Jump to content

Talk:Hebrew Bible (term)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

statement in intro

"This arrangement and the textual variants are not part of the Christian canon."

Say what? Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is a Protestant work and includes textual variants. Many English Bible translations include textual variants, for example, Gen 1 (NRSV). 75.14.220.159 06:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear anonymous, this article is about the Hebrew Bible, not a series of text-critical editions of the Hebrew Bible. Keteb-Qere distinctions (in the Masoretic pointing), which are a kind of critical apparatus, are also beyond the scope of the term. The Leningrad or Aleppo Codices, the Stuttgart editions and the Dead Sea Scrolls are all witnesses to the text of the Hebrew Bible, not the Hebrew Bible itself. In one sense, the term is an abstraction, refering to something that no longer exists, except in copies (critical or otherwise). Even worse, there are those who'd argue that the text of books and composition of canon were essentially amenable to revisions (like Wiki articles) for most of their early history.

The sentence you quote means -- the classification of books as Law, Prophets and Writings, and that particular ordering, found in the Tanakh -- are not held by Christians (although there is evidence this division predates the LXX). Likewise, when people do use HB for BHS (nice and concrete, but which edition?), the variants are also not part of any Christian dogma.

Perhaps reference in the article to BHS or the MT in general are not the most helpful thing, because they are not synonymous with HB. It's a way of talking of the Jewish Scriptures, in their original language, without being either exclusive or more specific. Alastair Haines 13:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the statement is that textual variants are part of the Christian canon. About the only exception would be adherents to the King-James-Only Movement, but of course there are also variants of that text. In other words, the Hebrew Bible in Judaism includes textual variants, and for the most part the same thing applies to Christianity. 75.14.223.127 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are using the term "canon" carefully enough here. Christianity sanctifies neither the Hebrew masoretic text printed in BHS not the variants it records. Rather, it uses them as tools for reading and understanding the biblical books, and for translating them, and that is the purpose of BHS.

Judaism, on the other hand, sanctifies the masoretic text (of which BHS is one good edition) through religious study and public synagogue reading, but certainly not the textual variants recorded in the apparatus at the bottom of BHS. Traditional Jews tend to disregard the latter, while more liberal Jews may see them as sources worth studying even if they are not to be read in the synagogue. Dovi 08:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for opening my eyes again Dovi. Yet another aspect of Judaism about which I was ignorant, though I suspected it from the text of the article as provided by other editors.
On another point, Dovi, if you're still around. I've been thinking about supersessionism and just precisely which Christians believe it etc. etc.
I hope the following observation may be helpful. One of the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism (and probably Orthodoxy as well) is that Protestants mean something different by the word church. Protestants do not have priests or altars. It was one of the "reforms" of the Reformation that Protestants believed they were introducing. To Catholics, by and large, the church is very concrete -- it has a leader, a magisterium, a priesthood who perform the sacrifice of the eucharist at a sanctified altar. I can very much understand sincere Catholics viewing this as a replacement of the, in their view, "old" covenant. Likewise I can understand astute Jewish observers seeing it for exactly that also.
On the other hand, Protestants view the church as being the abstract "fellowship of all believers". This has a visible expression in local "assemblies" (ekklesia in the NT Greek). The only leader is the Annointed One, all believers are priests, He is the High Priest. We have no temple and no sacrifice. Not very Jewish is it? But drop the priesthood of all believers, and really Protestants are organized as synagogues with rabbis ... only we use Greek / Gentile words.
I can hardly do justice to everyone's views in a few words, and I certainly don't want to argue for who is right or wrong. But I do hope I have communicated why as a Protestant I'm surprised to be accused of supersessionism (not that you've accused me personally). I doubt all Catholics see things the way I've described, maybe they are right and you and I are wrong. But the point is, a traditional Catholic and traditional Protestant have quite distinct practices that are relevant to the issue of supersession.
It's a very interesting topic, and I'm glad I've been introduced to it. It's not discussed much in Australia, but then again perhaps I've just not been paying attention. ;) Alastair Haines 15:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Belatedly, @KJV only anon comment above. I agree with you. The critical apparatus is part of what is preserved of the originals. It is part of gaining best possible access to autographs. I agree the KJV only people, despite many laudable motives, are actually accepting a text with considerable additions, some of a significantly questionable nature.
Strictly speaking though, I believe canon refers to the lists of books, rather than to a received (or critical) text of those books in standard Christian theological terminology. Looks like Jewish terminology may be a little different. Alastair Haines 15:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


Supersession of article

We need to talk. I like a lot of the new information provided by the current draft proposal. In fact, although it reads like an article on Tanakh, there is a sense in which this page should "feel" Hebrew. However, the LXX is actually a much older witness to the HB than any Masoretic tradition, hence much of what has been added here includes matters that are explicitly not implied by the term HB in peer-reviewed usage.

Technically, cited material has also been removed without discussion. Before I restore that, and the material that was not (but is easily) ref'd, I think we should talk. Alastair Haines 02:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi there Alastaire: It would be worth your while to place a request or notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism so that you get the attention of some proficient Judaicly-knowledgeable editors. (It would also be highly advisable advise not to use the word "Supersession" especially in a topic like this, since Supersessionism is the theory of how Christianity supplants Judaism -- an act akin to lighting a match in a petrol station.) So tread very carefully before doing anything radical. Hope to hear from you, IZAK 09:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
As the text of the discussion above shows, the text of the current stable version of the article reflects considerable discussion between three editors, one of whom was representing Jewish views.
The term Hebrew Bible is not owned by Christians or Jews, that's the whole point. What synogogue or seder uses HB to describe Tanakh? Same with churches.
What we need are people familiar with academic writing in non affiliated contexts.
It is sad if people cannot see the humour in using the term supersession. It should also prompt the conscience. There was no attempt to incorporate preceeding text. The entire preceding article was removed and a wall of Tanakh material supplied. Alastair Haines 13:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alastair: Humor is nice, but let's stay focused. I strongly disagree with your assertion that: "What we need are people familiar with academic writing in non affiliated contexts" because on Wikipedia that would ALSO only reflect ONE POV (since merely asserting "non affiliated" status does not make it valid or true), especially since Wikipedia is interested in the scholarly views of all notable trends directly connected to this topic, and very simply, because the Hebrew Bible is the primary text of Judaism (and remains so) and since it was in a very real sense owned by the Jewish people, one cannot say, well, let the faceless-academics decide matters of religion and God. Each faith can and should present its views, as long as all editors adhere to the letter and spirit of the W:NPOV mechanism/s and therefore no academics need to give their two-cents worth "to settle differences." Thanks, IZAK 07:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi IZAK, I thought the primary text of Judaism was the Tanakh. This has changed? I should redirect Tanakh to this page?
Old Testament is not a Jewish term, Tanakh is not a Christian term and Hebrew Bible is neither Christian nor Jewish. In fact, several earlier editors discussed the question of where the term HB comes from. Some thought it was Christians trying to minimize Jewishness, others thought it was Jews trying to minimize use of OT as a term. We still don't know who first coined the term in its current form of usage. What we do know is that HB does not equal Catholic OT. It also does not equal Protestant OT or Tanakh. In fact, the whole point of current usage of the term in peer-reviewed literature is to refer to a set of books, without refering to views any particular tradition has about those books, with one exception. That exception is the presumed view of Jewish orthodoxy prior to the production of the LXX, regarding a de facto canon.
Merely asserting that you think there is a POV issue doesn't mean there is one. In fact, the academic definition Hebrew Bible (for that is what it is) is explicitly NPOV. The definition is specifically endorsed for precisely the purpose of refering to the scrolls you know as Tanakh and Protestants refer to as OT, without implying anything about later views concerning those books. Hence, opinions from people knowledgable concerning Christian, Medieval Jewish, or any modern views are strictly speaking irrelevant.
I think you misunderstand what this article is about. It is about the Jewish Scriptures, but it is about those scriptures, before Christianity separated from Judaism. It is about the common canon of Biblical books originally composed mainly in Hebrew. But esentially it is not so much about those books (because other articles cover that), as it is about how these books are refered to in NPOV contexts, i.e. non affilitated academic literature. Yes, this is a POV, it is called the NPOV. As Wiki is also non affiliated academic literature, it is my understanding that there is at least a de facto adoption of this terminology, in accord with the NPOV policy.
In fact, I will be modifying the Bible article accordingly at some point, as I note it is currently contains an unsourced error in this regard. Alastair Haines 14:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out two relevant Wikipedia policies. The Neutral point of view policy regards everyone as having a point of view. When, as here, there are multiple points of view, the policy requires presenting all significant points of view without preference, although majority and minority points of view can be identified. The policy prohibits selecting a single viewpoint and claiming it is "the" neutral point of view. Second, the Naming conflict guideline explicitly makes the most common use of a term in English the most important criterion to determine how to name an article. Because Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia by and for general non-specialist English speakers, not necessarily academics, subjects are arranged to help ordinary non-specialist English speakers navigate them, and common English usage controls the naming of articles. We seem to have the sort of conflict between specialist and non-specialist usage this guideline covers. Under the guideline, the ordinary non-specialist English dictionary definition of the term is to be preferred. This generally refers to contemporary religious texts. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'll point out that the Septuagint already has it's own article. I'm starting to think it might be better to simply merge Hebrew Bible with Tanakh and substantially expand the present Biblical studies article to help articulate contemporary academic scholarship's views as they compare and contrast multiple texts. I would also think academic views bringing in other texts are relevant to Tanakh etc., although not its main subject. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
There are no competing points of view on this one (except perhaps for the speculations of various editors on the talk page). Where are the citations for the "ordinary language usage" of HB in Jewish writing? Can we find any in Christian writing? Answer: no. HB is "ordinary language usage" only in academic writing.
By your argument we need to merge Tanakh into Old Testament, because OT is far more common usage. Raises a question doesn't it? Is there a term for Tanakh/OT that is neutral? It would be really helpful if there was one. Ah! Yes there is one! No original neologisms or OR required, we can just use the standard term recommended in non-affiliated theological journals -- Hebrew Bible.
I recommend people read the article and follow the citations. I will alter the Bible article now, because I suspect that's what's confusing people. Alastair Haines 06:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I have returned the content of this discussion page from the archive because its contents are the keys to understanding how it got to be what it is. Perhaps at a later time, as the page gets really long, it can be archived, but for now it needs to stay so that others who join the discussions here can see what has transpired instead of rummaging around and re-inventing the wheel of the background to how and why this article came to be. IZAK 09:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi IZAK I agree. I've resored the text of the stable version of the article according to the same ppl. Alastair Haines 12:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Pseudepigraphal gospels

Hi Andrew, nice to interact with you again. And this is a great issue for us to nut out.

I think your point is that making a distinction between pseudepigraphal gospels and canonical gospels assumes that such a question can be decided. In particular, what's to say that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were actually written by men with those names. You are not alone to make the point. It is, in fact, a hyper-conservative Christian position — we do not know the authors because their names are not in the text.

There are many reasons to associate Gnosticism and ps gospels. There are several ancient sources and plenty of modern histories of Gnosticism that record that the culmination of the exclusion of Gnosticism was marked by the burning of their books. Not the last time Christians have done that, but probably the first. Gnostics may well have been more literate than the average Christian (I bet someone's said that, but couldn't tell you who), they are big on wisdom and word, they had their own kind of gospel genre, it is quite distinctive (plenty of sources note what readers see easily for themselves).

Anyway, the point in context here is that second century Christian consensus (rightly or wrongly) moved towards forming a canon. That consensus determined what they thought were pseud and what not. It is both documented in ancient writing and discussed in modern commentary.

Personally, I don't like loose usage of the term "pseudepigraphal" to suggest non-canonicity. The word really means "falsely signed". Given that there is always reasonable doubt about ancient authorship (were Caesar's commentaries provided by a "ghost writer"?), the only books that can be known certainly not to be pseudepigraphal are unsigned books! On the other hand, The Song of Songs which is Solomon's, is considered by many conservatives as an example of canonical psuedepigraphy!

Conclusion. In this article the point is that early Christians did not consider the Old Testament to have lost canonical status (and hence be superseded). Were they right? Well, that's not the point. Did they say that they were doing this? Yes! Do modern scholars comment on this? Yes. Is the historicity of those decisions debated? No. Is the rational debated? You bet. But historicity of decisions re canonicity is the point at issue here, not justification or condemnation.

There's a lot to digest there. Sorry to hit you with a wall of points. Better they're on the talk page than in the text or footnotes if you ask me. ;) Alastair Haines 05:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Recommended terminology

Just doing a quick survey of some major journals to see if they have notes regarding usage.

Well, that's good enough for me. The large Catholic system has its own rules and are content with Old Testament. A spectrum of conservative Christian journals through to more open ones specify Chicago for English language style and Society of Biblical Literature for theological style. Hebrew Bible is standard for Christian reference to the Old Testament in major theological journals.

If people don't believe this, the onus is on them to do the research into which journals are major and what they say. If they don't do the research, they'll just be believing someone else's say-so anyway. If they wait long enough, I'm sure someone will oblige and make a counter claim, they may even find an exception or two.

I'd be curious to know which are the major Jewish journals and what their standard is. I would expect it to be Tanakh or Bible without qualification. HB helps Christians avoid the messiness of multiple OT canons.

It would also be worth checking more linguistic and archaeological journals to see if they specify a standard.

It's someone else's turn. ;) Alastair Haines 11:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the obvious reason is that the Catholic Old Testament has books in both Greek and Hebrew, whereas the Protestant Old Testament does not contain the Greek books. So for a Protestant, "Hebrew Bible" is not problematic, but in a Catholic context its inaccurate. If my guess is right, this article should be clear about that. Ritterschaft 15:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Your guess is spot on, and it is addressed explicitly, right at the bottom of the article. Actually, it also influenced the first sentence that says "common to Judaism and Christianity." I don't like that as a definition for various reasons, but it does address the point -- only those books of Christian OTs that are also in the Jewish canon are denoted by the term HB. It is therefore of limited use to Catholicism, as you say. So it's lack of prominence in Catholic journals is consistent with the SBL definition. Though arguments from silence have a habit of coming unstuck. Alastair Haines 17:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alastair, sorry I've been out of the loop for a while. Briefly, I really like what you did above, giving information on various journals and scholarly publications that use the term. These points should be put into the article as footnotes/verification of the fact that the term has been broadly recommended for use in academic writing, and that academic writing is its major context, even though certainly not all academics actually use it.

On the meaning of the term within overlapping canons, it would be prudent to add not just that the term includes those books which are common to the Jewish and Christian canons, but also those books for which a Hebrew text has been preserved intact.

On Jewish usage, you usually find just "Tanakh" or simply "Bible" (refering to the Jewish Bible), even in academic or quasi-academic writing, unless such writing is addressed to a broader audience. For the latter "Hebrew Bible" pops up often.Dovi 04:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you! :) Yes, what you say is my understanding also. It would be nice to find examples of Hebrew Bible in Jewish affiliated journals, but we could well look for a very long time and find little, for exactly the reasons you give. I will have a little fiddle with the lead section and try to make the Hebrew text point clear. Alastair Haines 11:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've taken your advice and reworked the lead-in, going right back to the stub that was first used for this page. By the way, I notice you have been around at this page since the beginning Dovi. May I comment how I admire the way you have helped keep this article on track, through a few explosions of interest from other editors. Methinks this is the Wiki way. I hope we'll both be around for years to continue to watch development at this page. Shalom. Alastair Haines 12:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable POV slanting

An unacceptable set of words, phrases and ordering suggests Christian theology is confused and bigoted.

If anyone wants to think that, they are welcome to think it. Indeed there will always be confused bigots in any group -- be they political, cultural, philosophical or ethical. However, the courtesy of encyclopedic writing is to present the best case in a way adherents to a particular view could accept.

The parameters of Christian understanding of covenant are defined by the New Testament, which is extremely clear. To hold Marcion as representative of some kind of ongoing difficulty is bizarre. In rejecting his suggestion that the Old Testament was defunct, Christians took one of their first steps in publishing what they believed are the bounds of reasonable interpretation of the New Testament documents. Ask an Orthodox, ask a Catholic, ask a Protestant, ask a Charismatic, or ask an independent group ... all hold the books of the Hebrew Bible to be inspired scripture.

When the reliable sources are unanimous in excluding Marcion from Christianity, it is not for Wiki to chose to be "inclusive".

The reason such unfortunate text has arisen is because a contributor is guessing about the reasons Hebrew Bible is used.

This article is not really about how to be "politically correct". It just so happens that there is one thing all mainstream Christians and Jews agree about and that is: Genesis is part of the Bible, Exodus is part of the Bible, Esther is part of the Bible, etc. As has been noted, Hebrew Bible refers to the books of Bible that no one disputes are part of the Bible (except, historically, Marcion).

Actually, even the commonality of the books is not the main issue. It is theoretically possible that the Bible of the second century before Christianity included fewer or more books than the current Jewish canon. There are many different kinds of context in which the term Hebrew Bible is a natural way of describing the collection of documents considered by the pre-Christian Jewish community to be God's word to them, and to the world.

First and foremost, Hebrew Bible describes something in the past. The Jewish Bible today claims to be the same as the Hebrew Bible, passed down by careful scribes over many years.

It is a happy thing that this term bypasses certain points of contention, like misunderstanding the meaning of Old Testament, but that's not its primary meaning or purpose. If Hebrew Bible was a "politically correct", "inclusive" way of saying Old Testament, it would include books only known in Greek and accepted by Orthodox and Catholics, but it doesn't.

What absolutely amazes me is the bold placing of supercessionism first in a list of Christian views, when this has nothing to do with the meaning of Hebrew Bible, or the reason the term was coined, and nothing to do with any modern Christian description of their own views. Few Christians even know the word, I had to look it up! Supercessionism is complicated, Old Testament is not. They are not the same thing. Show a Christian source that explains their understanding of Old Testament in terms of supercessionism.

I will change this when I have time. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I would like a direct quote of anything in this article or on this talk page suggesting that Christianity is confused or bigoted. I see no evidence of any such thing. On the contrary, I currently see many sections that are mostly apologetic in nature.
You write that "To hold Marcion as representative of some kind of ongoing difficulty is bizarre." Let me give you an alternative example in a similar vein on a topic not so "close to home" for Christians. In traditional Judaism there is a core inner tension between Written Torah and Oral Torah (from which derives a parallel tension between the divine element and the human element in rabbinic law). Now, traditional Judaism is unanimous that both the Written and Oral Torahs are concurrently true. And all modern mainstream Judaisms derive from the traditional one that held this belief, even non-traditional movements like Reform Judaism.
One of the classic Jewish "heresies" is a movement that was extremely important in the middle ages and still exists today, namely Karaism, which rejected the truth of the Oral Law in a sort of pre-modern Jewish "back to the Bible" kind of way. This movement, as stated, was (and in some ways still is) a classic heresy. And no form of modern Judaism has its roots in Karaism. So would it be correct to "hold Karaism as representative of some kind of ongoing difficulty"? Absolutely, and there is nothing whatsoever "bizarre" about it. Written/Oral Torah is an axis of tension which Karaism resolved by removing one of the two alternative values, and by doing so becomes a crucial historical example for how that tension played out. Marcion plays an analogous role in Christianity, which undeniably deals with the ongoing difficulty of the relationship between "old" and "new" testaments, and has done so throughout history as the relevant Wikipedia articles describe quite clearly. There is nothing "confused" or "bigoted" about this.
Supersessionism is placed first among a list of Christian views because it is prominent in the historical theology of the Church, and because it is precisely this that most of those who care most about using the term (yes, usually Jewish scholars) object to in "Old Testament". Do you think this scholars are misrepresenting Christianity by doing so? Perhaps, but that is not the topic of the article. That belongs in supersessionism. The topic here is the term Hebrew Bible itself and why people use it.
You write: "The reason such unfortunate text has arisen is because a contributor is guessing about the reasons Hebrew Bible is used." The article clearly documents (or at least it did in the past) recommendations and reflections on modern academic use of the term, and that it is clearly meant as an "inclusive" term. Might there other reasons the term has and is used? There surely are, so let them be added. Might this usage of the term have its own deficiencies or lack of inclusiveness? Quite possibly, so add them (and I think they have already been added). The article needs to reflect all POV's.
The current commonality of the books is the main issue, at least according the documented POV, and it doesn't matter what books circulated in Hebrew 2000 years ago. If there is another POV then please add and document it, but there is no reason to remove this one. If there are other historical usages of the term let them be added to (without deleting the current one).
A recent change I didn't understand was the removal of the fact that "Tanakh" and "Old Testament" imply specific number and order of the books. Since that fact was rather redundant at the end of the sentence and the current text is tighter, I've left it. But why would anyone dispute the fact that Tanakh refers to the masoretic numbering of the books and their division into three parts, while OT uses the number and order in the Greek textual tradition? Similarly, the template "books of the bible" as it currently stands is POV, and should find a way of representing both traditions. Dovi (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I like you so much Dovi, I find I want to agree with you, even when you disagree with me! lol
Anyway, I can reply quickly now to the issues that don't concern me. I must sleep before I attempt to interact with the rest of your post Dovi.
Specific number and order of books seems right to me as regards TNK but not OT. Given the article already notes that OT is not a well-defined referent in a generic Christian context (different numbers of books for a start), that part at least has to go. Another editor flagged the sentence with a citation request, since I know none can be found for the erroneous part, I simply deleted it. I hesitated about deleting TNK, because the sentence was true if TNK was the only subject. However, the flow of the text suggested the contrast intended was between HB on one hand and TNK/OT on the other. Narrowing scope to simply contrasting HB with TNK alone did not seem to add much information. That HB does not in principle assume any ordering of books seems clear without introducing a contrast. HB does not arise because TNK scholars desire to refer to it without assuming any ordering to it. In fact, I would think lay people would use HB and TNK as synonyms, and assume ordering in many cases. Hence, the non-ordered, abstract nature of the term HB needs to be asserted (and, I would think, referenced). The subject of the entry is HB, not OT or TNK.
Regarding the template, I don't like it. It's misleading. The Hebrew Bible was in Hebrew and Aramaic, not in English. We can't be sure of the ordering of the books. However, this is English Wiki, articles on the books are in English, and templates need to follow some kind of ordering. Would English names in TNK order be any improvement? "Exodus" rather than "Names"? I wish these questions weren't rhetorical. In a way, I'd prefer the TNK template here instead.
The way to do that would be to reframe the article as HB = abstract precursor to TNK and OT, which is what it actually means in many contexts in academic writing. I'd have to keep a note of some while reading, but it wouldn't be too hard. We really do need to do the etymological research to discover how the term arose. I'd be 99% certain, however it arose, it did not arise as a "confession-neutral term". It suits itself to that for Protestants, but not other Christian groups. Personally, I think it is Wiki OR to suggest that this is its primary meaning. JBL style manual suggesting this usage argues in favour of my point, it doesn't prove it, but it doesn't prove it's a neologism either.
Anyway, best get to bed. Nice to interact with you again Dovi. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually no, I don't think it should switched to a TNK template. Rather, I think it should reflect both textual traditions in order and number, possibly in two parallel columns for comparison. (That comparison, BTW, will bear out what you and others have written about its suitability of Protestants.) As for OT, despite divergences in canon, nearly all Christian editions still do present the books in a way that reflects the influence of the LXX.
"I'd be 99% certain, however it arose, it did not arise as a "confession-neutral term". It suits itself to that for Protestants..." -- I tend to guess that you are right, there is probably a whole unknown history to its usage. Still, "confession-neutral" is the source of its current fame (or infamy). Dovi (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Specific Canons" section, filled with POV

First, the article speaks of canons in reference to what is called the Hebrew Bible(HB). Hence, it needs to define the term "Hebrew Bible" within this context before it runs into a tangent of "Christian" OT Canons.

Thus, it must be noted that the "Hebrew Canon" exist as defined by the most popular and surviving sect of Jews, Rabbinical Jews (the descendants of Pharisaic Jews). That said, it needs to be mentioned that historically there have been several Jewish Canons throughout history depending on the specific sect of Jews.

Saduceaic Jews held strictly to the Torah, the first five books of all Judao-Christian Canons. The Essenes of the Dead Sea Scrolls held to the HB cannon plus several other books including 1Enoch, Ben Sira (Sirach), Jubilees, as well as Tobit and other Septuagent books- though not including Maccabees, Judith, or the book of Wisdom. These latter books, however, ARE included in the Canon used during Christians of Apostolic Times...as well as Ethiopian Jews(Beta Israel to this very DAY.(Pharisaic/Rabbincal Jews eliminated books during the early 2nd century)

Additionally, the author makes a distict error when he refers to the HB/Protestant OT as adhering to Jerome's Hebraica veritas doctrine , when it is well known and documented that Jerome eventually rejected initial canonical bias and accepted the Church's Canon of OT scripture- accepted initially in the Augustinian Synods as mentioned; as well as the Council of Rome of 382 AD. For his exposure to Jews during his early days translating the bible was strictly to Jews of Palestine which were all Rabbincal Jews - utilizing a truncated canon, relative to Jews of the Appostolic Age...not to mention the already mentioned Esseene, Hellenist, and Ethiopian Jews mentioned above.

