Talk:Deuteronomist

message: I have made Deuteronomic History (and Deuteronomistic History) now redirect to this page.
I think it might be worth making the point in the article that the common thematic and stylistic traits of the books from Joshua to Kings (and possibility of their shared authorship) had been discussed long before the suggestion of documentary hypothesis; and is often widely supported even by people who find the whole more involved superstructure of the J+E+P+D theory rather more speculative to believe in. -- Jheald 10:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deuteronomic History 

message: This article claims that the heresy of Peor isn't mentioned in Deuteronomy, but it actually is.  I don't know if this is an error in the Documentary Hypothesis or just an error in the article, but there needs to be some kind of correction. 4.235.207.245 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Heresy of Peor 

message: The first sentence does not need the following pejorative statement about the DH: "that treats the texts of Scripture as products of human intellect, working in time." Removed. Davejake (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slant 

message: Just to explain why I keep deleting this phrase:
The DH is a hypothesis about how the Pentateuch was written - by an editor or editors combining four independent documents (hence the name), each telling the same story from start to finish. There are two other hypotheses, the supplementary, which sees an original document being "supplemented", added to, by later authors (not editors), and "fragmentary", which sees the Pentateuch created by combining numerous fragments of story, none of them a complete document. Each one of these three is only a model, not a theory - scholars construct theories using these approaches as models, and there are many theories. 
The idea of sources is quite separate. It comes from source criticism, and all three models accept that sources exist - nobody thinks that the Pentateuch was written by a single author, without sources. The Deuteronomist is one of those sources, and theories within all three hypthoseses use it. For this reason it's very misleading to talk about the DH here, and also misleading to say that the Deuteronomistic source is according to anyone in particular - it's just too universally accepted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.133.97 (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "According to the documentary hypothesis" 

message: The article as it currently stands (6/18/16) states that the term "Deuteronomistic history" was coined in 1943 by Martin Noth. However, the book "Literature of the Old Testament" by Julius A. Bewer, copyright 1922, 1933, has a chapter titled "The Deuteronomistic Historians", which presents a view of an original Deuteronomist and a line of successors who wrote, rewrote, and/or edited Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings along for reasons similar to those described in the article. This would seem to imply that the term "Deuteronomistic history" was probably in use long before Noth's book was published.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paroche (talk • contribs) 06:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on origin of term "Deuteronomistic history" 

message: Should the article include a mention of Huldah the female Prophet?  It has been suggested that she was the original Deuteronomist, the author of the original Deuteronomic code. 64.180.23.108 (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Huldah article doesn't mention it. Do you have a high quality WP:Reliable Source? Whatt? Editor2020 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huldah: author of Deuteronomy? 

message: According to the theory which puts the writing of Deuteronomy in the Babylonian Exile period, what are the explanations for the Samaritan Deuteronomy? I think it's worth including this in the article, as well as in the article on the Samaritan Pentateuch, if anyone is acquainted with reliable sources that would shed some light on this.
The logical conclusions I can think of, assuming this theory to be true, would be that either the Samaritan Deuteronomy was added to their Torah after the Exile, or that their entire Torah was modified after the Exile. Has documentary evidence been found that might either back this up for falsify it? פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samaritan Deutoronomy 

message: Kindly note that that sections is about recent mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not about your own musings, nor about the musings of fundamentalist and traditionalist believers. Wikipedia is not made for WP:SOAPBOXING your POV. Our luminaries are Bible professors from WP:CHOPSY and scholars of similar clout. Conservapedia does not like mainstream Bible scholarship, while Wikipedia does not like fundamentalist Bible scholarship. Your edits are fit for Conservapedia and unfit for Wikipedia. We do not ignore what religious leaders wrote during the centuries, but Wikipedia is ultimately a secular encyclopedia, so secular scholarly authorities make the call for us. tgeorgescu (talk)  11:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "fundamentalist Bible scholarship" There is no such thing. Pseudo-scholarship is not scholarship, and fundamentalists are incapable of producing rigorous and objective studies. Dimadick (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits