Talk:Hebrew Bible

Hebrew Bible = Tanakh?

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

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

TORAH

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

Contradiction: Definition

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

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

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

John J. Collins defines "Hebrew Bible" thus: "The Hebrew Bible is a collection of twenty-four books in three divisions: the Law (Tōrāh), the Prophets (Nebîʾîm), and the Writings (Ketûbîm), sometimes referred to by the acronym Tanak."

The books with comprise the Protestant Old Testament are the same as those that comprise the Tanak = Hebrew Bible, but they are ordered differently. Other Christian rites (Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, etc.) have additional books in their Old Testament canons. The short answer is that "Hebrew Bible" is the scholarly term for denoting the Tanak (Jewish Bible) = Protestant OT. Cgaffney08 (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the term "Hebrew Bible" refers to a specific version of the Tanakh, namely the Masoretic Text, which is medieval. The very first ancient version of the Tanakh in one book is of course the Septuagint. The term "Hebrew Bible" is a reference to any text containing the alleged history of Hebrews, and not that it is published in any Hebrew language. ♆ CUSH ♆ 15:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comments contradict: Does the term "HB" include the Septuagint, or does it refer only to the Masoretic Text? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The term "HB" does not include the Septuagint, or any other pre-medieval version of the Tanakh. That is why one should be cautious when throwing around the term. Among Jews the Masoretic Text is the authoritative version of the Tanakh, but it is by no means necessarily the one representing the best possible rendition of ancient texts. In many essential details the MT deviates considerably from ancient sources (such as the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and other writings or collections that predate the MT).I have never liked the use of the term "Hebrew Bible" because it sounds as if it had anything to do with ancient Hebrews, which it does not whatsoever. It is a medieval streamlined version. The bad thing is that many European Christian bibles derive their Old Testament part from the MT, such as Luther's bible or the King James Bible. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Circularity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now that I look at the article again, I see that the first sentence indeed appears misleading. I don't remember when it got changed. It should read something more like: The Hebrew Bible (also Hebrew Scriptures, Latin Biblia Hebraica) is a term referring to the common books of the Jewish Bible and the Christian Old Testament...

Also, I've always thought the parenthetical clarifications about the small amount of Aramaic were superfluous and should be relegated to a footnote, rather than appear in the body of the introduction. Dovi (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Jumping back to this comment by Cush: the term "Hebrew Bible" is a deliberate misnomer. The version referred to by this term (the MT) is an exclusively Jewish work. No Hebrews were ever involved in its assembly, as Hebrews as such ceased to exist during the 6th century BCE. Three points: First off, the distinction between Hebrews and Jews is probably too subtle for most people who come to WP, so you'll really need to clarify this point when you make it in articles. Second, the term Hebrew can easily refer to the language, to distinguish it from the Greek Septuagint. And third, the term Hebrew Bible is often used as a way to avoid the more pejorative "Old Testament," which clearly displays a Christian bias. The statement in question could/should be rewritten to explain this usage. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lead says: "The Hebrew Bible ... is a term used by biblical scholars to refer to the Jewish Bible.." This isn't quite accurate. It doesn't refer to the Jewish bible (the tanakha) as such, it refers to those books contained in the Jewish bible and also the Protestant Old Testament. It isn't concerned with the order of the books (the Protestant Old Testament has Ruth in a different place, and treats the Minor Prophets as individual books instead of putting them all in the same book, among other differences), and it isn't concerned with the language used (scholars will happily debate the different readings of the Greek, Samaritan and Masoretic Hebrew texts), it's just concerned with the books under discussion. Anything that's in the Jewish bible/Protestant Old Testament is Hebrew Bible, anything that's not, is not. I wish I could find a good RS that says this, and says it simply, but so far I can't. Sorry. PiCo (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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

New Testament

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