Lastly, it should be noted that the Judaism's traditional reliance on the Masoretic text of Jewish Scripture has been questioned as of late since the discovery of the much older (one millinia) Dead Sea Scrolls.

Overall, in my opinion, the discussion should be limited to Hebrew canons...not Christian OT canons regardless of the relationship. If this section can not be rewritten appropriatly it should be scrapped as simply biased and historically incongruent material...as it contains not one, but two sections needing citations...and has been posted for more than 1 year.Micael (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these knowledgable comments. While there are one or two minor points where I would quibble with your emphasis, I think you target key points about what is core to the topic and what is tangential. In such a reader-sensitive environment as Wiki, articles such as the current one often spin out to accomodate discussions of related issues that interest readers, without adequately clarifying the essential points.
Yes, Hebrew Bible is a term almost never used in Catholic scholarship, because it compromises important convictions regarding canon. It is also not really that common in Jewish scholarship, since it is almost synonymous with the meaning of Bible or Tanakh, which are much easier words to use. Essentially, Hebrew Bible is a Protestant usage designed to facilitate respectful dialogue with Jewish scholars on issues of common interest. It is a term with an easily understood referent, but without the loadings of Tanakh or Old Testament.
One thing that is not obvious without inspecting the History tab of the article is that this is not the work of any individual editor. This has drawbacks as well as benefits. The article will forever be a "work in progress", but just because we will never achieve perfection does not mean we are prevented from achieving improvements.
I did some work on this article at a point in the past, and intend to return to it some day, preferably when there are others here to interact with (and depending on real life availability and other priorities). Please feel free to make changes to the article Micael. As a gentle recommendation, though, I suggest you try to correct via addition rather than subtraction, and if subtracting, please do not subtract quotes or publication data. Those things are precious, and fade quickly from memory if buried in the article history. Unsourced editorial opinion that seems wrong can be deleted at any time according to WP policy. This provides an incentive for people to make their edits count by providing quotes and pub data to back them. Indeed, points you may want to consider if you decide to edit here.
Wiki can be very frustrating, because others will sometimes delete your work without being willing to even discuss it. People like Dovi and I (and the broader processes at Wiki) will attempt to protect your work from that kind of thing. Basically, if in doubt, edit anyway! Just please be careful of text with citations, sources can be wrong, and if they are, there are usually other sources that say so, we try to include both points of view at Wiki to give readers the chance to decide for themselves.
Best regards to you, we may have some friendly debate on various points down the track, but your POV is a new one for the article, you are very welcome indeed. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


Thank you so much, Alastair. Presently I am rather busy this time of the year. However, with time I'd gladly help out. I have appropriate citations, it is just a bit labor/time intensive presently, but in time I will get back to you and the article.

Also, my issue is not so much with the term "Hebrew Bible", but its canonical/historical meaning assuming a lack of a better term, depending on the specific Hebrew/Jewish sect we are speaking of, It seems everyone assumes Jews have always been unified in teaching/bible canon devoid of differing sects historically or even presently. Hence the need to specify in historical and sectarian Jewish terms of what is a Jewish/Hebrew Bible is.

Specifically, is that the Hellelist Jewish Canon, a Dead SS (Essene) Jewish Canon, a Ethiopian Jewish Canon, or even a early first century Pharisaic Canon versus a post-Christian Pharisaic/Rabbinical Canon? Micael (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Academic usage of the term, as I encounter it, is basically a way of refering to the OT, it has various associations that are somewhat blurry, because if pushed they'd be inaccurate, just as you're describing. The usage is however, very widespread and its referent is clear. I do believe this article would benefit by sourced information discussing notable tangents to the issue of usage. In a way, a previous poster was right—we don't really need this article at all, it is merely an alternative name for either the Tanakh or the Old Testament. Perhaps some of your information would be best at Tanakh, perhaps some at OT. There is a real chance that interest groups at either article may make adding such information difficult. If this article can provide a home for information that would otherwise remain out of Wikipedia, that strikes me as a good thing for non-partisan readers, among whom I count myself. Again, thanks for posting your comments, and please feel free to use the "talk" link next to my name to leave a message at my page if you would ever like any help. Dovi also is a marvellous editor, with depth of knowledge in areas where I am ignorant. I look forward to you contributing at your earliest convenience. Holiday greetings, whatever the current holiday means to you. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


Contexts of usage

When the specific context calls for using "Tanakh" or "Old Testament" specifically, "Hebrew Bible" may be added in parentheses (especially to the former Hebrew term, which many readers of English may not know). When the context is broader and does not require the specific use of "Tanakh" or "Old Testament," "Hebrew Bible" may be used as the sole term.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadykozma (talk • contribs) 10:46, 23 September 2004 (UTC)

Age of the Texts: Earlier Evidence?

This article purports that a new discovery sides with the "conservative scholar" position (of the texts being older than the "secular scholars" of this article).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100115/sc_livescience/biblepossiblywrittencenturiesearliertextsuggests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.24.130 (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Origin and History

This section claimed the Bible was originally an oral tradition that was forbidin to be written, and the day it was written was a day of mourning. I think the editer who wrote that is confusing the Bible and the Talmud. I have removed the text and left a link to Dating the Bible. Aryeh Gielchinsky 00:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Years of origin?

There is no information on the important information of when this was first committed to writing. It should be right up there in the first paragraph. I'm sure there are all sorts of sources with different dates and I don't want to get into that debate, but people working on this article should. FYI just notice Old Testament has some dates with refs as a starter. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Joktan's Sons

Hello! I need an expert in Hebrew to translate the meanings of the following names into English:

  • Jerah
  • Uzal
  • Diklah
  • Obal
  • Sheba
  • Jobab

I appreciate the help. This will assist the editors of the Sons of Noah article in researching the roots of the Sinitic peoples through Noah.--Gniniv 02:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the request. Any such research would have no particular relevance to Wikipedia, as it would be original research. We aren't here for that purpose. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested revision to one paragraph

I enjoyed reading this article and found it very informative. But as I was reading I noticed one paragraph that jumped out at me that appeared to lose the overall tone of "neutral point of view." (see below)

The term Old Testament is used exclusively to identify the Hebrew Bible as a portion of the Christian scriptures. Referring to it as the Old Testament suggests that it is a Christian work, when in fact its authorship is Jewish. Historically the Hebrew Bible was composed by the people of ancient Israel hundreds of years before Christianity existed. The Hebrew Bible's content, moreover, deals with the religion, politics, and culture of the ancient Hebrew people of Israel, and not with that of Christianity.

It is true that the Christian Old Testament very closely aligns with the Hebrew Bible and the term "Old Testament" identifies those commonly shared scriptures within Christianity and Judaism. But to say that "referring to it as such suggests that it is a Christian work" and "The Hebrew Bible's content, moreover, deals with the religion, politics, and culture of the ancient Hebrew people of Israel, and not with that of Christianity" is more of a judgment or opinion, and not necessarily rooted in fact.

It would be no different than making the statement that the Christian New Testament does not contain some accounts of the history of Jewish people, simply because it is a Christian doctrine (which was also largely authored by ancient Hebrews). There is no factual basis for making the inference suggested by the statement in the paragraph (that a writing is implied to be a Christian work, simply because Christian religion has chosen to reference it by a different name).

Since the Christian faith was birthed from Judaism, Christians and Jews do, in fact, share a common history. It would be very difficult to indisputably claim that that history belongs more rightfully to one group over the other, particularly since the central figure in Christianity is Jesus Christ, who was/is himself a Jew. It would be akin to trying to separate Protestant history from Catholic history...there is so much overlap, that it is difficult to distinguish two, even though one clearly existed long before the other.

This is not intended as a criticism to the author, who I do believe has done a fine job (much better than I could have with my very limited knowledge of Judaism). It's just an observation of a point that caught my attention as reader who was doing some online research on Jewish traditions. I hope the feedback has been helpful and constructive, as this was the spirit in which it was given.

Sworthen (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A fair point, and well made. Thanks. I've adjusted the paragraph. I hope it is better than it was. It probably needs further attention from others more expert in the subject. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible = Tanakh?

