@setszu If you mix two different schools of thought together, there's a good chance that you will arrive at nonsensical conclusions. Rambam (seems to have) believed that the entire Torah we have today was dictated word for word by G-d. Nothing blasphemous or heretical there. You might believe, based on whatever evidence you find convincing, that parts of the Torah were in fact not dictated by G-d. But why should that affect how we classify Rambam's position? Clearly you believe Rambam is wrong / mistaken, but equally clearly there is no blasphemy or heresy in the position he espouses.

@JoelK I wrote in the question that attribution of Divine qualities to a possibly human writer would be considered blasphemous/heretical by virtue of the idea of dictation.

@setszu But is there anyone who is actually attributing Divine qualities to a human writer?

@JoelK If you subscribe the Maimonedean idea of the dictation model, you are implicitly doing that

@RabbiKaii You misunderstood me. I'm saying that if Rambam was indeed the one who came up with the dictation model of the Torah, while in reality the Torah was only partially dictated & some other portion of it contains human writings (I think that this is the position of Rav Obadiah Sforno, ie the idea that the "Torah" that Moses received is only a certain number of teachings or even just a single teaching), then if we view the entire Torah as the literal, dictated word of G-d, we are viewing human writing as G-dly, thus elevating the humans who wrote it to G-d's status & that's blasphemous.

@setszu sorry, I don't understand. You are saying if it's not true that all of the Torah was dictated, then the people who say it was are being blasphemous?

@RabbiKaii Yes! And I explained the reasoning above

Maybe simplify it down to just a single paragraph, and bold the following "...so, according to the opinions that hold that the Torah was not fully dictated by Hashem, would Rambam's opinion be considered blasphemous/heretical, because he is calling human writings Divine, according to them?"

@RabbiKaii Why though? There's nothing wrong with it as it is. All the text is important context, no?

Relevant: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/36687/27180

I don't understand what you mean by the "dictation model." Are you saying God did not give the Torah to Moses verbatim? Or are you referring to some notion that it was orally transmitted from teacher to student instead of being written down? Or something else? I apologize but reading your post I don't even really understand what the question is.

@Avraham I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. By "dictation model", I am referring to the idea that all of the five books of Moses were dictated verbatim to Moses, and then written down at Mt. Sinai and were then passed down through the generations to get us to today where we basically have a verbatim dictation of the five books of Moses by G-d, blessed be He, and written down by Moses. I am asking if such an idea is blasphemous because if the dictation model is false/unscriptural, but we still believe it, we would be elevating a human writing to G-d's level. Read some of the comments by me

I'm guessing the Sforno said no such thing?

@MichoelR Agree. He did write some on the order things are described in, but nothing to do with what the OP writes.

Thanks for clarifying. So the main focus is how the Torah was given and not how it was transmitted across generations. What's the alternative to the dictation model? Divine revelation to Moses but not verbatim?

@Avraham "My view is that some parts, if not the majority of what we call the Torah (five books of Moses) were written down in 13th century BCE at Mt. Sinai by a person named Moses, but that overtime some editing and connecting was done by humans with Divine inspiration. They would change up the language and vocabulary so that people of the time could understand it, insert clarifications in certain places where they thought it was necessary, etc. But none of that could affect any of the meaning or the core text, especially with Divine inspiration and being near G-d during 1st and 2nd Temple."

@Avraham In other words, some parts might've been dictated, a lot was written in by Moses's own words, and a portion was written down by later individuals who did things like update the vocabulary so that meaning doesn't get lost with language changes (e.g. coqnuering empires introduce new langauge), connecting certain things and inserting explanations where needed, etc. all while being under Divine inspiration due to having proximity to the Holy Temples where G-d would prevent any corruption of meaning and text from occurring. In the end, the text is as Divine as if it was dictated entirely.

@Avraham The conclusion is the same as Rambam's: The Torah is the most Divine document ever and everything about it is Divine. The only difference is the process through which this was arrived at, but the end conclusion is the same.

@MichoelR I can't find where Sforno said it, but there are others as well, e.g.: "In the same sense all biblical critics who, like Abraham ibn Ezra in his notes on Deuteronomy 1:2, doubt or deny the Mosaic authorship of every portion of the Pentateuch, would protest against the Maimonidean (or Talmudic; see Sanh. 99a) conception of heresy.". So Abraham Ibn Ezra might've been such an individual. There were others as well.

Where are these quotes from? I'm still waiting for a quote from an early authority.

@MichoelR If you hold Rambam to be an authority, surely Abraham ibn Ezra is early enough? I don't know what an "early authority" means and I don't know how you're going to set up such a standard without collapsing into subjectivism and special pleading fallacy. Anyway, the quote is from Wikipedia, just paste it into Google, I think the page was about Judaism & heresy. Moreover, you can see Abraham ibn Ezra's commentary on Deuteronomy yourself where he states that he doesn't think that Moses wrote all of Pentateuch (esp. via dictation). And Ezra was one of the greatest authorities of the time.

@MichoelR sefaria.org/… Click on the blue number 30 (in the last line), and also explore other numbers and notes in there and read his commentary. I think that this is pretty uncontroversial though regarding Abraham ibn Ezra, see his wikipage too. And he was one of the most distinguished commentators of the time.

It looks like your source is what someone else (the blue numbers) said, rather than what he said. I am not arguing about his distinguished character, I am waiting to see a source for his words that say what you claim. You keep quoting what others claim about him.

As for the last twelve verses in the Torah, for at least eight of them we have an explicit gemara Bava Basra 15a sefaria.org/Bava_Batra.15a.4?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en, you don't need the Ibn Ezra for that.

@MichoelR Its a standard interpretation of his and is commonly accepted. Read his text. Also, its not just about the last twelve verses.

I guess I'm done here. You have still not given me any texts of his at all, except one which does not say anything. I'm not asking how others interpret him, I'm asking if you have any actual evidence.

@MichoelR Please educate yourself on Ibn Ezra's writing and his style. Good luck. If that text "does not say anything", then that is on you. I can't help you with that.

"If you understand the secret of the twelve" "and also that of... then you will recognize the truth". It surely says something, but doesn't give license to make things up and then claim he said what someone else suggested. If this is what you have then you have nothing.

@MichoelR Combine that with other writings of his, and the interpretation becomes clear as day. Just search Abraham ibn Ezra and Biblical Criticism and you'll get many more detailed explanations.

I asked you for sources. No point in your sending me to do my own research.