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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 13 October 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Tanakh. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Material Works 18:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Hebrew Bible → Tanakh – Placing the central Jewish holy text at a name that is derivative of the Christian holy text is a deeply embedded structural and systemic bias. This is exactly the same as placing the wikipedia page for Koran at the name " Islamic bible." Darker Dreams ( talk) 05:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
This is exactly the same as placing the wikipedia page for Koran at the name " Islamic bible"is a false premise. The term "Hebrew Bible" is in common use, with most of the world not even knowing the word "Tanakh", while "Koran" (alternatively, "Qur'an") is the name by which most people know that work, and "Islamic Bible" is virtually nonexistent. So they are not "exactly the same thing" in the context of what common usage is, which, per WP:COMMONNAME, is what's relevant to this discussion. Largoplazo ( talk) 10:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Proposed the topic at Talk:Rabbinic literature#"(Classical) Jewish Texts" article is needed, please continue there. Thanks, Arminden ( talk) 22:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 13 October 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Tanakh. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Material Works 18:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Hebrew Bible → Tanakh – Placing the central Jewish holy text at a name that is derivative of the Christian holy text is a deeply embedded structural and systemic bias. This is exactly the same as placing the wikipedia page for Koran at the name " Islamic bible." Darker Dreams ( talk) 05:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
This is exactly the same as placing the wikipedia page for Koran at the name " Islamic bible"is a false premise. The term "Hebrew Bible" is in common use, with most of the world not even knowing the word "Tanakh", while "Koran" (alternatively, "Qur'an") is the name by which most people know that work, and "Islamic Bible" is virtually nonexistent. So they are not "exactly the same thing" in the context of what common usage is, which, per WP:COMMONNAME, is what's relevant to this discussion. Largoplazo ( talk) 10:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Proposed the topic at Talk:Rabbinic literature#"(Classical) Jewish Texts" article is needed, please continue there. Thanks, Arminden ( talk) 22:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)