I don't think this article explains the difference between the Hebrew Bible and Tanakh at all, I don't even see why they are separate articles because they sound like the same thing to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.138.76.106 (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

They are the same thing. The articles overlap significantly, and perhaps should be merged. The "Tanakh" article differs in that it gives the Hebrew titles of the books per the Jewish canonical tradition. Cgaffney08 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

TORAH

It is not the "Hebrew Bible", any more then the Koran is the "Muslim Bible", or the Veda the "Hindu Bible". "Tome", which is slightly better could be used for the place-holder name of holy books of all un/known relgions by default. With the correct one, in this case, "Torah", added when recognized. "Bible" assumes Christianity, a back-hand-slap to those who are not, as implyed is religious superiority, which for Wikipedia, should never be the case. 76.170.84.228 (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction: Definition

From the introduction: "The Hebrew Bible [...] is a term used by biblical scholars to refer to the [...] Tanakh"

From the Usage section: "Hebrew Bible is a term that refers to the common/shared portions of the Tanakh (Jewish canon) and the Christian biblical canons"

Wich is true? If the first then merge and redirect; if the second then clarify. Thanks 2.82.166.209 (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

John J. Collins defines "Hebrew Bible" thus: "The Hebrew Bible is a collection of twenty-four books in three divisions: the Law (Tōrāh), the Prophets (Nebîʾîm), and the Writings (Ketûbîm), sometimes referred to by the acronym Tanak."[1]
The books with comprise the Protestant Old Testament are the same as those that comprise the Tanak = Hebrew Bible, but they are ordered differently. Other Christian rites (Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, etc.) have additional books in their Old Testament canons. The short answer is that "Hebrew Bible" is the scholarly term for denoting the Tanak (Jewish Bible) = Protestant OT. Cgaffney08 (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the term "Hebrew Bible" refers to a specific version of the Tanakh, namely the Masoretic Text, which is medieval. The very first ancient version of the Tanakh in one book is of course the Septuagint. The term "Hebrew Bible" is a reference to any text containing the alleged history of Hebrews, and not that it is published in any Hebrew language. ♆ CUSH ♆ 15:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Your comments contradict: Does the term "HB" include the Septuagint, or does it refer only to the Masoretic Text? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The term "HB" does not include the Septuagint, or any other pre-medieval version of the Tanakh. That is why one should be cautious when throwing around the term. Among Jews the Masoretic Text is the authoritative version of the Tanakh, but it is by no means necessarily the one representing the best possible rendition of ancient texts. In many essential details the MT deviates considerably from ancient sources (such as the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and other writings or collections that predate the MT).I have never liked the use of the term "Hebrew Bible" because it sounds as if it had anything to do with ancient Hebrews, which it does not whatsoever. It is a medieval streamlined version. The bad thing is that many European Christian bibles derive their Old Testament part from the MT, such as Luther's bible or the King James Bible. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not Jewish but I have never heard of the term "Hebrew Bible" but am completley aware of the Torah. Can someone explain the difference as this being a seperate page indicates there is difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.233.97 (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The TORAH is the first 5 books of the Bible (known to CHristians as the Pentateuch, the Law and the 5 books of Moses) while the Tanakh reffers to the Old Testament but in the Jewish order of the books and without any books that christian old testaments might have that Jewish one lacks and the Hebrew Bible just refers to the most modern version of the text, called the Masoretic text. Question answered? --Grammarbishop8 (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Circularity

"The Hebrew Bible ... is a term used by biblical scholars to refer to the Jewish Bible.." Yeah man. PiCo (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And? It is a term used to refer to s pretty specific version of Jewish Bible, namely the Masoretic text. Which is why it is unreasonable to use the term when referring to texts that are also included in other bibles. ♆ CUSH ♆ 14:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

PiCo's observation seems perfectly reasonable. To the non-expert reader, that sentence is pretty close to circular. Cush makes a point here about a "pretty specific version... namely the [MT]". But having the point here in our 'talk' misses the point. PiCo's observation seems to be that this specificity ought to be in the article. The lead of the article needs to be quite simple; but having a circular, seemingly self-referential definition is mightily confusing the the non-expert. Could the lead say "The [HB] ... to refer the Masoretic Text version of the Jewish Bible". That seems to maintain simplicity, and meanwhile introduce a measure of accuracy. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You see, the term "Hebrew Bible" is a deliberate misnomer. The version referred to by this term (the MT) is an exclusively Jewish work. No Hebrews were ever involved in its assembly, as Hebrews as such ceased to exist during the 6th century BCE. The "Hebrew Bible" is supposed to render the history of the Hebrews, hence the name. The first Jewish Bible, however, the Septuagint, is not included in the term, because it was written in Greek (as it was aimed at a broader audience and by the time Hebrew was extinct as a language of daily use). Only subsequent texts written in Aramaic or Hebrew were used to put together the MT. The term "Hebrew Bible" refers to a text that is distinct from the (much older) Septuagint in many passages. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That's all fine as technical detail. (I'm no expert, but it agrees with what little I know.) But the article tells the reader something different. Surely the description "The Hebrew Bible ...is a term used by biblical scholars to refer to the Jewish Bible" is poor, possibly even wrong. Or is it spot-on accurate and brilliant? What should the article say, to be as accurate as possible while (in the lead) as simple as possible? Is the current wording of the article (a) excellent (b) good (c) satisfactory (d) bad (e) appalling? If it is (c), (d) or (e) then how can it be improved? Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Masoretic text is officially the Bible used by Jews, i.e. "Jewish Bible". The article is (d). The real problem is rather that the term "Hebrew Bible" has been spread on Wikipedia by editors with specific religious views and who only accept the Masoretic text (or the KJV) as authoritative and reject other versions the content of which may deviate. ♆ CUSH ♆ 16:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A lot of this recent discussion really seems to miss the point. The point of the article isn't whether the term is any good or not. I personally think it is a very useful term, but not a perfect one (like most good terms), and you guys are correct some of the disadvantages surely have to do with the fact that it is less useful for those (like Catholics and Eastern Christians) whose Greek-based Bibles contain books not included in the Jewish and Protestant Canons.

That, however, does not detract one bit from the fact that the article describes. That fact is that many scholars (including the SBL guidelines) do indeed recommend this term for the common books of the Jewish and Protestant canons. You can agree with that or not, but it doesn't affect the article. If there are any good sources explaining positions against the use of the term, those too would be equally welcome in the article. Also, the term does not specifically mean the MT, it only means the books in common, and the sourcing fully bears this out. Dovi (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that I look at the article again, I see that the first sentence indeed appears misleading. I don't remember when it got changed. It should read something more like: The Hebrew Bible (also Hebrew Scriptures, Latin Biblia Hebraica) is a term referring to the common books of the Jewish Bible and the Christian Old Testament...
Also, I've always thought the parenthetical clarifications about the small amount of Aramaic were superfluous and should be relegated to a footnote, rather than appear in the body of the introduction. Dovi (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Jumping back to this comment by Cush: the term "Hebrew Bible" is a deliberate misnomer. The version referred to by this term (the MT) is an exclusively Jewish work. No Hebrews were ever involved in its assembly, as Hebrews as such ceased to exist during the 6th century BCE. Three points: First off, the distinction between Hebrews and Jews is probably too subtle for most people who come to WP, so you'll really need to clarify this point when you make it in articles. Second, the term Hebrew can easily refer to the language, to distinguish it from the Greek Septuagint. And third, the term Hebrew Bible is often used as a way to avoid the more pejorative "Old Testament," which clearly displays a Christian bias. The statement in question could/should be rewritten to explain this usage. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead says: "The Hebrew Bible ... is a term used by biblical scholars to refer to the Jewish Bible.." This isn't quite accurate. It doesn't refer to the Jewish bible (the tanakha) as such, it refers to those books contained in the Jewish bible and also the Protestant Old Testament. It isn't concerned with the order of the books (the Protestant Old Testament has Ruth in a different place, and treats the Minor Prophets as individual books instead of putting them all in the same book, among other differences), and it isn't concerned with the language used (scholars will happily debate the different readings of the Greek, Samaritan and Masoretic Hebrew texts), it's just concerned with the books under discussion. Anything that's in the Jewish bible/Protestant Old Testament is Hebrew Bible, anything that's not, is not. I wish I could find a good RS that says this, and says it simply, but so far I can't. Sorry. PiCo (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

This article should be merged with Tanakh because they are the same thing. Put a redirect for "Hebrew Bible" to Tanakh. Thank you. Stidmatt (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Protestant denominations and the canon of the Old Testament

As far as I know all Protestant denominations accept the canon of the Hebrew Bible as the Old Testament. This is not limited to Reformed denominations (Presbyterian and Congregational) but includes: Methodist, Wesleyan, Baptist, Evangelical and low-church Anglicans. Greenshed (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This is wrong I think

