Jump to content

Talk:Hebrew Bible/Archive 1

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

Hebrew naming conventions

Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 17:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture?

A picture of the Aramaic Targum seems inappropriate for an article on the Tanakh. Could someone put a picture of the Hebrew Bible there instead? -- DrJ1m

You are probably rightPubuman 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

rm TanakhML link?

It is very misleading, because it really is the Old Testament, not the Tanakh. If no one apposes I will be removing it within 24hrs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.48.200 (talk • contribs)

On what basis do you say it is Old Testament, not Tanakh? Although the site is built by academics and not rabbinic scholars, and then possibly by a non-Jew:
  1. the canon used is the tanakh canon
  2. the text used is based on one of the most common masoretic codices
  3. it explores and works with the Hebrew language
  4. it focusses on the Hebrew diacritics, masoretic vowels and cantillation marks
  5. it includes the masoretic qere/ketiv variations that are most certainly tanakh
  6. although it includes a KJV translation, this seems to be only for those who need the assistance of an English translation. You would be better off petitioning the site owner to use the JPS if you have a problem with that, rather than declaring it the Old Testament.
jnothman talk 23:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

In what way is it the "Old Testament", Christian-specific designation? A preferred name is the "Hebrew Bible", even if it's an English translation.

I would like to point out again here that there is no 'canon' defined by Jewish authorities (outside of academics who may be Jewish by birth). This is a Christian definition that has been applied to Jewish texts to impose conformity with the Christian corpus which is completely artificial.--Mrg3105 10:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

edition(s) based on Leningrad Codex

Under Editions, the bullet point for the Leningrad Codex says that it "served as the basis for two important Jewish editions of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)", but then lists only one. Thnidu (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Chapters, verses, and prominence in Hebrew editions

It all depends on what exactly you mean by “prominent.” There are three different features to consider in these editions:

Title pages for book divisions

In most of the new editions, before each book of the Tanakh begins there is a title page that is blank on both sides except for the name of the book in large bold print. When it comes to Samuel, there is only one such title page at the beginning with the single word “Shemuel” in large print (no plural, no I or II). This first occured in Koren (1965), which was the most popular Jewish edition of the full Tanakh ever published. Koren was followed by the second and third Breuer editions, Dotan, and most recently by the beautiful new “simanim” edition (published by Feldheim and Makhon Simanim, 2004). In the first Breuer edition there are no blank title pages, only a large-font title at the top of the page where each new book begins; “Shemuel” is the simple title, only once at the beginning of the book. In all of these editions, Samuel II continues with no break at all on the very same page (or even on the very same line) where Samuel I ends. There is no new title page. The same is true for Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra (the mesorah considers Ezra-Nehemia to be one book as well).

In is therefore clear that when it comes to the specific feature of title pages, the masoretic divisions are the only prominent feature in the newer editions, while the division of Samuel and similar books into two parts is completely ignored.

Contrast this to older editions like Letteris, or non-Jewish editions such as BHS. The Letteris edition, which has been reprinted countless times by various Jewish and non-Jewish publishers and Bible societies (it is in the public domain), begins with a prominent “LIBER I. SAMUELIS” at the top of the page in large letters, and later on “LIBER II. SAMUELIS” (but in the middle of the page). Here the division of Samuel is clearly prominent; contrasting Letteris to the newer editions is a striking example of how the new trend differs from the older editions (Letteris is typical of the latter). But even in Letteris, only at the beginning of Samuel I and Kings I does a book start at the top of a new page.

When it comes to BHS, we are confronted by an interesting phenomenon: Here we have an edition which, on a scholarly level, strives to be an accurate representation of the Mesorah (based on the Leningrad codex), but on a practical level is completely confortable with non-masoretic divisions. The compromise: The book is entitled “Samuel I II” in large type at the beginning (unlike the Jewish editions, which omit the “I II”), but Samuel II begins with no break on the page (just like in the Jewish editions).

To conclude: When it comes to the feature of titles and title pages, in most Jewish editions over the past forty years (since Koren) no prominence at all is given to the division of Samuel and like books. This is a definite historical trend.

Chapter divisions within the main text

In older editions such as Letteris, the beginning of each chapter within the biblical books was marked by a major break in the text on the page, and by the insertion of a chapter number in Roman numerals: CAP. VIII., CAP. XIX., etc. (This, by the way, is the origin of the Yiddish expression “Kapitel” for biblical chapters.) In Letteris the width of the break with the title is about the space of two lines, at it occurs even when there is no masoretic break at all. (The masoretic parashiyot are also represented in Letteris by spaces within lines and new line beginnings.) Thus, a chapter always begins at the beginning of a new line after a major break in the text on the page, so that the chapter breaks are much more prominent than the masoretic divisions.

However, in all of the new editions mentioned previously (including BHS), there is no such break in the text at the beginning of a chapter. A line of continuous text may have the beginning of a new chapter right in the middle, but the main text simply continues with no indication of this. There is no space, no new line beginning, and certainly no blank line to indicate the new chapter.

To conclude: When it comes to the feature of chapter divisions within the main text, most Jewish editions over the past forty years (since Koren) give no prominence at all to the chapter breaks. This is also a definite historical trend.

Chapter and verse numbers

If chapter and verse numbers have no basis in the masoretic Jewish tradition, and yet they have become indispensible on a practical level for finding the location of verses, then how are they to be represented on the printed page inside an edition that strives to represent the mesorah? And if the chapter count follows the division of books like Samuel, a partition which is also not traditional, then how can it be indicated so that verses can be found, but without actually dividing the books? These two questions created a practical problem that has faced the publishers of all modern editions of the Hebrew Bible, ever since Koren (in the Jewish world) and BHS (in the Christian world).

The Koren publishers strove for maximal masoretic “purity” with only minimal concessions to practical verse citations. Their compromise was to surround the Hebrew text with marginal notations on both sides. The more prominent wider outer margin was devoted to details of the Jewish textual tradition, such as keri/ketiv and the division of the sedarim. The less prominent narrow inner margin was devoted to chapter and verse numbers. Even such trivialities as book titles at the top of each page, and page numbers at the bottom, were also pushed to the outer margins (i.e. to the far outer corners not directly above or below the text) in an effort to show that they were “outside” of the flow of the masoretic text. This was done because even traditional Jewish titles – including such titles as for the books of the twelve minor prophets – do not match the masoretic count of 24 books. (For the minor prophets, each book in Koren follows the previous one after a short masoretic break of a few lines, but with no separate title page.) Thus even book titles were reduced, quite clearly, to technical measures in the Koren edition. These “corner” titles include the indication of Samuel A or B, Ezra or Nehemia, etc., so that the chapter divisions in the inner margin will be intelligible. (I.e. is “chapter 6” the sixth chapter of Samuel I or Samuel II; of Ezra or Nehemia?) But like the chapter and verse numbers, these corner titles are removed from the “official” text in a way that is made clear by the layout of the page.

So is the division of Samuel “prominent” in Koren? It may be argued that it is, since it is indicated at the top corner of every page. Alternatively, it may be argued that because it has been pushed as far away as possible from the main text, and it does not interfere with the text at all (no title page or any other break), therefore it is not prominent. Consider Samuel, for instance, which in the Koren edition has but a “closed” parashah division at the exact point where Samuel I ends and Samuel II begins. Samuel II thus begins in the very same line of text where Samuel I ends! Although Koren was forced to indicate Samuel A or B in the top margin because of the chapter count in the inner margin, it was still clearly making every effort possible to completely eliminate the significance of that partition, and to prevent it from interrupting the flow of the text. Koren presents Samuel as a single book.

In Koren, the masoretic parashiyot are indicated by spaces within lines, or by the beginning of a new line (a “paragraph”). When reading, their prominence catches the eye quickly and much more easily than do the chapter and verse numbers. This was the stated intention of the publishers.

