (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single Learning Institute Source 

message: The newest version is riddled with pov material - here's one section:
"However the idea that the view of Mosaic authorship began only in the era of the 2nd Temple is difficult to conceive of. Ezra, who lived at the turn of the 4th century BCE, wrote a book of the Torah before the second temple was built . It is completely implausible that Ezra, who was the spiritual leader of the Jewish people, would not have known that the claim that Moses wrote the Torah started less than 100 years before, and furthermore would not have known the history of this book. In addition intrinsic to the view of Mosaic authorship is also the belief that the Torah was dictated to Moses by God, the only book in the world on which there is such a belief. It is almost inconceivable that a complete nation should without a basis come to believe this about any book, let alone a book that was published only several centuries earlier and whose authorship at the time was known to all. It has never been contemplated about any other book whose author/s' were known at the time of publication that it has been falsely held by the nation in which that book was published that the author was somebody completely different, let alone that that author wrote it 1500 years earlier." Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagrant pov 

message: I've substantially rewritten the article in what I hope is a better version. My big problem has been treating Christianity - Christians have pretty much ignored the question of who wrote what in the Bible right up to the Enlightenment. This, I think, was simply because it wasn't thought important - for Jews, the Torah is the centre of their relationship to God, but for Christians that role belongs to the NT. The NT books certainly have numerous passages stating that Moses wrote the Law, but the people who wrote those were really Jews and were restating a commonplace of 1st century Judaism (as the article already notes). The only reference I could find to any of the Church Fathers paying attention to the question is Jerome, who again simply restates what the rabbis were saying (Jerome was in close touch with Jewish thought). Then nothing really until the Reformation, when either Calvin or Luther, I forget which, has a few things to say, and this was because of the role written scripture played in early Protestantism - they rejected reliance on Christian tradition and so had to find an alternative reason for believing that the New Testament was the word of God, and they found this in the idea that the scriptures had been passed down intact from the earliest times. The Enlightenment then subjected the scriptures to systematic critical study (something the rabbis had never done), and by the end of the 19th century only a tiny minority of ultra-conservative Christian scholars continued to defend Mosaic authorship - using arguments that had been advanced centuries before by the rabbis, with the exception of those based on the New Testament. So maybe all this could e put into our article, but it's actually very hard to find - what I've written here is based on the impressions I've gained, not on explicit passages in reliable sources.PiCo (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent re-write: need for section on Christian approaches 