"The Hebrew Bible (also Hebrew Scriptures, Jewish Bible (Judaica Bible); Latin: Biblia Hebraica) is a term used by biblical scholars to refer to the Tanakh (Hebrew: תנ"ך‎), the canonical collection of Jewish texts, which is the common textual source of the several canonical editions of the Christian Old Testament." (From the lead). I think in fact the only Christian canon that's based on the HB is the Protestant one - the Catholic and Orthodox are based on the Septuagint. PiCo (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

oldest printed Hebrew Bible

According to Soncino, Lombardy, the first complete Jewish Bible in the world was printed in 1488. That article does not explain whether it was the first complete Tanakh in the world or the first printed version, and this article does not mention that edition at all! --Espoo (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

First printed one I think - there are older handwritten ones. PiCo (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

New Testament

Are there any more books in Hebrew Bible or Jewish canon " after Christ ", i.e. written at approximately the same time ( or about those years ) as the New Testament ? Or any other hebrew canonical books about these times ? Istorrikas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Istorrikas (talk • contribs) 12:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not in the Hebrew Bible, the last book of which is Malachi (also the last book in the Protestant cannon). There is the Talmud, but I'm not clear on its dates of authorship and it is NOT is in the Hebrew Bible although it is highly valued by Jews. --Grammarbishop8 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Maccabees is from a time less than 200 years before Christ, about 160 BC. The Song of Solomon is pretty late, tho not that late. A few others too. But basically no.PiCo (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a recommendation but a question...

I'm somewhat confused, I've only just began Judaic studies having just purchased a Jewish Study Bible; why is there a separate page for Jewish Bible and Tanakh if they are the same? Or are they and I'm the one incorrect?--D Namtar 00:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be good to

It would be good to have somewhere with a detailed comparison because I am very confused. --Inayity (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Very confusing articles

What is Hebrew Bible and what is Tanakh? Tanakh says it is Hebrew Bible and Hebrew Bible says it is Tanakh. I think that should be clearly stated.

I think all of these things should be simplified, the definitions. - Tanakh - Hebrew Bible - Torah 67.190.164.74 (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Dates of oldest parts?

This article, without citation, suggests the earlier parts were written at the end of the 2nd Millenium BCE. This does not agree with most modern scholarly opinions or the information on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible One would hope that such an early date would come with a citation. I thought this needed to be brought to light, but will leave the change to a more experienced editor. Lucretius6 (talk)Lucretius6 —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Upon another look, the citation of the following paragraph applies, although one citation for two paragraphs is unclear. The text is taken more or less word for word from the PBS site--close enough for plagiarism to apply in an academic context, but, again, I will leave this to wiki experts to decide how to proceed. Lucretius6 (talk)Lucretius6 —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


--The section on dates is quite inaccurate in general, although it is correct that "the documentary hypothesis, and has been the dominant theory for the past two hundred years", it's wrong to say that the majority of scholars agree on the 4 authors assumption. The documentary hypothesis was very influential, but the greatest consensus of Hebrew Bible scholars have managed to achieve has been the p & non-p authorship. (Priestly, not priestly). Anyway, I'm new to wikipedia, but will consider rewriting this with - at the very least - mentions of alternative origins/authorship theories, with citations. +(addition since I first wrote) using the source I suggested (below) as well as the content from the original section, I have rewritten the section on dating the Hebrew Bible, you can view my suggestion on my user:Noxiyu/sandbox. Either head to my talk page to my talk page or respond here if you agree (or disagree!) with this edit. — Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggested sources: Davies, Introduction to the Pentateuch, in Barton, Muddiman (eds.), The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, 12-38 [2]

Noxiyu (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Tanakh

These articles aren't about different subjects, but about the same subject from Christian ("Hebrew Bible") and Jewish ("Tanakh") perspectives. One article should suffice. Ibadibam (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, though I thank you for bring this up. Instead, I present a...
NOTHING TO BE DONE
There is no consensus to perform any merger; however the last comment to this discussion was added six months ago, so this may be reasonably revisited. Esquivalience t 02:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Counter-proposal to merge with Old Testament

If anything is to be done, the articles Hebrew Bible and Old Testament should be merged so that there's just one article on the Christian version of and perspective on those parts of the Christian Bible that correspond with the Tanakh.
(It had been slightly bothering me for a while that Hebrew Bible and Old Testament were not one article, but until your proposal I couldn't get this idea to the front of my head.) Thanks! --Geekdiva (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hebrew Bible should definitely not be merged with Old Testament, as the latter (the name at least) must be conceded to be from a Christian perspective, whereas the notion of a Hebrew Bible cannot be. If anything, the latter is meant to distinguish the originally-Hebrew and -Aramaic books found in Tanakh (or the "Old Testament", as recognized by most Protestants, at least -- same basic set of books, textual variations notwithstanding...) from what Christians call the "New Testament" portion of their Bible, and most importantly, represents a scholarly attempt to approach these books free from the bias of any particular religion(s). Many modern academic or so-called "secular" scholars who write about the Hebrew Bible under that rubric are not Christians -- a good many are in fact Jewish -- and many would take exception to the assertion that they are writing about a Christian version or from a Christian perspective.
Where distinctive religious views exist as to the particular canon, authoritative texts, history, significance, etc. of the books held by various groups to constitute what each of them sees as the "Jewish Scriptures" or "Old Testament", an article or article section on just those distinctive views would in my opinion be justified. Anything more than that strikes me as segregation-according-to-religion for its own sake, and does not belong on Wikipedia.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
ISTM that there is no consensus for either this, or for the following merge proposal. My count is 13 against vs. 7 for. And this has been pending for long enough that it should be closed. As an interested party, I should not be the one to close it, but I don't know the official way of drawing it to the attention of administrators (if, indeed, that is what one does). TomS TDotO (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Might it help if we try to imagine describing the differences in these terms to, say, a ten year old child? For instance to the child of a Rabbi and the child of a Christian minister? We would include just enough to show the different nuances and would avoid anything unnecessary. Might it be something like the following?

  • There are three different ways of describing this almost-the-same collection of books:
    • Jewish people call this collection of sacred books 'Tanakh'. It is their Bible.
    • Christians in worship call this collection the 'Old Testament' to distinguish it from their other collection, the 'New Testament'. These two collections together form their Bible.
    • The term 'Hebrew Bible' is used by (who) to describe (what).