Other modern Jewish editions followed in Koren’s footsteps by relegating chapter and verse numbers to the margins, but were sometimes slightly less radical in their solutions. The first Breuer edition (published by Mossad Harav Kook) relegates them to the right margin of the page, kept slightly wider than Koren’s inner margin, so that they still don’t interfere with the text at all, but are a bit easier to glance at than in Koren. The same is true of Breuer second edition (published by Horev), and of Dotan, both of which put them in the outer margin, which makes them slightly more visible and a bit easier to glance at than in Koren. In all of these editions, the marginal chapter and verse numbers still catch the eye far less when reading than do the traditional parashah divisions, which are immediately striking. Again, that was the intention of the publishers, who followed in the footsteps of Koren. Unlike Koren, however, they allowed the book titles at the top margin of the page to appear over the text in the middle (Breuer first edition) or towards the corner (Breuer second edition and Dotan).

The strikingly beautiful new “simanim” edition (Feldheim) returned to the original Koren method by putting “Jewish” data in the outer margin, while relegating chapter and verse numbers to a narrow inner margin. Here too “Samuel A” can be found at the outer top corner as in Koren, but unlike Koren this edition allows the corner titles to “intrude” a little bit by appearing over the text itself.

In BHS the chapter and verse numbers appear twice: In the margins, and also interpolated within the text itself at the beginning of each and every verse and chapter. Line breaks, however, occur only according to the mesorah.

In the old Letteris edition verse numbers are not in the text but in the outer margins (a mixture of Arabic numerals and Hebrew letters for every fifth verse). But the chapters start, as explained earlier, with a major break in the text itself. It is precisely this phenomenon that many of the newer editions have rebelled against.

The only important modern Jewish edition of the Tanakh that still features chapter divisions prominently within the text, of which I am aware, is the Hebrew-English JPS edition. Nevertheless, the major trend described above exists and is important, even if it doesn’t include every edition.

To conclude: When it comes to the feature of chapter and verse numbers, in most Jewish editions over the past forty years (since Koren) no prominence at all is given to the chapter and verse numbers, which are relegated to the margins and lack the visual impact of the parashah divisions. The marginal numbers are included only as a practical tool to allow for the citation of verses.

In order to make the marginal numbers meaningful, however, these editions were forced to indicate the division of books like Samuel with an A or B in the title at the top margin of the page. Other than that indication, usually pushed to the corner, the division of these books is ignored entirely in the title pages and within the main text; the flow of the text is presented with no interuption whatsoever. This is, once again, a definite historical trend, though in this case there is some room for debate about “prominence,” depending on how much significance is granted to the book titles in the upper outside corners.

Overall Conclusion

The above material, in my opinion, may be reworked as part of an article dealing with modern published editions of the Hebrew Bible. (What should the title be?) It is far too long to be included in the “Tanakh” article. I suggest the following four paragraphs as a to-the-point summary for the Tanakh article, if it can be agreed upon. I consider G’s insistence on stating “prominence” to be contrary to the facts, as presented above. But perhaps we can now agree on the following:

The chapter and verse numbers have no significance in the Jewish tradition. Nevertheless, they are included in all modern editions of the Tanakh so that verses may be located and cited. The division of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles into parts I and II is also indicated on each page of those books in order to prevent confusion about whether a chapter number is from part I or II, since the chapter numbering for these books follows their partition in the Christian textual tradition.
The adoption of the Christian chapter divisions by Jews began in the late middle ages in Spain, partially in the context of forced clerical debates which took place against a background of harsh persecution and of the Spanish Inquisition. Because they proved useful – and eventually indispensible – for citations, they continued to be included in most Hebrew editions of the biblical books. For more information on the origin of these divisions, see chapters and verses.
The chapter and verse numbers were often indicated very prominently in older editions, to the extent that they overshadowed the traditional Jewish masoretic divisions. However, in many Jewish editions of the Tanakh published over the past forty years, there has been a major historical trend towards minimizing the impact and prominence of the chapter and verse numbers on the printed page. Most editions accomplish this by removing them from the text itself and relegating them to the margins of the page. The main text in these editions is unbroken and uninterrupted at the beginning of chapters (which are noted in the margin). The lack of chapter breaks within the text in these editions also serves to reinforce the visual impact created by the spaces and “paragraph” breaks on the page, which indicate the traditional Jewish parashah divisions.
These modern Jewish editions present Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles (as well as Ezra) as single books in their title pages, and make no indication inside the main text of their division into two parts (though it is noted in the upper and side margins). The text of Samuel II, for instance, follows Samuel I on the very same page with no special break at all in the flow of the text, and may even continue on the very same line of text.

This is much better than previous attempts. My only remark now is that in the edition I hold, the title page does show both Samuel I and II. And BTW, are you sure about the "late middle ages" fact? I seem to recall theological discussions going throughout the middle ages. But then I am very likely to be wrong. Gadykozma 18:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cool! So now check which edition it is!
Late middle ages: Earliest Hebrew manuscript with chapter numbers - 14th century, first printed edition - early sixteenth century. (The "Jewish middle ages" may be said to end, for our purposes here, with the generation that was expelled from Spain in 1492.) I have never seen a reference to chapters in the writings of late medieval rabbis, not even for centuries after the middle ages. Chapter and verse numbers for citations seem not do have been added in rabbinic works until around the eighteenth century. Dovi 04:13, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
As you said, the IDF supplied bible is Dotan. Gadykozma 10:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is that the one you are holding? Also see the new sentence I just added above; I think you will be pleased. Dovi 04:52, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
You did understand that I am holding a recent edition, didn't you? By my calculations, it was probably issued around 3 years ago. Gadykozma 10:36, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please just finally say exactly which one it is! The curiosity is already driving me nuts. Also exactly which one you used 15 years ago, if you still have it on your bookshelf somewhere. (If the current one you are holding is the IDF Dotan, the title page for Samuel simply says "Sefer Shmuel.") Dovi 14:47, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Only Love is Real ...True POV. Truth Forgiveness Love. InEffable Love. Hashem is LOVE. The rest is commentary. B'Shalom! Am Yisrael Chai! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.139.115 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Development of the Jewish Bible canon into Tanakh

Proposing a merger of these articles. Development of the Jewish Bible canon appears to be an orphaned copy from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia with limited updates. Suggest combining articles to facilitate development. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha, the article you pointed to is pointing to Tanakh because by and large it deals with subjects outside of Tanakh, including the Mishna, and the rules that spell out why all those other pieces of literature are excluded from Tanakh, therefore halting its 'development'. It may be that the article is better dealt with by splitting it into sections and and merging sections into relevant articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_apocrypha --Mrg3105 (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, for the following reasons:
Shira, I'd ask you to withdraw your proposal. But if further discussion is necessary, can I suggest the most appropriate venue for it would appear to be Talk:Development of the Jewish Bible canon, rather than here. Jheald 09:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per User:Jheald. This is a clear case in which the history behind the final result is an encyclopedic topic in its own right and where the discussion of the history would be a distraction from the topic itself. --Richard 17:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I understand the article contains more contemporary information. My principle concern is to event religious and academic viewpoints from being segregated into separate, parallel sets of articles. See WP:POVFORK. Perhaps this can be avoided without a merger. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the grounds that there is no development (suggestive of ongoing development) in the Tanakh. There is development in the Oral Torah, but Tanakh has distinct and known start and end dates, with fairly well known times of addition to it of the various components/books. The history of Tanakh is what is discussed in this article.--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it would create confusion. The notion of "Tanakh" is far more uniquely Judaic. There is more than enough room for each article to expand without impinging on the contents and direction of the other. Nothing that a "See also" in each article couldn't deal with. IZAK (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the reasons expressed by the editors immediately above, and also that both articles are currently a reasonable size, but merging them would make the other article unnecessarily large. Clinkophonist (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"minor prophets" or "Twelve"?

