Talk:Old Testament

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)

Tetragrammaton gets new pronunciation

Taken from my talk page since I don't like hiding discussions: it was unwarranted for a number of reasons. The edit was good-faith, accurate, and DOES have sources for it. So your reason for reverting ("no source for that pronunciation") was incorrect. I already found one... And will put it. But instead of rudely rerverting like you did (likely because of some kind of bias no doubt), why did you assume there would be "no source" for it, and maybe instead look for one? Here's one...here. Where it says on that page "Scholars believe it to have sounded like Yehowah or Yahweh." Which is one of a number of refs. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The new addition should be removed because I don't know of any modern scholars who pronounce it that way. Also, the urban dictionary, to my knowledge, is not a reliable source. What do I know? Only that the pronunciation offered was a transliteration used in the 1800s. Shall we include all the possible variants of pronunciation or just the most common? Tetragrammaton#Pronunciation: the question of which vowels. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Lol, come on. Urbandictionary as a source? that's not gonna fly. Jer ^{Hit me up} 00:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. If you don't like that source, or it's not considered strong enough, what about Nehemiah Gordon? Which is used quite extensively AS a source in other WP articles? That pronunciation (or thereabouts) is found here. (By the way, it's not really a "new pronunciation"...but "Yehowah" or "Yehovah" has been a known and established Hebrew transliteration or pronunciation for some time now.) Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point "Yahweh and there is a virtual scholarly consensus concerning this name". I'm not arguing that it's not the Hebrew pronunciation, but this is the English Wikipedia. And the phrase is: "In Hebrew, God has a name, generally pronounced as ". It is generally pronounced as Yahweh or Jehovah. It is not generally Yehowah. That pronunciation is reserved for a small minority. So either fix the whole sentence or remove the minority pronunciation. Oh, and Hashem sfarim, may I request that you stop writing on my talk page. This article is on my watchlist and I'll see when you or other update it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I just removed the new addition. Neither the Urban dictionary nor the Karaite Korner is a reliable source. If you can find reliable sources that suggest the name YHWH is pronounced Jehovah by more than a fringe minority, we can discuss putting it back in the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically it's Yehowah, with a short e. I do know that this is the Masoretic way of pronouncing it, but I think that discussion is better suited for the Tetragrammaton, the Yahweh, and the Jehovah articles, not here. The point is, it's a passing comment and not meant to dig deeper. If it's an issue, why not change the phrase to exclude any pronunciation, explain that it usually never uttered, and keep the remainder of the point: "the national god of the Israelites, became the universal Lord."? Which I don't buy anyway because of all the times he says "There is no God besides me." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Malik is COMPLETELY wrong in saying that "Jehovah" (which is not even the name that I was referring to anyway) is used only by "fringe minority". That's not even close to the truth. "Jehovah" is used by MANY scholarly sources. Also he's wrong in saying that that Karaite source is "not reliable". According to whom? Malik and his dogmatic biases maybe? That source is used in MANY WP articles, with solid support. So he's wrong on both counts, on both his remarks. ("Jehovah" is a well established form and has been used by MANY MORE than just "fringe"...sighs. And Gordon is considered reliable on Wikipedia, by many. So, sorry, Malik, but your comment is UTTER FAIL.) But regardless, the issue was not even that word anyway really, but rather the Hebraic "Yehowah" or "Yehovah". And I do admit that Walter makes a valid point that though it's used, it's not "generally" used. So that part of it has to be kept in mind, I agree. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In agreement with WALTER, per his own words, where he said "generally pronounced as Yahweh or Jehovah", I put it that way. Malik's inaccurate comments on that can be disregarded. It's nonsense to say "only a fringe" use that. That's totally incorrect. And is arguably POV bias pushing, with no real basis in fact or reality. "Yahweh" may be THE most common, but not the only form used, and "Jehovah" is by no means pronounced "only by a fringe minority." (The number of reference works, books, etc, that use it are enormous... See the "Jehovah" article to see that fact verified.) Either through the decades or centuries, or currently. So if Malik removes that, he's edit-warring, POV-pushing, and going against current consensus on this very section, as careful analysis shows that Walter agrees that "Jehovah" is also "generally pronounced." Walter's own clear words here. (NOT "Yehowah", though, that's true.) Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should read WP:BURDEN and WP:IRS. While you're reading, you might want to read WP:Edit warring as well. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Tangential comment: I would argue that scholars use Yahweh or YHWH more often than Jehovah and pastors and, even more-so laypeople, use Jehovah. And, I wrote "generally pronounced as Yahweh or Jehovah" not of. Just wanted to clarify that last point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that was a typo. I meant to put "or". I just fixed it. Also, if Malik (lol) thinks that there are no reliable sources for the form "Jehovah" or that it doesn't meet WP "Burden", then like I said, I can't take him seriously. Not to be too rude, or too blunt, but he shows utter ignorance with this, and EXTREME bias. (And there's no place for that stuff on Wikipedia.) "Jehovah" has been so established and sourced, it's like not funny. See the "Jehovah" article and all the refs and points there, to prove that, or just do a google search, and look honestly at what comes up, not conveniently ignoring what's there. I know that you agree Walter, but Malik seems to have an unfounded prejudice against that form of the name. Thinking that it's "only fringe" or "unsourced". Huh?? That simply is not true. Personal feelings should not cloud actual facts. "Yahweh" is used a bit more (wrongly it could be argued, but that's another matter), but I've heard "Jehovah" used by secular people, atheists, Protestants, and in writings, and ref works, and devotionals, etc, past and present, and also scholarly arguments FOR that form too, and it's quite a number of reputable Bible versions (Geneva, Bishop's, KJV, RV, ASV, NEB, etc) it's not even debatable that it's "sourced" and used by way more than just a "small fringe." Regards...Hashem sfarim (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• It is misleading (at best) to simply insert "or Jehovah", even if it is common, because it is a mispronouncation of the name. Jehovah— of course, from the comes from the Latin consonants JHVH (YHWH) and the vowel points of Adonai (lord), a very different word. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 16:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)}