How (remembering that this is for a ten year old child) do we fill in the (who) and the (what)? (Reformulating that last point is permitted, but we must keep it clear, simple and brief.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge Feline Hymnic has it spot on. At least 90% of people in the English-speaking world would be wondering how the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible relates to the Old Testament, which is the standard term used not just by Christians but in the culture. Indeed, non-religious people are going to be the most confused; devout Christians can guess that "Hebrew Bible" means "Old Testament". It's as with Burma and Myanmar; maybe some people prefer Myanmar, but Burma is the English word that country, and it would be silly to have two articles, with either not mentioning the other name in the first paragraph. What's needed is just a section explaining the three terms, as well as Veterum Testamentum, and whatever Moslems call the book etc. Erasmuse (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge The Hebrew Bible and Tanakh should be fixed one way or another, because the absurdity of the description of these two articles. I think there are a lot of redundancy happening in all these Tanakh, Hebrew Bible, Oral Torah, Talmud, Torah. Tanakh says it is Hebrew Bible and Hebrew Bible says it is Tanakh. I think there are fundamental simplicity lacking in these articles. I think they should be merged, condensed, duplicated ideas and meanings should be removed. I'm not really understanding anything by reading any of these two articles. 67.190.167.127 (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Merge- I am no expert But I will admit I was very confused, and still am. I came here originally to figure it all out.--Inayity (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No merge -- This article is clearly about the term HB and not about the actual set of book themselves, and it makes a good point: both "Old Testament" and "Tanakh" are terms that describe the collection from within a particular religious perspective, while "Hebrew Bible" is meant to be a neutral term. The structure of the article is pretty clear that it's not about the books themselves, but about the terminology. If anything, the lede could be written to clarify that the article is about terminology instead of about textual content. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge The term "Hebrew Bible" is patronising and slightly racist. If we described the Koran as the "Arab Bible" bad things would happen. It's the Tanakh. Live with it. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Umm, Hebrew refers to the language of the texts, since the Hebrew Bible does not include the Greek Jewish writings. So the analogy would be "the Arabic Bible". Just wanted to make sure it was clear that racism isn't really an issue here. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Umm2 The issue is in thoughtlessly using a Greek word, appropriated to describe a Christian collection of writings, to describe Hebrew texts. The "Hebrew" bit isn't a problem, I simply think we should use a more neutral term to describe the corpus. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • merge - (merge Tanakh and OT here! not in any other direction) In the scholarly world, the field of study of all the literature (as well as history, archeology of ancient Israel and other topics) is called "Hebrew Bible" which i understand evolved as a way to a) avoid any religion's name for the field and b) avoid limiting the field to any particular canon. It's an entirely appropriate title for an encyclopedia article. "Tanakh" is a particular canon of books for Judaism, just as the Roman Catholic "Old Testament" is, and just as the mainline protestant "Old Testament" is. The Hebrew Bible article should be the main article, and Tanakh and OT should focus on those canons in particular. If there is not enough left in Tanakh and OT (which would surprise me) then they should just be dealt with in a section in the HB article on specific canons. I can totally see how the overlapping crept in. Pull them all together (Possibly merge Torah into Tanakh), and sort them all out, is probably the best way to do it, so that the suite of articles hangs together and is edited on a meta-level. Talmud is entirely separate topic and shouldn't even be brought up here. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • no merge - This article is about the term itself and about a certain perspective on the field as a whole. It is unfortunate that because of overlapping ideas within a popular topic, it is hard for people to keep the article focused over time as it should be. That is a weakness of the Wikipedia system for topics like this. But nevertheless, it is abundantly clear there is more than enough for separate articles on the canon histories of both Old Testament and Tanakh, and certainly enough for one tight article here about the special way that Hebrew Bible has captured their intersection in the past (Latin Biblia Hebraica, Protestantism) and continues to capture their intersection today (in modern scholarship). Dovi (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Offensive term? I point out the "Hebrew University Bible Project". TomS TDotO (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge 2 not all 3 articles Definitely merge the titled "Hebrew Bible" into the "Tanakh" because Tanakh is it's appropriate name. However, don't merge either with the "Old Testament" for the reasons given above and especially because most of the differing interpretations will fit better within one rather than the other perspective. Then "Hebrew Bible" searches etc. should go to the "Tanakh" article. It seems that some text should be moved from the then deleted "Hebrew Bible" title into the "Old Testament" article 67.167.10.252 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No merge The Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible from a Christian perspective. The Tanakh is the Hebrew Bible from a Jewish perspective. The article about the Hebrew Bible is about the usage of the term in interfaith discussions. All three articles have their own purposes on Wikipedia, and all three should be retained. However, if there is going to be a merge, I would merge Hebrew Bible and Tanakh, but NEVER merge the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible with the Old Testament as that is blatant ignorance of the Jewish take on the Tanakh and violates Wikipedia's policy on having a neutral point of view. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No merge. The current setup with the three articles is a good one - one on the Jewish canon, one on the Christian canon, and one neutral, overview type article focusing on terminology. The arguments presented for the merge are all rather weak, and some downright POVish. StAnselm (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No Merge and agree with @StAnselm:; @PointsofNoReturn:; @Dovi:; @Aristophanes68: -- all in agreement that if it ain't broke, don't fix it since this arrangement has been in place for a very long time on WP. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No merge per PointsofNoReturn. This proposal shows an utter lack of understanding of the Hebrew Bible, which was in fact written in Hebrew, not English. The Christian Old Testament, in contrast, was a Greek/Latin translation of the Hebrew which was then translated into English and other languages. There are significant differences in translation between the two versions, reflecting the Christian attempt to undermine the Jews' status as the "chosen people" and make themselves the new chosen of God (thus, "Old" and "New" Testament). Yoninah (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Do not merge Merging the articles Old Testament and Tanakh is inappropriate, as they refer to two different sets of books. Whilst it is true that the Old Testament is based on the Tanakh, most versions of the Old Testament include books not in the Tanakh. Moreover, the Old Testament usually refers to the Latin or Greek translations, which are not word-for-word equivalents to the Tanakh (which lead to rather different interpretations of Isaiah 7:14, for example). As for merging Hebrew Bible with Tanakh, there may be more of a reason for that, other than Tanakh is rather long already, and Hebrew Bible may well have been spun off as a daughter article. Perhaps a little better connection between the two and a small subsection in Tanakh regarding how modern scholars refer to it pointing to the daughter article Hebrew Bible makes the most sense. -- Avi (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Do not merge There's an establish standard term for the Bible that is used by the Jewish religion--the term Jewish Bible is a compromise with Christian views, and may be appropriate in some contexts--such as the context being used in our article , of how it was used by the Christians. Old Testament, on the other hand, is purely and entirely a Christian concept, that is not merely non-Jewish but actively and directly and intentionally hostile to the basic concepts of the Jewish religion. It can only be used for the OT as part of the Christian Bible. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No Merge and agree with @StAnselm:; @PointsofNoReturn:; @Dovi:; @Aristophanes68: --Yoavd (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Do Not Merge Articles should be kept separate, as they clearly deal with different concepts. In agreement with statements by users: PointsofNoReturn, Avraham, DGG, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marek69 (talk • contribs) [1]
  • No Merge. Per DGG, and the Saint. Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No Merge. Tanakh and Old Testament (OT) differ both in content and in context. These are central scriptures of different religions. No reason whatsoever to merge. Hebrew Bible (HB) is a compromise title for combined discussion. It is an important concept that warrants separate discussion. The idea that Hebrew Bible is closer to the Tanakh than to the OT is a misperception that has found its way into the lead of the HB article. The article used to be NPOV. I remember it did cause I used it to write a similar article at the Dutch WP in 2005. That article has also been messed up. gidonb (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Merge proposal got sidetracked to three choices at the first answer above, giving much confusion IMO. I wish we could have voted the first one up or down first. I agree that the article title, "Hebrew Bible," instead of "Tanakh" is patronizing. So Hebrew Bible should be merged there IMO. Like calling the New Testament the "Christian Koran!" The other merges should be separately, and individually discussed, as well. IMO merging Septuagint, Old Testament, etc. may be confusing.Student7 (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No merge. Keep the present status. ISTM that there is no consensus in favor of any merger, whether discussed pairwise or all at once. Moreover, it would take work to make any merger at this point. Some may be aware that I have inserted a hatnote to "see" the others. That seems not to have generated any controversy. I suggest that something similar be done for the other articles, Old Testament, and Masoretic Text. And, once again, I point to the Hebrew University's use of the word Bible in their project of a critical edition of the text. It seems that the term "Hebrew Bible" is, as this article says, "widely used in academic and interfaith discussion in relatively neutral contexts". TomS TDotO (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge - same information, different name -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Do Not Merge***

I have a world class degree in history of religion and culture, my name is Cory Alexander Bell. It is important to keep this distinction separate and on its own. A link to or from the other page is acceptable. Just think you are an entity, if you have a wife she is another entity but you are joined yet differ, and if you have children they are also different but joined. Likewise the terminology and roots of each part of the historical document should be unique separate entities but joined. Do this via a hyperlink and keep unique pages for both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.189.2 (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • No merge I vote Do Not Merge for many of the same reasons already cited. MaynardClark (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What about the Masoretic Text?

The Masoretic Text is a fourth article to consider in the mix. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you think there is significant overlap? I'm not sure. I think not, and it's large enough that summary style would have demanded a spin-off anyway, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Your comments above drawing distinctions between the Hebrew and the Greek, etc., reminded me of the Masoretic Text vs. other traditions. Today's vernacular versions no longer are beholden to the Septuagint (or Vulgate) (although, I may be mistaken, that Greek Christians are faithful to the Septuagint, and some Western Christians include the mostly Greek-based Apocrypha, and Syrian Christians remain faithful to the Peshitta) but they do take account of texts other than the Masoretic. Anyway, that's what made me think of the Masoretic. And there it is, a Wikipedia article on the Masoretic Text. And then there is Miqra', which seems to be a synonym for Tanakh, but it, at least, does not have its own article - am I right? After posting the above, the thought occurred to me that it would be appropriate to have something available in Wikipedia which spells out the differences or similarities of these now 5 different expressions. I don't have a good solution and the only one that I can think of is some boilerplate, perhaps a template, which could be included in all 4 current articles. Something saying "There are four different aspects to the same work which are covered in Wikipedia. Tanakh, or Miqra', is the important holy text of Judaism. The Masoretic Text is the textual tradition behind the Tanakh and the most important Hebrew and Aramaic text. The Hebrew Bible is the mostly scholarly reconstruction based on the various textual traditions including ancient versions. The Old Testament is the related holy book of Christians." (I know that I have infelicities there, but i'm just making this up on the fly; keeping in mind that it is likely going to be forgotten). BTW, it seems to be that it is unrealistic to have a merger of articles at this late stage (if it had been better to do that at the start - if). TomS TDotO (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Canon and ancient versions are not the same topic. The discussion here is about the first, and masoretic text is about a crucial text history that is part of the second.

