Talk:Hebrew Bible

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hebrew Bible article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 730 days

Religion: Interfaith C‑class Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Religious texts C‑class (defunct)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Bible C‑class Top‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judaism C‑class Top‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity C‑class Top‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East C‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Vital article

Missing information

Such as the history of the bible itself, its physical history. Where did the scripts come from? What are the oldest surviving pieces of it? etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.51.145 (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The physical history of the bible, if not completely taboo, is always shrouded in mist, because the biblical scholars are believers, and they want to hide the fact that we have no certified "original" version the sacred text. In another wikipedia article you can find the statement that the Leningrad codex, most ancient complete version of the Hebrew text, dates from around 1000 CE, but "was composed" 100 BCE. How do they know? 2A01:E34:EC0C:8370:1418:831F:CF13:A733 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is welcome to delete my previous comment. It contains a typo ("version OF the previous text"). And it is a general remark, which I indulged in, but cannot be used to improve the article. 2A01:E34:EC0C:8370:1418:831F:CF13:A733 (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No dates for the writing of biblical books at all?

Wow. This page needs some serious work. There are plenty of good scholarly works on the Tanakh written by Professors of Biblical studies who date the books they study according to epigraphy. In some cases they can chart the date of texts by analysis of the Hebrew language, which changed over time. There are many reliable and objective ways to date biblical books or at least provide an accurate window for their probably composition. For instance, Victor Hurowits (professor of Bible, archaeology and ancient Near Eastern studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev) dated the book of Proverbs to the 7th C. BCE at the latest (he published a two-volume Hebrew commentary on the Book of Proverbs in the Mikra LeYisra’el). Start with Hurowitz, then branch out to other notables for dating.

Ignoring the matter and just concentrating on the matter of fixing the Cannon is misleading to the general public and looks borderline anti-semitic. 72.105.28.178 (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]