Talk: Old Testament

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

In the section, "The naming of the Old Testament" in the paragraph beginning "The relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament is controversial among Christians," there seems to be a fragment: "Similarly, the degree to which the Old Testament and its laws applies to Christians." This does not seem to me to be a sentence. I would edit it, but I'm not sure exactly what is intended or how to fix it cleanly.

--Jberk 16:48, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Relationship with Tanakh

Shouldn't this page be redirected to the one on Tanach, and this material added there? There are many Wikipedia pages that are unnecessary duplicates, like this one, and the ones on Go/Pente and the ones on Jehovah/Yahweh. RK

I would say not. The view that the Tanakh and the Old Testament are the same is a very Christian view, not supported by most Jewish people I know. The discussion on Communion, the Lord's Supper, the Last Supper, and the Eucharist, clearly pointed out an advantage of Wiki is not paper.

I don't follow this; there must be some linguistic confusion here. For a few sentences here and there, Jews and Christians disagree over the text - but for the vast majority of the text, over 99% of it - they agree that it is precisely the same thing. Is this debate over a few sentences here and there what those Jewish people you know were referring to? Or do they believe that Christians added entire new books to the Hebrew Bible? Chrisitians, in fact, did not do this. But they did add the New Testament and Apocrypha; however, Chrisitians have never claimed that these books are part of the Old Testament/Tanach. RK

You're right, they did not, RK. We need to decide what to do with different terms for similar rites and liturgical phenomena. I do agree that in this case there is little difference. However I still think it should have two entries, or at least a double title. Someone familiar with Christianity will no doubt have trouble finding the Old Testament under 'Tanach'. The case of Eucharist/Communion as I see it deserves two separate entries, since the liturgical practice of each version of the 'Last Supper' and the theological doctrines behind them differ significantly, and could each probably be regarded typical of Roman Catholicism and of Protestantism.--TK

Could someone tell me more about which Christian scholars think the New Testament doesn't apply to Jews and why? Clearly Jews would think it doesn't apply to them, but the New Testament authors were mostly Jews, if not all of them, and their audiences clearly included both Jews and Gentiles. This is especially obvious in the Gospel according to St. Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews. I don't mind including that view here, but it would be helpful to include the rationale as well, I would think. --Wesley

As I had never heard of the "Tanach" until coming here, the idea that it is identical with the Old Testament is certainly new to me. It would have been impossible for someone like myself, who is rather well-read in a variety of subjects, including the bible, to find the Old Testament if there were only an entry labeled "Tanach". -- Zoe

Ok, enough back and forth. Regarding the Old Testament and the Jewish canon, I would agree based on what others have written in the Biblical canon article that the Jewish canon did not change in the second century, simply because it had not been formally discussed and approved until then, around the time of the Council of Jamnia if I'm not mistaken. Before that time, it's clear that many Jews used the Septuagint, and that most extant manuscripts of the Septuagint include part or all of the books generally called Deuterocanonical or Apocryphal. When the Jews did officially designate a canon, it was of course based on Hebrew manuscripts that did not include these books. Would not those Jews and synagogues who discontinued use of the Septuagint in favor of Hebrew manuscripts, not also at least informally have discontinued use of the Deuterocanonical books? Or am I reading into history something that didn't happen?

The larger point is that I think this article should avoid saying that the Jewish Tanach as used today is synonymous with the Christian Old Testament. For the first 1,500 years of its history, the Christian Church included the 'deuterocanonical' books in its Old Testament; the Tanach corresponds only to the Protestant Old Testament which has those books removed. The two canons are still very similar, but they are not identical. Wesley 04:23 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

I see no reason to assume that the Jews used the same manuscripts for the septuagint as non-Jews. Perhaps not all books were part of the original septuagint and additional books were translated separately into Greek and incorporated without note into the non-Jewish version. Ezra Wax

Well, the reason to assume it is that AFAIK there aren't any septuagint manuscripts that correspond to the Tanach canon, although some manuscripts omit a couple of books that others contain, like IV Maccabees or the 151st Psalm. However, some differences like the prayers in the book of Esther or the Song of the Three Youths in the book of Daniel are interspersed with the main text, and (in my purely amateur opinion) unlikely to have been translated separately. Is there any particular reason or evidence to suppose there were separate 'jewish' and 'non-jewish' versions of the septuagint? But I should probably do some additional research and see whether the scholars who study these things have a more informed opinion. Wesley

This paragraph is quite problematic:

The Christian Old Testament, for the most part, is identical to the Tanach. The first difference encountered is that they have a slightly different order of books. The second major difference is that the Christian Old Testament also includes many books that have extra paragraphs that do not exist in the Jewish version of the Bible. This is because the Christian Old Testament comes from the Septuagint, while the Jewish Tanach draws from a similar, but distinct textual tradition.