The term "minor prophets" for the twelve short prophetic books is misleading. The word "minor" suggests relative unimportance, but here it "refers to the length of the books, not their importance" (quoted from Minor prophet). I have modified the last sentence under "Nevi'im" in the introduction to reflect preferred Jewish usage while retaining the common English term as a synonym. Thnidu (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that minor could be misleading, but so can public school, which refers to schools which are NOT run by the state. Wikipedia operates a policy of using the ordinary english usage - which here, as you state yourself, is minor prophets, not twelve; in what way can you justify replacing the ordinary english usage title of a book used in Christian denominations - the largest religion among English speakers - with the usage which is Jewish - one of the smallest religions among English speakers? Clinkophonist (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the terms "Tanakh" and "Nevi'im" themselves are Hebrew terms current largely among Jews, not generally used among English-speaking Christians. We've gone back and forth between completely separate Jewish "Tanakh" and Christian "Old Testament" articles and efforts to have a combined "Hebrew Bible" article; having Tanakh as the combined article is fairly recent. The existing content was added at different times under different general auspices and is therefore something of a mish-mash, with some content under one article perhaps more relevant to what another currently covers. The fact that these subtle differences in names reflect different theological interpretations is one reason to maintain separate perspectives. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Clinkophonist slips too easily from "ordinary English usage" to "Christian" usage. The Tanakh is a sacred book of the Jews. A meaningful encyclopedia entry will explain this Jewish book to a general audience. yes, that audience will enclude Christians, but they are reading this to learn about a Jewish book. So let them learn about the phrase "the Twelve" which refers to an important subsection of the Tanakh. It doesn't matter whaterh there are many more Christians than Jews - surely there are some Christians today who are open-minded enough to learn about the ways of life of peoples they have not wiped out or assimilated. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with Slrubenstein, and answering Clinkophonist's question directly: This article is titled "Tanakh". It is specifically about the Hebrew Bible, the holy scripture of Judaism. That justifies the use of Jewish terminology here, just as Muslim terminology would be appropriate in an article about the Qur'ān, and Christian terminology in an article about the New Testament. Thnidu (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming?Heading

I know this seems trivial, but it really should be corrected: Can we somehow get this page (Tanach) and all related pages switched to "Tanakh" as the proper heading? In general, the transliteration system used in the Encyclopedia Judaica should more or less be adopted throughout Wikipedia for articles that use Hebrew terminology. But no encyclopedia would ever spell "Tanach"!

You are quite right, and I moved it to Tanakh (with Tanach remaining as a redirect). I will also (shortly) make the spelling in the article consistent. To explain what we are talking about, the transliteration "ch" these days is used for the Hebrew letter "chet" but "Tanakh" uses the letter "kuf" which is translitered "kh". So Tanakh is more correct than Tanach according to modern practice. --Zero 08:36, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
You mean "kaf" not "kuf" right? I want to add Hebrew spellings where appropriate for a bunch of Jewish/Hebrew terms here. Is there a page that explains how to insert Hebrew characters? jewbacca 22:15, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
Edit the page to see some examples. The numbers between # and ; are unicode codes in decimal. I use this page to get the hex codes and then use the windows' calculator to switch from hex to dec. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 12:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Whoa!!!! Just add Hebrew as you would do in any other application! Works in both Windows and Linux. Wikipedia translates it into the unicode codes making it impossible to read and edit, but at least it's easy to enter. Gadykozma 17:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's a (final) kaf, not a kuf. kuf never has the "kh" sound. Thnidu (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
What is "kh"? It is archaic. It is entirely not intuitive -- so difficult to sense how it is supposed to be pronounced. Encyclopedia Judaica is antiquated. An old source will give old information. Transliteration is supposed to allow people who don't speak a language to "speak" another language. What in the world is "kh"?
Now one can ask, what is "ch"? "Ch" already has a sound, like in "Charlie Chaplin." But this has become the prevailing method of modern transliteration. Shulchan Aruch has two of them. Chanukah -- is it Khanukah? My wife's name happens to be Michal, like the wife of King David. Am I to write it "Mikhal"? That's just not done anymore. It look Russian or Arabic, like "Meek-HAAL." The best part about this online, digital encyclopedia is that it can be up to date. If the number one publisher of Jewish books is Artscroll and they write "Tanach", why does it have to be tanakh. It's similar to the "kuf is a q" debate. When people see a "q" without a "u," they don't bother reading the word, they just skim it with their eyes, much like the long scientific names of animals and plants. Who can say qorban minkha. It's ridiculous. It's so not user-friendly. It's basically asking the reader "Do not read ths word -- it is beyond pronounciation!!!" DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 17:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oral torah & Christianity

A previous version asserted that Christianity does not accept oral Torah. There was no reference given for this, and I can't find any mention of, much less broad agreement with, this statement in a quick survey of Christian literature. A reference should be cited for this statement if it is to be replaced. --Mpa 17:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that Chrisitianity does not accept the Oral Torah, because to do so would require it to also accept the Torah, which it does not.--Mrg3105 10:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If the Christians did accept the Oral Torah they wouldn't be Christians because the Talmud says that, "If man says he is God, he is a liar"--Java7837 (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why there has to be a Christian section here. There are other areas in Wikipedia for comparative Christian literature. Unless a good reason exists, I would propose a delete.--Mrg3105 (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Its not obvious at all. You can't make such a sweeping statement. Its very plausible that Christianity accepts some elements of oral Torah; they don't have to accept all of it, and they don't have to conclude that doing so forces them also to accept the Torah. For example, they could believe the Torah and Oral Torah contradict one another, and then choose to follow the latter instead of the former.

Many Christian women wax their underarm hair, many Christian men now wash daily, but that doesn't make mean they believe the entire Qur'an. Clinkophonist (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How can Christianity accept something they can't read?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this will help - the article Christianity and Judaism in Understanding of the Bible section states that "...Christians reject the Jewish Oral Torah (Matt 15:6), which was still in oral, and therefore unwritten, form in the time of Jesus." PluniAlmoni (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Christians translate almah"

'Christians translate the word almah (עלמה)as "virgin," while the translation in the Tanakh is young maiden.[10] This Christian view is based on a different understanding of the Septuagint translation, Greek: παρθενος which according to New Testament Scholars[11], can mean "a marriageable maiden" or "virgin."' This is wrong. "Christians" translate almah as young maiden because that is a reasonable translation of the Hebrew word. See the tradition off the New Standard Revised Version. They interpret it as indicating virgin because the earliest Christians, who were Jewish converts, used the Septuagint translation of the Tanakh, which translated almah into Greek as parthenos, which means virgin. This translation was done by Jewish scholars before the birth of Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardson mcphillips (talk • contribs) 15:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tanakh or TaNaKh

There is a problem with the use of Tanakh as spelling for the acronym. In Hebrew the spelling is TNK, and the added letters are only there to assist non-Hebrew speaker. To remain an acronym, the spelling needs to be TaNaKh, because the speling of Tanakh is a proper name used in some cultures as boys' name which has a Hebrew meaning "Who humbles thee, who answers thee" --Mrg3105 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you brought this up elsewhere as well. Though indeed an acronym, "Tanakh" has become commonly used as a simple word, including in prominent Bible translations and in academic writing. I'm not really sure that spelling it TaNaKh with capitals is really more accurate, but it does seem unwieldy and unaesthetic. I tend to think it should be left as it is, but if need be there can be a vote. Dovi 07:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
"unwieldy and unaesthetic" [non-aesthetic?] Sorry, is this an attempt at defining and explaining Jewish cultural heritage, or a discussion on interior decoration? Something is either A or B. Because "prominent Bible translators" use this in academic writing only says something about their writing. Nor is this a matter of democracy! One does not determine standards by voting on them. Ultimately they have to make logical sense.--Mrg3105 10:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the origin of this audacity which makes you suppose that by logic you can surpass academic precedent? It is foolishness. If you disagree with this fact, then dispute it with the authority; i can assure you their logic is more sound than your own.
Logic is extremely important, but who decides what is logical? Plus, a good encyclopedia article needs not only accuracy, but also good writing and good taste. It is your opinion that an acronym cannot, through common usage, become a plain word. It is my opinion that it can, and that in this case it has, based upon a plethora of books and articles using it this way (as was already pointed out to you by someone at Talk:Bible). Hence, the issue of "democracy": If most others agree with you on this point of style, then quite obviously this and other articles will be changed to TaNaKh. Otherwise not.Dovi 12:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Because both TaNaKh and Tanakh are both transliterations of an acronym, תנ"ך, neither one is perfect. However, to show that it is an acronym, not just a word, it should be written as TaNaKh.
Goalie1998 19:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


