Editing Torah (section)

==Composition==
{{Main|Composition of the Torah|Mosaic authorship}}

The [[Talmud]] states that the Torah was written by Moses, with the exception of the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, describing his death and burial, being written by [[Joshua]].<ref>[[Bava Basra]] 14b</ref>  According to the [[Mishnah]] one of the essential tenets of Judaism is that God transmitted the text of the Torah to&nbsp;Moses<ref>Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:1</ref> over the span of the 40 years the Israelites were in the desert<ref>Talmud Gitten 60a,</ref> and Moses was like a scribe who was dictated to and wrote down all of the events, the stories and the commandments.<ref>language of Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:1</ref>

According to [[Jewish tradition]], the Torah was recompiled by [[Ezra]] during [[Second Temple period]].<ref>Ginzberg, Louis (1909). ''[[Legends of the Jews|The Legends of the Jews]] [http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/e-books/misc/Legends/Legends%20of%20the%20Jews.pdf Vol. IV: Ezra]'' (Translated by Henrietta Szold) Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.</ref>{{sfn|Ross|2004|p=192}} The Talmud says that Ezra changed the script used to write the Torah from the older [[Paleo-Hebrew alphabet|Hebrew script]] to  the [[Ktav Ashuri|"Assyrian" script]], so called according to the Talmud, because they brought it with them from Assyria.<ref>[[Sanhedrin (tractate)|Sanhedrin]] 21b</ref> [[Maharsha]] says that Ezra made no changes to the actual text of the Torah based on the Torah's prohibition of making any additions or deletions to the Torah in Deuteronomy 12:32.<ref>Commentary on the Talmud, Sanhedrin 21b</ref>

[[File:Modern document hypothesis.svg|thumb|upright=0.75|One common formulation of the documentary hypothesis.]]

By contrast, the modern scholarly consensus rejects Mosaic authorship, and affirms that the Torah has multiple authors and that its composition took place over centuries.{{sfn|McDermott|2002|p=21}} The precise process by which the Torah was composed, the number of authors involved, and the date of each author are hotly contested. Throughout most of the 20th century, there was a scholarly consensus surrounding the [[documentary hypothesis]], which posits four independent sources, which were later compiled together by a redactor: J, the [[Jahwist]] source, E, the [[Elohist]] source, P, the [[Priestly source]], and D, the [[Deuteronomist]] source. The earliest of these sources, J, would have been composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE,{{citation needed|date=February 2025}} with the latest source, P, being composed around the 5th century BCE.

[[File:Diagram of the Supplementary Hypothesis.jpg|thumb|upright=0.75|The [[supplementary hypothesis]], one potential successor to the documentary hypothesis.]]

The consensus around the documentary hypothesis collapsed in the last decades of the 20th century.{{sfn|Carr|2014|p=434}} The groundwork was laid with the investigation of the origins of the written sources in oral compositions, implying that the creators of J and E were collectors and editors and not authors and historians.{{sfn|Thompson|2000|p=8}} [[Rolf Rendtorff]], building on this insight, argued that the basis of the Pentateuch lay in short, independent narratives, gradually formed into larger units and brought together in two editorial phases, the first Deuteronomic, the second Priestly.{{sfn|Ska|2014|pp=133-135}} By contrast, [[John Van Seters]] advocates a [[supplementary hypothesis]], which posits that the Torah was derived from a series of direct additions to an existing corpus of work.{{sfn|Van Seters|2004|p=77}} A "neo-documentarian" hypothesis, which responds to the criticism of the original hypothesis and updates the methodology used to determine which text comes from which sources, has been advocated by biblical historian Joel S. Baden, among others.{{sfn|Baden|2012}}{{sfn|Gaines|2015|p=271}} Such a [[hypothesis]] continues to have adherents in Israel and North America.{{sfn|Gaines|2015|p=271}}

The majority of scholars today continue to recognize Deuteronomy as a source, with its origin in the law-code produced at the court of [[Josiah]] as described by De Wette, subsequently given a frame during the exile (the speeches and descriptions at the front and back of the code) to identify it as the words of Moses.{{sfn|Otto|2014|p=605}} However, since the 1990s, the biblical description of Josiah's reforms (including his court's production of a law-code) have become heavily debated among academics.<ref>[[Lester L. Grabbe|Grabbe, Lester]] (2017). ''Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?''. T&T Clark. p. 249-250. "It was once conventional to accept Josiah's reform at face value, but the question is currently much debated (Albertz 1994: 198–201; 2005; Lohfink 1995; P. R. Davies 2005; Knauf 2005a)."</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Pakkala |first1=Juha |title=One God – One Cult – One Nation |chapter=Why the Cult Reforms In Judah Probably Did Not Happen |chapter-url=https://www.academia.edu/382385 |editor-last=Kratz |editor-first=Reinhard G. |editor2-last=Spieckermann |editor2-first=Hermann |publisher=De Gruyter |year=2010 |pages=201–235 |isbn=9783110223576 |accessdate=2024-01-25 |via=Academia.edu }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Conversations on Canaanite and Biblical Themes: Creation, Chaos and Monotheism |last=Hess |first=Richard S. |publisher=Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG |year=2022 |isbn=978-3-11-060629-4 |pages=135–150 |editor-last=Watson |editor-first=Rebecca S. |chapter=2 Kings 22-3: Belief in One God in Preexilic Judah? |editor-last2=Curtis |editor-first2=Adrian H. W. |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YUR6EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA135}}</ref> Most scholars also agree that some form of Priestly source existed, although its extent, especially its end-point, is uncertain.{{sfn|Carr|2014|p=457}} The remainder is called collectively non-Priestly, a grouping which includes both pre-Priestly and post-Priestly material.{{sfn|Otto|2014|p=609}}

===Date of compilation===
The final Torah is widely seen as a product of the [[Persian period]] (539–332 BCE, probably 450–350 BCE).{{Sfn|Frei|2001|p=6}} This consensus echoes a traditional Jewish view which gives [[Ezra]], the leader of the Jewish community on its return from Babylon, a pivotal role in its promulgation.{{sfn|Romer|2008|p=2 and fn.3}} Many theories have been advanced to explain the composition of the Torah, but two have been especially influential.{{sfn|Ska|2006|p=217}} The first of these, Persian Imperial authorisation, advanced by Peter Frei in 1985, holds that the Persian authorities required the Jews of Jerusalem to present a single body of law as the price of local autonomy.{{sfn|Ska|2006|p=218}} Frei's theory was, according to Eskenazi, "systematically dismantled" at an interdisciplinary symposium held in 2000, but the relationship between the Persian authorities and Jerusalem remains a crucial question.{{sfn|Eskenazi|2009|p=86}} The second theory, associated with Joel P. Weinberg and called the "Citizen-Temple Community", proposes that the Exodus story was composed to serve the needs of a post-exilic Jewish community organised around the Temple, which acted in effect as a bank for those who belonged to it.{{sfn|Ska|2006|pp=226–227}}

A minority of scholars would place the final formation of the Pentateuch somewhat later, in the [[Hellenistic period|Hellenistic]] (332–164 BCE) or even [[Hasmonean Kingdom|Hasmonean]] (140–37 BCE) periods.{{sfn|Greifenhagen|2003|pp=206–207, 224 fn.49}} Russell Gmirkin, for instance, argues for a Hellenistic dating on the basis that the [[Elephantine papyri]], the records of a Jewish colony in Egypt dating from the last quarter of the 5th century BCE, make no reference to a written Torah, [[the Exodus]], or to any other biblical event, though it does mention the festival of [[Passover]].{{sfn|Gmirkin|2006|pp=30, 32, 190}}