Talk:Bible/Archive 6

documentary hypothesis is cleaned up
Could someone remove the tag? This looks like one of the clearer summary paragraphs that one is likely to find on a controversial subject. Jonathan Tweet 04:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was bold. I also eliminated the redundant wikilinks -- a single main article tag suffices. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Bible promotes peace
Could this section be added? As proof for this I quote Ezekiel 45:9 "Enough, O princes of Israel. Put away violence and oppression and execute justice and righteousness. Cease your evictions of my people, says the Lord God." another: Matthew 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be the children of God" Thanks! Shalom!Biblical follower 14:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Biblical follower, thank you! Wikipedia, please add a section about peace in the Bible and the Taufers of Switzerland in the 1600's. "Nation shall not rise up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Micah 4:3, Isaiah 2:4. Let there be peace on Earth. Peace,pachem,pax 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Bible does not promote peace. Only the people who follow it can do that, and there is not much evidence of this in Christian history. Besides that, the quotes are out of context, as is typical in Christian practice to quote without providing context. The last quote from Micah is well known to be an eventuality after the coming of Moshiach who restores the Kingdom of Israel, and this is a major source of difference between Christian interpretation and the Jewish one.--Mrg3105 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What about some rebuttal evidence: Zechariah 9:10. Biblical follower 16:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bible does promote peace. It has little bit of violence because people provoked Lord to anger. Mainly it promotes peace and happiness. If you are talking about Crusades. It was ordered by popes not by true christian. Jesus Christ says that True Christians are harmless like doves. I hope that clear it for you Mrg3105. --SkyWalker 00:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How does one provoke an OMNIPOTENT being to anger to the point where he physically takes out that anger on beings which are less than ants are underfoot to human? Surely a "good, peaceloving" being should be able to rise above that? After all, "to forgive is divine". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.130.128.2 (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC).


 * It should be obvious that the Bible promotes peace... the only people who hold faith to otherwise are atheists, funnily enough.

Yoda921 06:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda


 * Sometimes the Bible promotes peace; sometimes it does not. Whether the thrust of the whole is to promote peace is entirely up to the judgment of the reader, and cannot be proclaimed as an objective fact, one way or another. Carlo 05:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bible promotes peace at certain times. However, it definitely does not during several others, including all the depictions of battles in the old testament, Samson killing 1000 men singlehandedly, and such.

www.evilbible.com and http://skepticsannotatedbible.com contain plenty of evidence for violence in the bible, the verse numbers of which I have crosschecked with www.biblegateway.com to verify the verses' existance.

The verses range from violent punishment for offenses such as not listening to priests or committing homosexual acts (Deuteronomy 17:12 in The New International Version reads "The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God must be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel." and Leviticus 20:13 of the same version reads "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads") to the slaughter of entire cities (the well known story of Jericho is recorded in, among other verses, Joshua 6:20-21 where it is stated that "When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.") Jaimeastorga2000 19:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Trivia" section
The Bible is probably the most influential book ever written, you would be hard pressed to find any piece of Western literature that didn't have any references to the Bible. So why does this article have a section informing us that Family Guy once made a reference to John 3:16? Anyone else think this section should be removed? GhostPirate 19:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I generally don't touch the Trivia section. I acknowledge that Wikipedia serves people who find Family Guy much more relevant to their lives than Dante or Milton. But perhaps there could be (or maybe there already is) an article on the Bible's influence on general literature and culture to which this sort of material could go, hopefully an article in which Dante and Milton are also mentioned. --Shirahadasha 12:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dare I point out that Wikipedia has an article, often an extensive one, on every single Family Guy episode and character that ever was? Do you think Wikipedia is anywhere even close to having an article on every episode and character that appears in the Bible? If you compare the amount of coverage between the two, we should probably feel grateful that the Family Guy editors see fit to mention us. Best, --Shirahadasha 12:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ROFL Robert A.West (Talk) 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the stuff in the trivia section mostly garbage that doesn't really belong here? Chris Martin 15:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Iam thinking the same. I dont know why the trivia is there. I dont see any relation with trivia and the article. For me it looks like mocking at bible. Better to delete them. --SkyWalker 15:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Biblical Criticism Or Criticism of the Bible
Why are there two articles of basically the same name and title? --208.127.64.127 19:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Because they are about two different subjects. -- Cat Whisperer 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see now. Would it be wise, though, to change one of the topic titles to make it less confusing? --208.127.64.127 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Both titles seem to be constrained. Biblical Criticism has a distinct meaning in academic circles, and Wikipedia uses "Criticism of X" in a variety of articles, so both articles have the titles that people who want to look the subjects up would use. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Shirahadasha. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A Fundamentalist Conscience
Here is a story by two people that are influenced greatfully by the Bible and have cared to write on CNN.com.

By Jay Bakker and Marc Brown

(CNN)  What the hell happened? Where did we go wrong? How was Christianity co-opted by a political party? Why are Christians supporting laws that force others to live by their standards? The answers to these questions are integral to the survival of Christianity.

While the current state of Christianity might seem normal and business-as-usual to some, most see through the judgment and hypocrisy that has permeated the church for so long. People witness this and say to themselves, "Why would I want to be a part of that?" They are turned off by Christians and eventually, to Christianity altogether. We can't even count the number of times someone has given us a weird stare or completely brushed us off when they discover we work for a church.