See already extensive discussion at Talk:Bible. Let's see where it goes over there. Dovi 05:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's make it "Tanach," because that's the easiest way to read it and write it, and that's how most people do write it. That's how Artscroll writes it. Similar to radar, sonar and laser, Tanach has become a word. It may be an acronym in Hebrew, but, just like kosher, rabbi and yeshiva, it's become an English term that doesn't have to follow the rules of Hebrew grammar or vocabulary. What's "kosher" -- it should be "kasher" -- not a cholem above the first letter. That doesn't make any sense in Hebrew, unless it's the hispa'el of the hoof'al (excuse the dramatization). But it's OK, because no one says it's a Hebrew word, it's English. That's why they can use it in movies and commercials and speeches even if it doesn't really fit. Let's get this antiquated research stuff out of our heads and be "normal." DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Google currently finds "Tanakh" 1,050,000; "Tanach" 356,000. So the first is currently still the most common spelling. Jheald (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
That is entirely irrelevant. "Koran" yields 14,900,000 while "Qur'an" yields 6,800,000, yet the former redirects to the latter. The majority of Jews who have a deep understanding and profound appreciation for the Tanach would transliterate it as such, not with the awkward kh that secular biblical scholars choose to use. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 17:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is probably not necessary, but "schooled!". Brownsc (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

"The Tanakh (Hebrew: תַּנַ"ךְ‎, pronounced [taˈnax] or [təˈnax]; also Tenakh or Tenak) is a name used in Judaism for the Tanakh." This is a really bad sentence, but I'm not sure what to put instead, not being knowledgeable about this. However, saying something is the name for itself without explaining what it is... can someone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.22.126 (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

DATES: tradition, apocrypha

I would like to see some information about when these texts were written, and when they were first compiled as a complete work, "the tanakh". And what of texts found later - what is their relationship to the tanakh?

The text comes from Alexandria in Egypt around 300 BC (Septuagint).
It was first translated to Greek who also made a translation to the Hebrew speaking Phoenician living in Israel/Syria at the time.
Ninum 09:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Today, the article claims that "much of the contents of the Tanakh were compiled by the Men of the Great Assembly by 450 BCE". However the page for Men of the Great Assembly says that they "lived in a period of about two centuries ending c. 70 CE". If both pages are correct, these Men compiled the Tanakh more than 200 years before they were born. Mebden (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Hebrew Bible"

Ouch. I'm getting very tired of seeing the Torah and the Tanakh referred to as the "Hebrew Bible". This is apparently the (lazy) habit of what are referred to on Wikipedia as "biblical scholars"—a term which, I assume, applies only to scholars of the Bible, and not to theologians in general. Can't we find a better term? "The Jewish Holy Scriptures" seems more accurate and less offensive.

Referring to the Tanakh as the "the Hebrew Bible" is inaccurate, as it can mean either The Bible of the Hebrews, or merely The Bible written in Hebrew, neither of which are true. It is also just as offensive to Jews as referring to the Torah as "the first five books of the Bible". In truth, while the Christians may have adopted the Torah and the Tanakh to create the first five books of their holy scriptures—The Bible—Jews still regard the Torah and the Tanakh as their own, if not the only, Holy Scriptures.

To Jews, the Bible can be viewed as a plagiarized version of the Tanakh, with recent additions written to glorify a false prophet, the content of which has been used for centuries as a justification for their persecution. So you can see the sensitivity.

The Christian term "Old Testament" is apparently viewed negatively, though I'm not really sure why. The Torah is much older than the Bible, and, as we know from our experiences as consumers, "new" doesn't always mean "better".

Referring to the Tanakh as the Hebrew Bible is exactly like referring to The Bible as "the Christian Koran". Just because Islam is more recent and more popular than Christianity, does not negate the right of Christians to protect their own intellectual property. In fact, it is precisely why they need to protect it.

Any thoughts?

--miltonBradley 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, is it correct that the usual term used by English-speaking Jews for their scripture is simply "the bible"? Cesiumfrog (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Milton, unfortunately published scholars are what determine WP usage see WP:RS, WP:Content forking and WP:EN. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Chapters

Calling the chapter divisions "technical" is POV. The edition I had been unfortunate enough to spend 10 years with had the division to chapters and verses in a much more prominent print than the classic Jewish devision. So is any other edition of the Bible I've seen in Hebrew. Gadykozma 18:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dovi. I do not understand what the POV violation here is. Dovi is just stating facts about how the Tanakh is divided in different editions. How this pushing one group's POV in a way that violates our NPOV policy? RK 20:36, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Koren edition, 3 Breuer editions, Dotan edition - other additions are hardly used anymore in Israel and in Jewish circles. May I guess you used either BHS or Letteris?
It is not POV, because the claim is that in the Jewish tradition they are viewed as nothing more than technical divisions, while the ancient divisions (the parashiyot) are the only divisions of import within the Jewish tradition. Indeed, popular historiography among traditional Jews has it that the chapters and verse numbers were only used as a result of Christian pressure, during forced medieval debates between clerics when proof-texts had to be cited. I don't know whether this is entirely accurate historically (i.e. I tend to think that some Jews also viewed the chapters as useful technical references), but it is quite clear that, yes, in the Jewish tradition these are nothing more than borrowed technical references, not divisions of historical or traditional import. Thus the recent group effort among most Jewish publishers to relegate them to the margins. This didn't happen by accident. I doubt any serious Jewish scholar would say otherwise. Dovi 18:58, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
I can hardly be expected to remember which edition of the Bible I used in school. That was 15 years ago. However, let me assure you that: A) It had the chapters and verses prominantly and the Jewish divisions almost invisible. B) We learned the Bible by these divisions C) Every reference I came across here in Wikipedia is using these divisions. D) Your text PROVES your POV: the POV of a Hebrew scholar, where as there are other POVs, including other Hebrew POVs. Gadykozma 19:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I hope we can resolve this between ourselves without votes, etc. The personal level is the best way to go. (A-B) If you want to debate the Hebrew editions you've seen and used, versus the printing trends among Jews over the past 50 years, we can do that. In fact, it may even be an informative addition to the article. The history of Tanakh printing is fascinating. But sorry, it does not prove your point. Will add at least a summary of the material when I get the chance, perhaps over the next couple of weeks.
(C) That Wikipedia uses these divisions proves nothing. That they are commonly used as technical references to cite verses is agreed to by all. That the plural "Books of Samuel" has no source, basis, or religious importance in the Jewish/rabbinic tradition is agreed to by all as well. Please cite any source to the contrary.
(D) You say my text proves my POV. How? Cite me some POV and I will be happy to correct it. Find me any serious Bible scholar, Jew or non-Jew, who says that these divisions have a basis in the Jewish/masoretic tradition, and we can include his POV. But I don't think you will find any. Sorry, there are no "other" Hebrew POV's. Any "Hebrew" with a decent Jewish education, be he Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, rabbinite, Karaite - you name it - knows that these are simply not Jewish divisions of the Bible. Sorry.
Finally: "...since its original intention was to facilitate interreligious theological discussion." I don't know what you mean by "original intention", but Wow(!): "Interreligious theological discussion" is quite a euphamism for the period of pogroms and forced mass-apostacy that coincided with the inquisition, when these "discussions" took place.