message: A few days ago User:StAnselm changed back the date fromat from BCE/CE to BC/AD. I don't know if this has ever been discussed here before, but I think there is a really good case to be made for use of BCE/CE in this article, since (1) the topic, while of interest to Christians, is also very closely (more closely in fact) associated with another religion that does not use this era format, and (2) religious studies departments in universities prefer the BCE/CE formatting, such as here and here. Also pinging User:PiCo since this is one of the rare cases where the original author of the article is not only still active on Wikipedia but still editing this page. I don't know who initially tried to change the era-formatting from BC/AD to BCE/CE, but they should probably be invited too. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You changed it because it had not been discussed before? The dates you changed were BC/AD before? Or inconsistent before? Not clear to me what you mean, but why choose BC/AD? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think there was any concern of bias on StAnselm's part (if I did I would not have pinged him). Since in a previous edit he cited User:PiCo's original draft it seems fair to assume he is trying to keep the article's era-formatting in line with how the original author wrote it, but I think a strong case could be made for changing it away from that formatting. , do you have a problem with changing the dates to the less christocentric format? If not, then we can probably just fire ahead based on the rationale I gave above and this doesn't need to turn into a lengthy discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember what era format I used when I created the article, but I generally support BCE/CE for articles that are as overwhelmingly Judeo-centric as this. MA is an article of faith for Jews (according to Maimonides at least - still followed by Orthodox, only given lip service by Reform and others); in the Christian community, the Vatican withdrew its objection in the 1940s and today not even all Evangelicals (they only Protestant communion that cares) think it important. So I support BCE/CE. Mind you, I don't think Orthodox Jews would like the article as it is. I tried to be objective, but the fact is that MA has no scholarly acceptance.PiCo (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As StAnselm has pointed out, you wrote the article with BC/AD. That doesn't matter, because no one expects you to defend your edits from almost a decade ago. And I don't think it's really that important that Orthodox Jews won't like the article as written because no article on any religious topic is ever going to be completely acceptable to every religious community whose belief it touches upon -- all we can do is try to be as "descriptive" and non-"prescriptive" as possible. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  you created it with BC/AD (nine years ago!)  I changed it back to BC/AD because that is the established era style in the article, and that established style should not be changed without discussion and consensus on the talk page.  the problem I have with BCE/CE on Wikipedia is that it is based on and/or encourages thinking of "Jewish" articles and "Christian" articles. They should be neither, but should represent a neutral discussion of the topic. And PiCo has worked hard to make sure that is the case. StAnselm (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: StAnselm, Thank you. I apologize for suggesting you might have bias. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: StAnselm: I essentially agree, but if we're being really fair, BC/AD is the less conducive of the two options to neutral discussion of the topic. BC/AD is used pretty much exclusively by (1) Christians, and (2) people (especially non-theists) who live in traditionally Christian societies and who don't know/care what the letters stand for. For this reason, articles on topics that have particularly close ties to any specific religious community other than Christianity should prefer BCE/CE. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree that it's used a lot in religious studies: more so than in other fields! It has its own problems, however: see Common Era. Isambard Kingdom: thank you. StAnselm (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, the only criticism our article on Common Era cites that is really relevant at all is that some Christians don't like it. All the ohers basically boil down to "it's still an arbitrary number and the only difference is that it hides the origin of he numbering". (This latter is actually wrong -- AD is avoided in religious studies circles because it is an explicit statement of Christian faith that non-Christians who know what it means would want to avoid; the fact that it originates with the traditional date of Jesus' birth is not related.) The reasons cited that CE may be problematic could all be cited for AD being more problematic. Put simply, they are criticisms of BCE/CE relative to some hypothetical purely-secular dating method, not criticisms of BCE/CE relative to BC/AD. The footnote citing Wilson's argument hat BCE/CE is less familiar to American readers is interesting, but WP:ERA explicitly allows its use despite that. Wilson's claim that it will not be understood is (speaking from personal experience) without water -- if I recall correctly I was not confused at all when I first came across BCE/CE in my early teens in a book that didn't explain it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ERA]]? 