In general: The character and history of individual canons are each separate topics that require articles and even sub-articles. The same is true for individual textual traditions. The whole discussion on this page, by assuming that overlapping but ultimately distinct topics can be combined, seems to be blissfully unaware of the richness and complicated nature of the field. Let someone looking for the basics find them in Bible, and let people who want more depth consult more detailed articles. Dovi (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not disputing anything that you say. I am only suggesting that the reader ought to be informed of the existence of the related topics, and that it would be a help to the reader to read a brief summary of the distinctions. A hatnote "see also" template seems to be too brief a medium. I can understand someone having objections to the wording that I just made off the cuff. But something ought to be said. TomS TDotO (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
All these different articles are ridiculous. In my view, only Tanakh should be kept, because the Old Testament is a Christian-centric term invented by the Anti-Jewish supercessionist Marcion. If need be though, Hebrew Bible and Tanakh should be merged as the Jewish view, and Old Testament the Christian. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • merge - (merge Tanakh and Old Testament). Christians must be made aware that the words of the canonical books of their so-called Old Testament are the same words that make up the Jewish people's so-called Tanakh, that is, the Hebrew Scriptures (with a small percentage actually written in what is sometimes referred to as Biblical Aramaic, rather than the Biblical Hebrew language). I supply no citations here: tertiary students will recognize these truths as common knowledge. Christians who are Protestants add no books to their Old Testament but arrange the books (or name the divisions of certain books by the number of scrolls it takes to write the book in the Hebrew language, such as "First Samuel" or "One Samuel" for the scroll referred to as "Samuel Aleph" in Hebrew, "aleph" being the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet, and never more than two scrolls per Hebrew Bible book) in a slightly different order, inter-mixing the order of the Hebrew Bible books in the "nun" area (that is the Prophets) of the "tav-nun-khaf" nomenclature of "Tanakh" (the three-Hebrew-letter acronym or abbreviation for the three sections of the Hebrew Bible, namely, the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings, making a made-up word for the Hebrew names for each section using the first letter of said section, being "tav" for Torah, "nun" for Prophets, and "khaf" for Writings) with some Bible books in the "khaf" area of the "Tanakh" or Hebrew Scriptures (that is the Writings, as these books are called). Now the Roman Catholic Christians and the Eastern Orthodox Christians (not to be confused with the Jewish Orthodox "tribe" within the whole Hebrew "family" of the religion of Judaism) do include additional books that no true Jew and no true Baptist would call Bible. There is a division of opinion in the reckoning of what is a Bible book within the Christian "family" with debated additions of books to the sum of Bible books; some of these "family members" are not on speaking terms with each other, especially in that Mormons, or Latter Day Saints (divided into two branches or "twins") also call themselves "Christians" but are disowned by all other "Christians" because they add the writings of Joseph Smith (in English) to the divine writ of their Holy Scriptures written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Certain Jewish followers of the Christian Messiah, Jesus, were excommunicated or cast out of synagogue by the Jewish Sanhedrin (that is the highest Jewish court of The Land, as formed by precedent, detailed within the law of Moses) by majority vote, namely, the Jesus-followers Matthew, Peter (a certain Simon whom Jesus nicknamed Cepha(s) in Aramaic, the famed Peter from the translation of Cephas into Greek, as transliterated into English—please don't get me started in explaining the s and n endings of accusative and nominative forms of names in the Greek language, where adding s to Joshua results in Jesus, or adding s to Kifa produces Cephas, ad infinitum), John, James (or Ja'akov plus s equals James, somehow, after centuries) and Saul (who was also a Roman citizen under the name of Paul), mostly Galileans, from Galilee, or the Galil, who, with two or three others, wrote about Jesus in certain books collected in Greek, some of which may first have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic, especially two or three of the four Gospel books, which four Gospels the Muslims collectively call "Injil"—as a corruption of their original autographs, any true Muslim will avow. In my humble opinion, the Muslims are wrong to say the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures (whatever one's opinion of what they may be) written by the "people of The Book" are not now extant corruptions of their autographs. All of this is common knowledge, or, at least what I would call common knowledge, so I dispense with citations. Lennyluo (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually there are differing opinions in Islam on whether the Tanakh is corrupted. The earliest Muslim scholars say it was the interpretation that was corrupted and not the actual text, this changed over time though. [3] As for the gospel I would agree that it is corrupted in the sense that its primary influence was Paul, who never even met Jesus. [4] --Monochrome_Monitor 04:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • merge - At the moment this word is used in countless articles, and merely serves as a POV method to imply ancient Iudaeans are responsible for everything in this Bible. I also find it remarkable how at first most people were in favor of merging the articles, but then in less than a week 7 people suddenly ganged up against a merger. Oh wikipedia.. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Protestant Old Testament  ?

To my knowledge, does Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians use one and the same Bible, including its Old Testament. I've never heaered about a specific Protestant Old Testament. Isn't this just a lingvistical confusion ? Still in the beginning of the 16th Century, The Vatican approved only of Bibles written in Latin. This was understandable in Italy, France, the Iberian peninsula, Romania and where other Roman Languages was spoken. But far more difficult to understand for people who spoke Germanic or Slavonic languages. With Martin Luther became the Bible accessable also for people whose language isn't based on Latin. If I'm not incorrect about these matters, I intend to change "Protestant Old Testament" to just "Old Testament" in the lead. Boeing720 (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC) I would also believe the article could benefit of a section about how it's divided. I think (not know) that the first five books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri and Deuteronomium (and possibly Joshua) comprise the Torah (?) And another section of books are the prophets. I think all the books should be listed and explained to which "part" they belong. I'm Christian but would like to ubderstand Judaism better. And I feel a basic structure lackes in the article. I'm just asking for a brief overview of its books and different parts. Boeing720 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Christians by and large, up to the Reformation, used Scriptures based on the ancient Greek version, the Septuagint plus the specifically Christian books of the New Testament. The Septuagint contained a few more books than are contained in the Hebrew-Aramaic canon. The Protestants, mostly, decided to restrict their Old Testament to the Hebrew Bible. The whole story is more complicated than that, but to keep this short, the result is that it makes sense to distinguish the Protestant Old Testament from the Catholic and Orthodox Old Testament(s).
As far as the divisions of the Hebrew Bible, the traditional division is the Law (Torah = Pentateuch = 5 Books of Moses = Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), the Prophets, and the Writings. The three divisions provide the Hebrew acronym Tanakh.
I think that this is all amply explained throughout the various Wikipedia articles and doesn't need any more attention here. IMHO. TomS TDotO (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hebrew Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

While I confirm that the rescued URL is correct, I'm not entirely certain that the reference supports the statement that precedes it. Comments? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Further reading

There far too many good books which would qualify for "further reading". Are there any rules which we can apply to keep this list manageable? I would not include some of the books on the present list, not because they are not excellent books, but they are too specialized, or just because there are different points of view (even ones which I do not personally like) which are deserving of mention. Or should I just consider this an impossible task, one which only is bait for edit wars? TomS TDotO (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

One of these is clearly a blog, and the other two advertise books. Blogs and advertisements are not really valid, so go ahead and delete them, and allow individual discussion of reversions. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by the blog and the advertisements. There is one which is an article in the Biblical Archeology Review which doesn't give enough description & the url doesn't work. Most of the references seem to have been taken from the PBS reference. But the hard cases for me are the perfectly fine books which don't seem to belong in a short list of references for the Hebrew Bible.

On the other hand, there are so many important books on the Hebrew Bible which are not mentioned. So many that I wouldn't know how to start. ISTM that a long list, say thirty or more books, is just worthless to the reader of Wikipedia. And I am not so bold as to suggest a dozen of the must-read books on the Hebrew Bible. I'm going to tip-toe into this, and hope that I make a positive contribution. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Varies - as such - significantly

Excuse my stupidity, but I don't understand this: "but varies—as such—significantly from the original Jewish Bible (Tanakh)." I am not contesting what is said, and I understand that there are sometimes controversies about the differences. I just don't understand this particular phrase. Maybe there is a better way of saying it?   TomS TDotO (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 2.
  2. ^ http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199580248.do
  3. ^ http://www.judaism-islam.com/islam-teaches-torah-is-corrupted-tahrif-but-what-does-that-mean/
  4. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Jesus-Apostle-Transformed-Christianity/dp/1439123322
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hebrew_Bible_(term)/Archive_2&oldid=1136790195"