Awaiting your response. Dovi 20:13, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Dovi, what we are having here is obviously a dialogue between the deaf. We are speaking in different terms. You are talking about Masoretic traditions and what is or is not Jewish. I am talking about a very simple fact: open a Bible in Hebrew (if you must have a specific edition, why not use a standard IDF issued Bible?) in a random page and you will immidiately see the chapter and verse numbers. Open it in Samuel, and you will immidiately see whether this is I or II Samuel. Finding out which parashiya you are in is graphically more difficult. That's all. Nothing deep, nothing "essential". All very techincal, as you like to say. I want the article to reflect this fact. Clearly and unequivocaly. I will agree to any formulation of the text that does that. Gadykozma 20:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I honestly don't understand the charge being made against Dovi. RK 20:36, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
RK, does the text above answer your question? Gadykozma 20:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
All the Jewish, Hebrew versions I have seen have the chapter divisions as well as the parashiot. Interestingly, the chapter and verse divisions actually sometimes differ slightly in Christian Bibles. Jayjg 23:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RK, part of why this has become so confused is because the original wording no longer appears, so it is hard to figure out what is being discussed. Gadykozma considers a statement to the effect that the chapter numbers and the division of Samuel have no roots in the Jewish tradition (rabbinic and/or masoretic) to be "POV." It is POV according to him to write that the Jewish tradition speaks of the "Book" of Samuel rather than the "Books" of Samuel. It is also POV according to him to say that since the middle ages Jews have used the chapter and verse numbers only in a "technical" sense for citing verses, but that the divisions with religious and historical significance are the masoretic ones. In his last post above he seems to agree with me, however.

Jayjg, you are right obviously. It might even be interesting to list the few occassions where they disagee. (Maybe in Bible#Chapters_and_verses.)

As for the IDF Bible: Gadykozma, the IDF has distributed the Dotan edition for many years (until about a year or two ago). The Dotan edition is one of the majority of popular modern editions that have relegated the chapter and verse divisions to the margins precisely because they have no Jewish religious or historical significance, and are needed only to cite verses. Nearly all modern versions have done this following Koren, the most popular Hebrew Tanakh edition ever (see the introduction to Koren for why they did it). This is precisely what I wrote this in the original version which you deleted; perhaps you just didn't understand what I meant.

To make the issue clear, here is the paragraph that Gadykozma erased:

(Jewish editions of the Tanakh in Hebrew eventually included the division of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles as a technical reference along with the chapter divisions and verse numbers. Most editions published over the past generation have, however, relegated the division of these books to the margins, along with the chapter divisions. The text of Samuel, for instance, continues without any interruption on the page. For more information, see Bible#Chapters_and_verses.)

I have a strong hunch (and I hope I am right) that this whole thing was nothing more than a needless misunderstanding. Dovi 07:22, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

So, where does this text (leaving aside my style concerns: do not put whole paragraph in parenthesis, do not link to sections without a |) say that the chapter and verse divisions are more prominent than the parashiyot divisions? Gadykozma 10:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to re-open up a discussion from 8 years ago, but I wanted to point out that your underlying assumption of this whole discussion is not all that accurate. The Lubavitcher Rebbe actually attributes much religious meaning to the chapter and verse numbering in the Chumash (see Likutei Sichot Vol. 16, Parshat Yitro, Sicha 4, note 40)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.210.247 (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

History and Codification is a duplicate

History and Codification is a duplicate there must be some way to fix this, as there is no need for the duplication of information in stub form in the history section. --Inayity (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

join the see also into one line, as opposed to two lines

I dont know how to do a see also and include multi things. It is very messy having See also a musical band and then cities in Iran. One line See also for cities in Iran, for musical band . Clean--Inayity (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I simplified two hatnotes (concerning the band Tanakh and the Iranian towns called Tanak) into a single hatnote. Is that what you wanted? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

oldest printed Tanakh

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 Hebrew Bible in the world or the first printed version, and this article does not mention that edition at all! --Espoo (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Good afternoon SP, hope all is well for you this Wednesday afternoon. It's less than subtle with all the variant spellings of way back when, and still hard to catch even with the speed current electronics can communicate and all spelling variants are merely different dialects of words (please excuse my dialectic use of letters in your username) so even though the current hyphenated "Hill" was not attached to the publisher's name, the article seemed to less-than-subtlely-list the allegedly first publisher of translations of the original word. The articles seems to make the assertion that "(that which is read)-Hill" or McGraw-Hill, without explicitly stating the assertion, which is very typical of the English Language, a language which routinely employs obfuscation. - Dirtclustit (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong Reference to 4 Ezra?

42: The Highest gave understanding unto the five men, and they wrote the wonderful visions of the night that were told, which they knew not: and they sat forty days, and they wrote in the day, and at night they ate bread. 43: As for me. I spake in the day, and I held not my tongue by night. 44: In forty days they wrote two hundred and four books. 45: And it came to pass, when the forty days were filled, that the Highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast written publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it: 46: But keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people:

-This doesn't mention at all anything about 24 books of the Tanakh. Also, what is Midrash Qoheleth??

WikiProject

Based on a suggestion in Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, I have started the skeleton of a WikiProject to try to cut down on the overlap between the various presentations of the canon. I think that a lot of people working here will want input on this. Feel free! Mpolo 13:34, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Whose Old Testament?

As nobody else has seen fit to begin a talk page discussion for the glacial edit war underway about “whose old testament” the Tanakh is “a source” of, I will now do so. It is true that the scope of the Tanakh was followed by those revising the Protestant canon in the Reformation, and is also true that canonical Hebrew texts were used by Protestant translators more consistently than Catholic or Orthodox translators. However, since the text of the article reads “a source”, and since the Tanakh is indeed a source – the most important and fundamental source – for the Catholic and Orthodox Old Testament, I have therefore reverted to the (pre-August 16) stable version.

Name of the Book of Numbers

"Bəmidbar (בְּמִדְבַּר, literally "In the desert [of]")—Numbers" Is it really written in English with a schwa? I can see a schwa being used in a phonetic transcription, but none of the other letters seem to be so distinguished.--Khajidha (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It's "וַיְדַבֵּ֨ר יְהוָ֧ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֛ה בְּמִדְבַּ֥ר סִינַ֖י", "Adonai spoke to Moses in the desert of Sinai", so it's the indefinite construct form. Largoplazo (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hebrew only or Hebrew-English?

Are we talking about Hebrew only versions of the Tanakh, or Hebrew-English ones as well? Jayjg 17:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was talking about Hebrew only. Gadykozma 18:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why? Jayjg 19:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was also talking mostly (but not exclusively) about Hebrew-only texts. The reason was because the trend to minimize chapters took place mostly in the Hebrew-only editions (starting with Koren). As for Hebrew-English editions: JPS, as I pointed out above, it not part of this trend at all, as it notes the chapter divisions very prominently inside the main text. But the Artscroll Hebrew-English "Tanach" follows the "minimizing" trend completely, as does the new Hebrew-English version recently published by Horev. Dovi 04:13, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

Consensus is to merge the pages to the article at Tanakh. Everyone is in agreement that both articles are on the same topic, though there's some controversy as to which should be the title. I will start a merge discussion to move Tanakh to Hebrew Bible once the merge is finished. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:16, 27 June 2018 (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.