message: You undid an edit of mine where I slashed the reference to the Pentateuch as a "charter myth", for who knows what reason aside from you somehow viewing yourself as a strong character that is not afraid to offend others. Needless to say, the Pentateuch being mythical is in fact a "point of view" shared by those who do not believe in the Pentateuch, but not by those who believe in it (which constitute many billions), thus to place in a Wikipedia article that it is in fact a myth violates NPOV, because it's merely a point of view that has absolutely no relevance to a Wikipedia article. Another thing that is needless to be pointed out is that, although proving exact events mentioned in the Pentateuch is virtually outside of the realm of archaeological possibility, hundreds of Pentateuchal cities, regions and areas have had their existence established, as well as the fact that events that the Pentateuch places in the Middle Bronze Age, actually synchronize specifically with the Middle Bronze Age, as shown by scholars like Kenneth Kitchen. So, not only is placing Wikipedia's position on the Pentateuch as mythical a total violation of NPOV, ridiculously biased, but it contradicts the fact that the enormity of Pentateuchal geography has been established by scholars, and therefore that the Pentateuch is a "charter myth" is also factual garbage, whether or not you want to consider certain narratives as allegory or not.Korvex (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: n origin (or charter) myth is the story a people or nation tell to explain their origins and purpose. The charter myth of the US, for example, gives a very prominent place to the Pilgrim Fathers fleeing religious oppression in England, because that ties in with the American self-perception as a nation founded on the principle of religious freedom; it totally ignores the many much older settlements based on slavery, because that doesn't tie into the national myth. Every nation and every people has such a myth. PiCo (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're operating under a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is capable of stating scholarly views ("the Pentateuch is a charter myth," "Vampires are legendary creatures," "the world is 4.5 billion years old"). The fact that 1, 2, or "many billions" of non-scholars may disagree is simply not relevant in terms of how wikipedia operates. Wikipedia does not censor itself to avoid offending people who believe that the Pentateuch is not a myth, that the earth is 10,000 years old, or that vampires are real. Alephb (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Your responses seem rather useless. After conveniently ignoring that virtually the entirety of Pentateuchal geography has been established and done, you state that the scholarly statement is that the Pentateuch is simply.  mythical. That's atrocious nonsense. That's also called 'minimalism', a modern-minority viewpoint fueled in 1970's scholarship that has started to lose significance since the Tel Dan Inscription was discovered and excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa and Tell Eton (Qeiyafa and Eton excavated by a renowned scholar each). Trying to reflect minimalism on Wikipedia as a majority, and ESPECIALLY trying to reflect minimalism as a consensus like you're trying to do, is an enormous error that cannot be accepted under any circumstances and of course, like it or not, highly violates NPOV if one tries to claim that the accuracy of minimalism is like the accuracy of "vampires don't exist". And considering you love to talk about consensus so much but practice little of it, the 'consensus' of Old Testament scholars is that the genealogies of Genesis are not the direct start-to-end of the first to next man, one by one, and thus do not reflect an age of the Earth of some 6,000-10,000 years. Therefore, in regards to both minimalism and Genesis, you fail to reflect scholarship in its consensus, or even majority, or even mainstream views. And lastly, after I have dismantled every one of your views, we can easily put your ideology to the test. If you think your edit is acceptable here, it would obviously be acceptable to go to the Wikipedia page on Judaism and write somewhere in the first few paragraphs that "Judaism is a fairy tale". This litmus test for seeing whether or not your edits are acceptable on Wikipedia is going to be quite funny to see the results of. Korvex (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is yet another reminder of the norms mentioned at wp:civil. If you're going to contribute productively to Wikipedia, you've got to be civil. You are confused about the nature of the term "minimalism" as it is used in biblical studies. If I argued that, say, the Bible had little of historical value to say about the history of ancient Israel between the 10th and 7th centuries, that would be me arguing for a "minimalist" position. If I refer to the Pentateuch as a "charter myth" that's a dead-on mainstream scholarly viewpoint. In modern scholarship, it is simply the case that materials in the Pentateuch are treated as containing a large quantity of legendary material and little that is historically reliable. The whole "minimalist" / "maximalist" debate has to do with areas about which the scholarly world is still debating. If I supported an edit saying "David is a legendary figure" you'd have a point -- that would be a minimalist statement. Secondly, you are confused about the scholarly views of the genealogies in Genesis as well, but because that would take us off topic, I think I'd better not discuss that here. Alephb (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charter myth and recent undid edit 

message: The article uses historical-critical approaches as the default point of view throughout, using high quality sources, but then suddenly in one place contains the remarkable statement "This was shown to be a wrong understanding by Ellicott." A quote from a traditional commentary over 100 years old then follows. Hmm. 2601:647:4900:F234:74BD:D8BA:A920:F552 (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence has since been deleted.PiCo (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  fundamentalism from Ellicott dropped in 

message: There is one sentence I have an issue with.
“ Scholarly consensus sees the biblical Moses as a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed.[13][14][15][16]”
I read through the sources cited in that sentence and I couldn’t see them directly saying there is a consensus.
Sure they do say the existence of Moses is unlikely but, it’s original to say there is a consensus when they don’t directly say that.CycoMa (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Lots of article are sloppy with the word "consensus", and having a string of citations of scholars with a particular viewpoint does not establish it. StAnselm (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it directly say there is a consensus 