That's just your opinion and the opinion of some other scholars, but not all. Many reputable sources and scholars and historians don't consider it so much a "mis-pronunciation" necessarily anymore than what's been called by some scholars the "wild guess" of "yahweh", which is considered wrong for a number of reasons, like being only two syllables, when the Tetragram was originally considered to have three. Also we use "J" in English for Jacob, Jesus, Jeremiah, with no problem. Etc. (And those were NOT the original pronunciations of those words either.) "Jehovah" preserves the four Hebrew consonants (YWVH) with J in English, which is the main matter anyway. Not which vowels were from maybe from where (not even total agreement on that point either). There are sources on both sides of that issue, (see Jehovah article to see the proponents and arguments for the tri-syllabic form, etc) but is not even the specific issue in this matter anyway. The issue it what form(s) are commonly used today, and whether we personally like it or not, both "Yahweh" AND "Jehovah" have been (and still are) used in many reference works, pulpits, and situations. "Yahweh" more, no doubt, that's true, but "Jehovah" a lot too, and is NOT just by a small tiny fringe. Saying that is what is "nonsense" (or just plain ignorance maybe). peace. Hashem sfarim (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's just your opinion and the opinion of some other scholars LOL If it's the opinion of many scholars, it's not "just [Carlaude's] opinion", is it? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Carlaude: There was no J in Latin until after 1400(ish). At this point, since how the tetragrammaton is pronounced in English is not central to the point being made in the paragraph--one with which I still disagree--I would not object to its removal. In fact the discussion around the correct translation of the tetragrammaton may not be appropriate for the article as the subject is the nature and contents of the OT, not individual authors or characters therein. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, that paragraph itself is questionable. Jehovah or Yahweh was NOT just some tribal god. By the way, there's been some disagreement (I myself am not sure one way or the other) on whether the "J" sound was ever pronounced in Hebrew. Some say that "Y" was actually in many words pronounced as "J". And I think some say that in Latin it was pronounced depending on how the letters were arranged or understood in a word. Not sure. Regardless, though, the matter is that factually both "Yahweh" and "Jehovah" are THE most common forms used today, as well as in the past. Those are the two most common and known. And WP, per complete reflection of what's out there, should tell that, minus personal biases, likes, dislikes, or emotions, or desires. "Jehovah" is overwhelmingly sourced, and used, even if "Yahweh" is a bit more. Thanks for your help, fairness, and consideration to this matter. Hashem sfarim (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're going on about, Hashem sfarim. The sentence as you wrote it was untrue. YHWH is not "generally pronounced" Jehovah in Hebrew, as the sentence said after your edit. Walter Görlitz rewrote the sentence to say that it's commonly pronounced that way in English. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That is actually true. The Tetragram is NOT pronounced in Hebrew as "Jehovah". That is very true. That is more the Anglicized rendering. But then again, if you remember, I did not put "Jehovah" but rather "Y^ehowah". That IS used as a Hebrew rendering of the YHWH Tetragram. But as Walter pointed out, "Yehovah" or "Yehowah" is not GENERALLY used that much. But only sometimes. Hence the confusion. But yes, this I agree with you on. "Jehovah" is not the HEBREW pronunciation of the Tetragramatton, but rather more the Latinized or English. Established for some time now. But if it's the Hebrew pronunciation that is more at issue, then I understand. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The end of history