Should Hebrew Bible be merged in with this article? Why or why not? -- Veggies (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge I can't believe we have both articles. "Hebrew Bible" is just a way of referring to the Tanakh via the "Bible" designation that came to us by way of Christianity. Both articles say that they're the same thing in their respective leads. 100% yes, merge. I lean toward merging the articles into Hebrew Bible because I suspect that's by far the way it's most commonly known among English speakers, and, yet, I feel it "should" be here, under "Tanakh", as that is "our own" (I'm Jewish) term for it. Largoplazo (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I also think it should be here under Tanakh. It is, after all, originally a Hebrew text that (if I understand correctly) is authoritative only in its original language. But if we go by common name, it's most commonly referred to as the Old Testament (which is a Christian term) and inaccurate. That's what I think anyway. -- Veggies (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if authority is relevant, but it is authoritative for Christians in translation. StAnselm (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • To me, that sounds like opining that if we wound up with separate articles Car and Automobile, we should keep them separate if the creator of Car had focused more on the manufacture and history of cars and the creator of Automobile had concentrated more on their distribution and uses. It's one topic, so the various focuses should be in one article. The distinction between the titles doesn't even correspond to the difference in focus. If one aspect of the Tanakh/Hebrew Bible merited enough attention to be spun off into its article, then that article should have a title describing that aspect, not just be a synonym for the whole topic—in the way an appropriate title for a spinoff article on the history of cars would History of cars, not Automobile. (The fact that the history of cars is actually covered in an article titled History of the automobile is a separate matter.) Largoplazo (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support These are two things that are basically the same, but with different names in different languages. It is OK for the lay searcher to learn that the Hebrew Bible is called Tanakh in Hebrew. The merger does not have to include Old Testament as explained above, and, in my view, should be here. warshy (¥¥) 01:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Further discussion required This proposed merger requires further discussion, especially on which article should be left after the merge and the ramifications for the current Category structure. Editor2020 (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm a little puzzled since this discussion was open for a long time and no one else chimed in, I sensed a consensus and merged the articles. Now, a month later, Editor2020 reverts my edit and claims in the summary that there was "no discussion". What????? -- Veggies (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support merging Hebrew Bible into Tanakh. Duplicate contents should be trimmed; the alternate title "Hebrew Bible" should redirect to an appropriate section of Tanakh discussing terminology. — JFG talk 05:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There was no discussion at Hebrew Bible, the other article involved.Editor2020 (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons At least the Hebrew Bible page needs to discuss this on talk, and an RfC would be preferable. The proposal is to merge the article on the Jewish text and the article on the similar but not identical Christian text; this should not be undertaken lightly. (This comment was supposed to appear here rather than in "final steps"; the Edit section function isn't working properly for me in this case for some reason. So I am inserting it where it was supposed to be). Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Final steps

Looks like Veggies has already merged the contents of Hebrew Bible into this.[1] Can we now make it a redirect, or are there remaining issues to address first? — JFG talk 05:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Largoplazo, StAnselm, Malik Shabazz, Warshy, and Editor2020: Agree to redirect? — JFG talk 05:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we have a consensus for a merge, but not what the target should be. I still think it should be "Hebrew Bible" as being the neutral term (as this article now points out). StAnselm (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand. If the contents are merged than the redirect should be to the main article, this one - Tanakh. What is not neutral in the name Tanakh? warshy (¥¥) 12:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea, either, what this is about. Tanakh is the proper title for this. -- Veggies (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
If the consensus is to Merge, I would prefer merging to Hebrew Bible, but I can live with this way. Editor2020 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
There are still some Category name issues that need to resolved.Editor2020 (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, just because an editor has gone ahead with the merge, it doesn't mean it needs to stick. But this article now says "Many biblical studies scholars advocate use of the term "Hebrew Bible" (or "Hebrew Scriptures") as a substitute for less neutral terms with Jewish or Christian connotations (e.g. Tanakh or Old Testament)." So Veggies - why did you make this (Tanakh) the main article? StAnselm (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Editor2020, please explain to me your reasons for preferring it the other way? You certainly know more about editing WP than I do... :) Thank you! warshy (¥¥) 14:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

But Bible already have Christian connotations as we have Koran article there is no problem I think to have Tanach article.--Shrike (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The Qur'an doesn't help as an analogy because, apart from spelling differences, "Qur'an" is what everyone calls it. The question here isn't whether a non-English title is acceptable, it's which of two names better meets WP:COMMONNAME. Largoplazo (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that Hebrew Bible is more used in Bible scholarship. Editor2020 (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
In all Bible scholarship or in Christian Bible scholarship? What do Jewish scriptural scholars generally call it? I have no assumption as to the answer, but felt that that question was needed. Largoplazo (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
All. A number of publications just use "Bible",[2] but "Hebrew Bible" is very common.[3][4] StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I do. As the article itself specifies, the term "Hebrew Bible" or "Hebrew Scriptures" is the standard terms used by Christian biblical scholars now (in preference to "Old Testament"). Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Soooo... can we merge now? Is everybody happy? -- Veggies (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Good for me at Tanakh. — JFG talk 16:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Veggies: No - how about you respond to my question? StAnselm (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I already addressed this. [5] It's the original Hebrew name for the original text—which is written in Hebrew. The same reason why Bhagavad Gita is not "The Gita" or "The Song of God". -- Veggies (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, the article specifically repudiates the idea that it is the "original Hebrew name": During that period, however, "Tanakh" was not used... StAnselm (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, I think we will need an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I must say, I'm obviously involved, but it doesn't look anything like a consensus to merge from where I sit. Also, as far as preferred title goes, I haven't seen evidence that the "title" Tanakh dates from any earlier than 900 CE. Has anyone? Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Has Hebrew Bible been consulted yet? It still looks to me like a potential quagmire, and contrary to policy besides. Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User Newimpartial. This whole idea is not as simple as it looked at first sight. (I am also sorry I messed up the indentation in my question to User Editor2020 above, and it messed up a discussion that was already messed up even more. I guess it is too late now to try and fix the mess. Sorry. But I am changing my mind: the whole idea is not so simple as it looked at first sight. Thank you.) warshy (¥¥) 17:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's 'been consulted'. That was the point of announcing a discussion over a month ago about this. Discussions should be kept in one spot to avoid doubling arguments and debates. -- Veggies (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I observe that the merger notice was not added to the talk page; I put it there now. When will be WikiProject Christianity be added to this page: when the merger is completed? Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

And I've removed it because those tags go on the article (and it's been on that article for as long as it's been on this one). Largoplazo (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2018 (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.