message: For User:GenoV84: you're obviously puzzled as to why I reverted your edits. I'll divide this into two parts, as one section is much ;longer than the other. First the minor edits:
*Mosaic authorship is the traditional Judeo-Christian belief that the Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, were dictated to Moses by the Abrahamic God.
::- in fact the belief is that the books were dictated by just one of those three (or possibly five, if we count the Christian god as being three-in-one), namely Yahweh, the God Israel; Jesus and Allah had nothing to do with it.
*Change Orthodox Jewish back to traditional Jewish
::- Orthodox Judaism is a specific branch of modern Judaism, about which we are not talking; what we're talking about is traditional Judaism.
*Delete "this happened while Judah was under the control of the Achaemenid Empire"
::- because why add it? 
* Delete "while Israel and Judah part of the Seleucid Empire"
::as before, what does this demonstrate except the erudition of the person who added it?
*"Protestant Old Testament" vs "Christian Old Testament".
::it's Protestant - the Catholic and Orthodox Old Testaments are different (longer, often much longer, and with different texts).
Next the rather long subsection on Moses, which I've deleted entirely. This was added some time ago by a friend of mine, but I'm deleting it because it's poorly written and largely redundant (i.e., it repeats material already in the article). Incidentally, were you aware that I wrote the article? I'll go through it line by line:
*"Many scholars see the biblical Moses as a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed."
::-True, and in fact I'm a hundred percent certain that he never existed - he isn't mentioned in texts from before the Babylonian captivity, and the exodus itself is barely referred to; in other words, the exodus is an exilic origin-myth. But so what? Are you trying to say that Moses didn't exist and therefore didn't write the Torah? You're not actually saying it.
*"Whomever Moses was, scholars today agree almost unanimously that the Torah is the work of many authors over many centuries."
::- The same sentence is used in the third paragraph of the section on Rabbinic tradition.
*"Even among evangelical scholars, the Mosaic authorship is endorsed only by the most conservative."
::- We already have that in the article - first sentence of the last paragraph.
*"Jewish scholars such as Shaye J. D. Cohen and Richard Elliott Friedman also reject the Mosaic authorship.[19][20] Friedman declared "At present, however, there is hardly a biblical scholar in the world actively working on the problem who would claim that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses — or by any one person."[20][21] Cohen stated about the battle of modern Bible scholars against traditional views of authorship of the Torah: "The great battleground is the Torah (the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses): is the Torah the earliest biblical book, revealed by God to Moses shortly after the Exodus, around 1300-1200 BCE, or one of the latest, not completed until the exilic period – or later? (see Kugel)".[19]"
::We don't quote individual scholars, we quote majority opinions. The question of contemporary Jewish scholarship and Mosaic authorship is covered in much more detail, and with far better sources, in the section on Rabbinic (i.e., Jewish) scholarship. 
Incidentally, this sentence is interesting: "The great battleground is the Torah (the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses): is the Torah the earliest biblical book, revealed by God to Moses shortly after the Exodus, around 1300-1200 BCE, or one of the latest, not completed until the exilic period – or later? (see Kugel)" The great battleground of what? There's no battle over Mosaic authorship, it's as popular as flat earth. Nor is there any debate over whether the Torah was completed around 1200 BCE - nobody believes anything so silly. Achar Sva (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the clarification. I didn't mean to disrupt the article in the first place, but I couldn't understand why remove the book written by Dever. Although I also agree that most biblical scholars don't believe in the authorship of Moses, there are plenty of Christians and people who belong to other Abrahamic religions which consider him as the author of the Pentateuch, despite the fact that most biblical scholars agree that he's just a fictional character and never really existed. GenoV84 (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of material on Moses