An IP editor just pointed out that our table of the books of the bible says that for Jews, "history [is] at an end" at the close of the Hebrew Bible, and that for Christians, "history will end" in the New Testament. The IP made the point that this ignores each religion's eschatology. Is there a better way to phrase the language in the table? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there even a source for the claim (that Jewish history ends with the Hebrew Bible and Christian history ends with the New Testament) or is this just more wikipedia original research? Since both religions have a rather developed eschatology this claim of history ending must be bogus. 75.0.4.230 (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Inspired?

hi. I don't know if this necessarily warrants a thing on the article talk page, but then again I don't know if putting "held...inspired" by "Christians" warrants a blatant removal like you did. Look at the wording of the lede. Obviously professed "Christians" (if they hold the "OT" as "sacred") generally hold it as "inspired." You mentioned in your edit comment about "you sure Jones does?"...as if that matters much to the overall point. Even if some PROFESSED "Christians" may not hold the "Old Testament" as inspired, wouldn't you agree that many do? (Otherwise why hold it so "sacred" then?) And shouldn't the word "inspired" (for "Biblical inspiration") be at least SOMEWHERE in that article? If not in the lede, but at least somewhere? The point, again, is that I don't think it matters much that some phony "Christians" (or just nominal or professed ones) may doubt the Old Testament's divine inspiration. (Probably for wrongly thinking it has no good science in it, from sloppy distortions of Atheists, who think that "four corners" was some kind of scientific dissertation, instead of simply a figure of speech of the day, like we use today...another topic.) Because the main fact is that many professed Christians also do officially believe that the Hebrew Scriptures were divinely inspired (if they go around calling themselves "Christians" usually, presumably). Why is it wrong to simply say that? (If you want to bring this to the article talk, then do so, but I do intend to put "inspired" back, just letting you know, because your rationale for removal did not satisfy me, nor is it correct for that context. There was no big need to remove that. "Jones" is not the overall determining factor, and never will be.) Holler. Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Also...if there was doubt about "Jones" because of his ref, then why not simply find another ref (like I just did, which I'm sure some uptight ones will say is "not a reliable source" dogmatically), that clearly states that "Christians" view the OT as "inspired", instead of simply removing that word from the article? WP policy recommendation is to NOT "delete" or "revert", but to maybe make better by finding refs etc. Why didn't you do that? Because it's an OVERWHELMINGLY sourced fact that many "Christians" hold the OT as "inspired." And plenty of references and sources clearly confirm that. Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The reasons I removed it were twofold

1. The source does not contain the term inspired.
2. Liberal (protestant) theologians (of which I'm not a part) would object to the term. Also, I'm not sure where RC and Orthodox stand on the use of the term.

I only included the first reason when reverting. Jones is the determining factor when he carries the reference. Find another, as I see you've done, and the term will be acceptable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)