Requested move 27 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. This has been open for quite some time, and in that time, a consensus to move has formed. The arguments used by the opposition, are, while fine, are outweighed by the support votes, especially WP:COMMONNAME in correlation with the ngrams, etc. The argument that "bible" is Christian is unpersuasive and has been refuted through discussion. As a result, I will move this to Hebrew Bible. Hebrew Bible will be moved to Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) in order to preserve the history, though if someone can think of a better location for it, please say so. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Tanakh → Hebrew Bible – A procedural request after completing a merge of these two pages; while there was a clear consensus for a merge there was not a clear consensus for any specific name of the page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Mahveotm (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above, there are sources provided that show the use of "Hebrew Bible" by Jewish scholars. The "Christian name" is, of course, "Old Testament". StAnselm (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
both bible and old testament are the christian names for it עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
No, "Bible" is the Jewish name as well. Did you look up the references provided? See also The Art of Biblical Narrative. StAnselm (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
No it isn't. If it was the search in Google Books would not 94,000 results for "Tanakh" and 1.25 million for "Hebrew Bible" - this isn't a !vote, an oppose has to have some basis in policy. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I note that "Hebrew Scriptures" is also sometimes used. Britannica uses "Hebrew Bible" and I would say Hebrew Bible is more familiar at this time. However I also have a copy of the "Jewish Study Bible" (Oxford University Press, commonly used in college courses) and its introduction (p. x) states: "We avoid the term 'Hebrew Bible,' a redundancy in the Jewish view. Jews have no Bible but the 'Hebrew Bible'." --Erp (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The Jewish Study Bible is written in a Jewish context by Jews for Jews. Wikipedia is none of those, so the consideration you presented is inapplicable here. Wikipedia readers, in the aggregate, do have other bibles.Largoplazo (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The Jewish Study Bible is a scholarly work used in colleges (and not just Jewish colleges) across the United States and the United Kingdom (google search on .edu and .ac.uk). The book is meant for and used by a general audience not just a Jewish audience. I note that Wikipedia's audience includes Jews as well as Christians, Humanists, Muslims, etc so Jewish views on a name for something important to them should be considered especially when the source is by mainstream scholars. BTW another name is Jewish Bible as for instance used at the USC Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement http://cmje.usc.edu/religious-texts/home/jewish-text.php along with Tanakh but no sign of Hebrew Bible ("Hebrew Bible" could refer to a Christian Bible including New Testament in Hebrew) --Erp (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
It could, but it doesn't. If we really felt the need we could add a hatnote to Bible translations into Hebrew. StAnselm (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:USEENGLISH Red Slash 03:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the proposed name is WP:RECOGNIZABLE for Non-Hebrews. Per WP:USEENGLISH. Khestwol (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Tanakh specifically conveys a Jewish context, unlike Hebrew Bible, which can refer either to the Tanakh or to the OT portions of Christian Bibles. If you're a Christian speaking with a Jew, and you're trying to refer to the first part of your Bible without causing offense, you should speak of the "Hebrew Bible" because your friend won't recognize anything as being newer, but you shouldn't refer to it as the "Tanakh", because you're speaking of it in a Christian context. In this situation, it's part of a larger text, the Christian Bible, so it's not freestanding as is the Tanakh; and in all likelihood, you're using a translation that considers the LXX, the Vulgate, and the targums, as well as the Masoretic Text and allied variants such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, there are other differences between the Old Testament and the Hebrew Bible, such as the book order. Once again, "Hebrew Bible" is not a "Christian" name. And if "Tanakh" "specifically conveys a Jewish context" that would be a reason not to have the article at that title. "Hebrew Bible" is the neutral designation. StAnselm (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Bible is the christian name. עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
No it isn't. StAnselm (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
yes it is Jews don't call it the bible. עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes they do: see How to Read the Bible by Marc Zvi Brettler published by the Jewish Publication Society. StAnselm (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, as a matter of fact, since as I see it, only one side is making policy-based arguments. But there's no hurry. StAnselm (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
The arguments in favor of the move are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. The argument against is that "Tanakh" is in use in English, so it is a common name in English for the work. The raw vote total is 5-4 in favor of a move. There's also a massive amount of "Jewish name" v. "Christian name" discussion (both here and in the previous discussion) which serves to confuse things; I feel the common Christian name is Old Testament and the common Jewish name is simply Bible, neither of which are possible titles for this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
There is also the issue of neutral naming, although WP policy is not as clear about that. StAnselm (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

the reason why this page shouldn't have been merged or moved

now that Tanakh has been merged and moved to hebrew bible it's become a page not really about the tanakh but a mishmosh of the christian bible page mixed with the masoretic text page, Someone keeps adding text that belongs on the masoretic text page and the old testament page or christian bible page it doesn't belong on a page about the Tanakh which is the Jewish bible this page should be moved back to Tanakh and all content not about the Tanakh itself should be moved to some other page where its more appropriate עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Major omission?

The article states that the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament, or Tanakh, whatever) is a text relevant to Judaism and Christianity. But isn't it also a text relevant to Islam? I am not an expert on any of these religions but my understanding is that this text, or much of it, is regarded by Muslims in more or less the same way that Christians regard it. If this is correct there seems little justification for mentioning Christian views of it in some detail, and ignoring Muslim views of it completely. Sayitclearly (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Islam recognizes the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel as divinely inspired texts, but considers them superseded by the Quran. Believers of the earlier text are termed People of the Book, and granted Dhimmi status in Islamic states. Dimadick (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Jews and Christians consider the Tanakh/Hebrew Bible/Old Testament to be holy scripture, either the word of God or divinely inspired (depending on the religious movement or Church one follows). My understanding is that Muslims believe that God revealed the Jewish and Christian bibles, but they were corrupted over time by people, which is why God sent the final prophet, Muhammad. I don't think they regard the Jewish or Christian bibles as holy. While a sentence or two about their perspective may (or may not) be warranted, I don't believe it's as relevant as you seem to. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The Hebrew article

There is no link to the article in Hebrew Wikipedia (תנ"ך) because its link to the English version is titled Tanakh. הראש (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Relevance to the Old Testament

The first sentence of this article reads:

The Hebrew Bible, also called the Tanakh (/tɑːˈnɑːx/;[1] תַּנַ״ךְ, pronounced [taˈnaχ] or [təˈnax]; also Tenakh, Tenak, Tanach) or Mikra, is the canonical collection of Hebrew scripture, the textual source for the Christian Old Testament.

By its structure, this sentence implies that the major significance of the Tanakh is that is the "source for the Christian Old Testament". This is inaccurate, irrelevant to the article, and offensive to Jews who do not believe that their primary sources are merely stepping stones to other religions.

This sentence should be emended, and the reference to the Old Testament - a separate work with different traditions, history, translations, and philosophical claims - should be moved down the article, perhaps to a new section called "Derivative Works"

To be clear: There's nothing wrong with saying that the Old Testament is based on the Tanakh. That's what every Christian believes, and every Jew acknowledges. There is, however, a lot wrong with the notion that the Tanakh someone presages the Christian bible. Although Christians believe that to be true, Jews most certainly do not.

Imagine if the Wikipedia article on the New Testament began like this:

The New Testament (Ancient Greek: Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη, transl. Hē Kainḕ Diathḗkē; Latin: Novum Testamentum) forms the second volume of the Christian biblical canon, the first volume being the Old Testament, and is the textual source for the Book of Mormon.

Bennyp (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "and the textual source" or "as well as the textual source" would be better.
However, Bennyp, I would like to point out that the current article derives from the merger of the former Tanakh article (largely concerned with the relevance of these texts to Jewish traditions) and the former Hebrew Bible article (largely concerned with the relevance of these same texts to Christian traditions).
Also, while the history of Christianity's old testament is not limited to the discussion of the Hebrew Bible, it is nevertheless the case that, "Apocrypha" aside, the Masoretic text has been the widely predominant source for published translations of the "old testament", and the use of, e.g., the Septuagint in these translations is extremely minor and certainly does not produce a "new text" in the sense of the Book of Mormon or the Koran. Newimpartial (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe I've fixed it. I simply moved the text's role in Christian scripture to the end of the lead paragraph, so that the lead, up to that point, can concentrate uninterrupted on the role of the Hebrew Bible in Judaism. Though now I'm thinking that maybe it should be moved to its own paragraph at the end of the lead section. Largoplazo (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I have changed the order of these sentences since the previous version assumed that the reader had already read something about the textual relationship in the lede.
By the way, the best practice would be to ensure first that the article's main body discusses these textual relationships appropriately, and then to summarize these findings in the lede according to their WEIGHT, rather than starting by trying to handcraft the lede per POV/NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit

In my recent edit, I quoted this forum. The reply which specifically backs up my edit was the reply by Jordan S. Penkower, who is an expert in the field. The forum page itself is hosted by H-Net, an academic association whose purpose is to allow scholars to "engage with each other, collaboratively produce knowledge, and disseminate information to its subscribers and the general public". Allowing the ideas of recognized experts like Penkower to be noticed and quoted on Wikipedia, therefore, is pretty much the goal of the academics who set up and moderate this forum. Ar2332 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I think if it is certain that these posts are by the published experts, that may acceptable as a source. I apologize for the second reversion, I had incorrectly copied the URL and came up with a list of posts to the forum rather than the specific topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The H-Net forum discussion that is currently being pointed to is a very good start, and it indicates a number of sources that would definitely yield a more solid encyclopedic paragraph defining the beginning of the usage of the "term and concept." Actually, as the paragraph is now articulated and the references it points to, is also a good start, based on that discussion. But all the sources specifically indicated in the discussion would have to be read much more carefully to bring that paragraph to a definite encyclopedic level, in my view. I do not have time at the moment to pursue such an endeavor, but it will need to be pursued sometime in the future, in my view again. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 21:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I've raised this issue at WP:RS/N. Your input is welcome. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. The first comment there is very similar to what I said above, and I have agreed with the poster there now, and reiterated what we both have said. Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 16:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

correction

actually, only the first five books of the bible are called mikra

Every source I find that covers this indicates that you're mistaken. Largoplazo (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Chocolate Chip cookies without the chocolate chips

The original Nach (Bible acronym) wikilink was to a section of an article about Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's The Living Nach. This wikilink is to (be for) a section in the article to which Tanakh links, and it has citations. It does not link to https://www.torahmusings.com/2010/03/weekly-links_22-2 (moderated by R'Gil Student), from which one would realize that the gender of an Orthodox teacher of Nach is almost a perfect match to that of Mommy (see re the pair of four year olds). To delete this wikilink would seem like siding with the person in that WebLog who uses a "does not count" argument.

As for the cookie title, I found more than one reference in the Yeshiva article about "Chumash and Tanakh" and other dreidelich to get around [[Nach (Bible acronym)|Nach]]. I was looking for a usable citation where a long time Nach teacher had a student whose mother had been her student - didn't find - hence not using what would be WP:OR. Pi314m (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Tgeorgescu, for fixing my typo Pi314m (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new title

The phrase "Hebrew Bible" is so outlandishly Christian-centric that it's almost ignorant, if not oppressive, of the fundamental differences between Christianity and Judaism. A much better title for this article would be "Tanakh" or, really, any other non-Christian-centric title. Any reference to the Bible should be kept as recognition of textual similarities, not that they're the same theologically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.73.64 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There's also something to be said about the previous reference to WP:COMMONNAME. Although it's mentioned, no evidence is given of widespread use of "Hebrew Bible" over "Tanakh" in academic research. For the little that it's worth, I've always seen the text referenced as the "Tanakh" in my research. It's also worth noting that "Hebrew Bible" is a bit vague, as "Hebrew" refers to the demographic of Israel and Palestine, not a religion - it's like saying the "Australian Qur'an" or "British Vedas". 220.244.73.64 (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
We had two long discussions just last year leading to the current state of affairs. See above. You'd probably have to come up with a truly novel and compelling argument to stimulate a brand new discussion leading to a different conclusion this soon. Largoplazo (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The existence of a previous "long discussion" is not dispositive. The title of the article, and much of its content, is christian-centric, as noted by the OP on this section, and should be changed so as not to offend or mislead, or be historically misleading. Why is this even a debate? konetidy (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
As I previously pointed out during the "long discussion", the proposal was to combine an article about a certain set of scriptures, given a title in Hebrew and primarily referencing Jewish traditions, with an article about the same set of scriptures, but titled in English (according to a liberal Protestant tradition) and primarily referencing Christian traditions. I myself felt that this was problematic, but the apparent CONSENSUS was that there should be only one article about this set of scriptures. It was a long discussion with many participants, so I don't think it should be undone without equally wide participation. Newimpartial (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
It is dispositive to the extent that it is unproductive and disruptive to revive the same debate over and over and over in quick succession with nobody bringing any new rationales to the table with the expectation that the outcome will be different. It amounts to trying to win by exhausting the opposition. It obscures any other discussion that might be happening on the talk page, as people with the article on their watchlists end up ignoring it because nothing new is being said, at the expense of missing out on unrelated new developments meriting their attention; thus, it is detrimental to the overall development of the article. So good practice, when a proposition has already been discussed extensively, is to read the prior debates and see the reaction with which the same rationales have already been received. This is not just my view. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Largoplazo (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Historicity of the Tanakh doesn't exist.

This is a foundation text and it's extreme WP:Notabilty means it's Historicity article would be unique and just as notable as Historicity of the Bible and since there are differences from the Biblical Old Testament there would be differences in the Historicity of Tanakh article to contrast to the other article.
At minimum a link to Historicity of the Bible should exist here and a step up would be a short section here about the Historicity of this text. 35.129.1.59 (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Note

Some words in the Masoretic text are in Egyptian, Assyrian or Hittite.

translation of שִׁמוֹת

"The names [of]" [1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0201.htm

Mikraot Gedolot broken links?

hi, please check status of the links English (sample) in External Links section "Mikraot Gedolot (Rabbinic Bible)" Gfigs (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Kh = Ketuvim

I want to clarify something which has been discussed in edit summaries by @Largoplazo and @112.203.37.245. The reason why the acronym is tanaKH and the word is Ketuvim is that the acronym is based on the Hebrew phrase for "torah, neviim, and ketuvim." The Hebrew word for "and" is an open vowel (u) so it raphates the initial letter of Ketuvim, making uKHtuvim. But if you write the phrase in English this rule doesn't apply. It doesn't really have anything to do with word-final or word-initial position. I've noticed this as a potential issue in the past and I'd support any clever idea for avoiding future confusion. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The last sentence of the third paragraph

At the time of this comment, the sentence in question says: "However, such an Urtext has never been found, and which of the three commonly known versions (Septuagint, Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch) is closest to the Urtext is debated."

The DSS are older than the Masoretic. The Septuagint is a greek translation and as such has the difficulties involved in translating from one language into a much different language. Because the DSS are older, I think they should be included in this list. If it is argued that the DSS is incomplete, then the fact that the Samaritans only recognize the Torah books would be a counter-argument to that argument. Itinerantlife (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hewbrew Bible?

Who gets to decide on this term? A bunch of academics at Harvard that aren't even Jewish?

There's not a single jew on the planet that uses this term, so what right do these elitists have to define what our holy book is called? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The WP:PAG is WP:COMMONNAME. If you don't abide by it you will be blocked. I suggest you temper your tone. Wikipedians have a low tolerance for anti-intelectualism. Wikipedia is heavily based upon WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not upon the opinions of the commoners. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Isn't your statement contradictory?
On one hand you say it's all about WP:COMMONNAME — yet on the other hand you claim it's about scholarship. The two aren't necessarily identical.
Wikipedia may want to save face and not admit it but it clearly looks like since there is no one unified common name for the books of text (that would satisfy both Christians and Jewish faiths alike) scholars settled on inventing a whole third purely academic term that is still not common among ordinary people of any faith or even non faith. —Loginnigol 18:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
You're going to have to distinguish "is called" from "title of the article about it on Wikipedia" and avoid using utterly unfounded and extreme statements like "not a single jew on the planet that uses this term" and unfounded declarations like "at Harvard" and "these elitists". (I hope pulling stuff like this out of thin air isn't how you handle every disagreement you have in your life.) Every title on Wikipedia is subject to community consensus, taking into account the pertinent guidelines such as the one Tgeorgescu mentioned, WP:COMMONNAME. And, while written by Jews for Jews, the Tanakh is also a scripture important to Christians and Muslims and a subject of discussion worldwide under multiple names, including "Old Testament", which would have been a really skewed choice of a title. I'm not saying this as a manner of entering into a debate that you've initiated but, instead, to summarize the outcome of the discussions that have been held. Please, let's not start all over again, at least not unless there's anything new to add that wasn't already considered, debated, and decided in the course of the formal debate from 2018, Talk:Hebrew Bible/Archive 1#Requested move 27 June 2018. Largoplazo (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hebrew_Bible/Archive_1&oldid=1231276651"