|WikiProject Judaism||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Bible||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
hello visitors. I have just finshed the first edition of this article and its not quite as comprehensive as it could be, so feel free to improve on it. If you want to make changes to spelling of transliterations etc. please discuss them first.
The following sentence from the 1st paragraph makes it seem that the Ruach HaKodesh ("Holy Spirit"), itself is less of an inspiration than some other unnamed influence:
The Ketuvim are believed to have been written under the Ruach HaKodesh, a level less than that of prophecy.
I suggest rephrasing such as: "The Ketuvim are believed to have been written under the Ruach HaKodesh, but with one level less authority than that of prophecy" -I'll go ahead and make that change now.
I added a section regarding the canonization of the Ketuvim as a part of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament. There is still a lot that could be done with this section.
I would like to get back to this page and add a section regarding the criteria to which a text was held in order to be counted among the Biblical canon of the Ketuvim.
Any other assistance in this arena would be excellent!
K'thubhim vs. Kəṯûḇîm
I've changed the article to give the latter instead of the former as the "actual Biblical Hebrew", in accordance with the spelling "כְּתוּבִים" and the transliteration scheme employed by Thomas O. Lambdin in "Introduction to Biblical Hebrew" and which seems to agree with where I have seen Biblical Hebrew transcribed elsewhere. However, I've put a note here, partly to defend my modification, and partly cause I'm not 100% confident in it... for a couple reasons:
- I have seen the apostrophe used in some places instead of the schwa, e.g. "l'chaim", so I'm not immediately ready to call its use here "incorrect". I think that might only be a convention of Modern Hebrew, but I'm not sure and haven't asked anyone, so maybe I'm wrong.
- I'm unaware of whether the spelling "K'thubhim" has any conventionalized usage anywhere. Additionally, "K'thubhim" (as well as "K'thuvim") both get way more Google hits than "Kəṯûḇîm". However, "Ketuvim" gets more than all three of them combined. I think the version as I have edited it makes it clear that "Ketuvim" is the commonly used, grandfathered-in, mostly-phonetic spelling while "Kəṯûḇîm" is the scholarly, historical transliteration of the original Hebrew. "K'thubhim" doesn't seem to fit either role that well.