I have no problem for the first difference; however, there are major difficulties (mainly failure of nuance and precision) in the second difference. For one, the base text of the O.T. for Protestants is not the Septuagint (LXX) as implied in the article, but the Hebrew Massoretic text. Eastern Orthodoxy still uses the LXX, and the article should also incorporate the Roman Catholic position as well. SCCarlson 01:11 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

"the Old Testament is a translation and modification of the Tanach"

User:Jesus Saves! removed edits to this page indicating that the Old Testament is a translation, that the translation includes modifications. He retained the portion of the edit that indicates the books are reordered. (Though he did introduce that idea that Kings I and Kings II are separate books, as opposed to two volumes of a single book.) I propose that the previous edit be restored. OneVoice 01:24, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think you've got the Old Testament and the LXX mixed up; the LXX does include a lot of changes, and it's in fact the only text which includes the Apocrypha. However, Christians do not need the LXX; the Masoretic Text is widely used in translations of the Old Testament.

Perhaps so, but I think not. The Masoretic Text contains both kri and ktiv...this concept is lost in translation. In addition, some passages are translated to further a particular viewpoint, one that holds that the Old Testament foretells the birth and life of Jesus rather than possibly better translations that would not fit the widely accepted account(s) of the life of Jesus. I would rather not enter into a detailed discussion of each passage and how it could/should be translated. The fact of translation means that one must choose between words in English, or whichever language, that do not match the original text. This choice of words in the translated language often contains significant editorial content. The act of translation inherently contains acts of modification of meaning. A simple example is that several names are used to God in the Tanach, any faithful translation must use the same word for each name of God each time it appears. This is not the case in any translation that I have ever seen. Another conflict-free (hopefully) indication is how to translation malachah as opposed to avodah. Hence, the claim that the Old Testament is a translation and modification of the Tanach. OneVoice 02:41, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Jews count the 12 "minor" prophets as a single book"?

The page indicates that Jews count the 12 "minor" prophets as a single book. does anyone have a reference to this? OneVoice 00:31, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you were to look into any copy of the Tanach you would see that they are treated as one book called "Trei Asar" meaning (the book of) Twelve. Ezra Wax

Yes, indeed, but is it an indication that they are one book? The Torah has five distinct books yet we have one name for it. Could the Trei Asar, a collection of 12 independent books, be a section of Neviim rather like Neviim Rishonim and Neviim Achronim? OneVoice 00:48, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I recall that the reason why the books were included in one book was because they were so small that the Rabbis were worried that they would get lost if they weren't put together into one book. I don't, however, have a source for you. Ezra Wax

Surely that would be one scroll rather than one book. Each is an independent work, no? Indeed Ovadiah could be easily misplaced. Not his fault really. ;) OneVoice

I was thinking about whether to call it a book or a scroll. I don't think it makes a difference. In hebrew it's sefer. The same word for both book and scroll. Ezra Wax

Yes, indeed, but its not the same in English. This is one small indication of the dangers of translation. Something as simple as one sefer, is it one book or one scroll? Which makes sense from the point of view of the Amoraim? The Torah is one scroll, yet it is five books. Would it not make sense to place the 12 books of the Trei Asar in one scroll? (not one book.) OneVoice 01:14, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Do either of you actually know what you are talking about? A scroll is a megillah (rolled on only one side). A sefer is generic and refers to any other text (scroll rolled on both sides or a bound book with pages). And yes, Trei Asar is traditionally counted as one book. Danny 01:17, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes. You are pointing out another confusing translation. The word scroll can refer to either two sided scroll or a one sided scroll, while the word sefer can refer to a two sided scroll or a book but not a one sided scroll. And a one sided scroll is specifically a megillah. There you have it. The ganze megillah. Ezra Wax

Danny, can you provide a source for "And yes, Trei Asar is traditionally counted as one book." OneVoice 01:22, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's a gemara in the first perek of Megillah where they count the books of the Tanach and describe what goes in. Don't have it here, but if you have a Shas look it up, with the Rishonim. Danny 01:23, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Which daf? I looked there before, but somehow I kept on missing it. Ezra Wax

Don't remember offhand. Try dalet or vav. Danny 01:29, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

All I can find is on daf zayin where it talks about koheles, shir hashirim, and esther. Are you sure it is in Megillah? Is it perhaps in Sanhedrin? Ezra Wax

Could be Danny 02:34, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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 13:28, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)