So when did the focus of Christianity shift from the unconditional love and acceptance preached by Christ to the hate and condemnation spewed forth by certain groups today? Some say it was during the rise of Conservative Christianity in the early 1980s with political action groups like the Moral Majority. Others say it goes way back to the 300s, when Rome's Christian Emperor Constantine initiated a set of laws limiting the rights of Roman non-Christians. Regardless of the origin, one thing is crystal clear: It's not what Jesus stood for.

His parables and lessons were focused on love and forgiveness, a message of "come as you are, not as you should be." The bulk of his time was spent preaching about helping the poor and those who are unable to help themselves. At the very least, Christians should be counted on to lend a helping hand to the poor and others in need.

This brings us to the big issues of American Christianity: Abortion and gay marriage. These two highly debatable topics will not be going away anytime soon. Obviously, the discussion centers around whether they are right or wrong, but is the screaming really necessary? After years of witnessing the dark side of religion, Marc and I think not.

Christians should be able to look past their differences and agree to disagree. This allows people to discuss issues with respect for one another. Christians are called to love others just as they are, without an agenda. Only then will Christianity see a return to its roots: Loving God with all of your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself.

The Apostle Paul describes this idea of love beautifully in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7: "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance."

Please consider what they have written. Shalom Biblical follower 19:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rastafarian texts
add it to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha774 (talk • contribs)

Gross Errors or bad citations
The noted Hebrew bible(in the Christian bible section) should be cited as Rabbinic Judaism 's Bible, the decedents of the Pharisees. The Essene Jews- probably those of the Dead Sea Scrolls, used a bible similar to the Septuagint, but with several more books and lacking others, the Sadducees held strictly to Sadducees Pentateuch (the 1st five books of the Bible) and Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel(even today) and many other Jews held to the Septuagint version as their "Hebrew" canon.

I,also noticed an evident Reformationist bias, in breaking the Christian bible into two separate books. For orthodox Christianity ( Catholic Church Western/Latin{Roman}Catholic/Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and Oriental Orthodox Christianity) all believe the Christian Bible begins with the Old Testament even thought it was chronologically first provided to Hebrews.

Additionally, the author begins his discussion on the New Testament stating "The Bible as used by the majority of Christians includes the Hebrew(Pharisaic)Scripture and the New Testament."-separating the two sections of the bible-. A hideously presumptuous and flat out erroneous statement considering orthodox Christians, noted above, outnumber these Reformationalist nearly 3 to 1 worldwide (see List of Christian denominations by number of members )--Micael 21:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rabbinic Judaism and its successors are (with the exception of a tiny Karaite Judaism, which also accepts the Masoretic Text) the only contemporary living branch of Judaism. Only the Masoretic Text is regarded as canonical (and hence as "Bible") by any contemporary branch of Judaism. Wikipedia religion articles on living religions are written for a contemporary audience and focus on the contemporary meanings of terms. Also, the article's division between the "Hebrew Bible" and a Christian "Old Testament" was considered necessary to permit distinguishing Jewish from Christian POVs. Please accept this compromise and put Christian POVs in the appropriate section, not the "Hebrew Bible" section. Also, Wikipedia policies call for maintaining a civil tone and respectful behavior towards others. This is essential to our ability to function. Wikipedia article content is written by volunteers. You are welcome to disagree or add input, but please do so respectfully. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I have not posted anything disrespectfully. If I miscommunicated this by placing my initial post at the beginning I apologize. But, my post pertains specifically to Christian canon. I am not placing any group above another, I only state facts as cited directly to specific Wikipedia articles.

Also, you express a judgmental inconsistency in referring to Judaism and Christianity. You claim, Wikipedia religion articles focus on the contemporary meanings, and majority rule- bypassing the existence of the Beta Israel and others as "tiny" (and thus evidently modify history based on that same criteria) when it comes to Judaism.

However, when the author of the article writes "...the majority of Christianity hold to the Hebrew Scriptures as their Old Testament." That is just fine, completely ignoring, the grand majority of Christians. Facts are, that the majority of world Christians do not hold to the Rabbinical Hebrew bible as their Old Testament. That statement is not only disrespectful, but a flat out lie! The fact truly is that the majority of the world's Christians do not hold the "Hebrew" Bible as their Old Testament, but to a Septuagint derived version of the Old Testament which all early Christians(most of which were Hebrew Christians)held to at the very beginning of Christianity.

Here are some direct quotes from Wikipedia articles provided in their respective links above.

The organizers of Rabbinic Judaism's Hebrew Bible were direct descendants of the Pharisee (remember I am not directing this at today’s Jews, but Christians- so please do not take this as a pejorative statement against Jews of today):

"Rabbinic Judaism or Rabbinism (or in Hebrew "Yahadut Rabanit" - ????? ?????) was the continuation of the Pharisees.." (the very 1st sentence of the article)

and regarding world Christian Population, we find this in wiki article List of Christian denominations by number of members :

"Catholicism (including Eastern Rite Catholic Churches)- 1.1 billion...Eastern Christianity - 297 million "

"Protestantism - 427 million...Anglican Communion/Episcopal - 73 million"

Ok, that makes 1.4 billion that abide to non-(Rabbinic) Hebrew OT Christian Bible canons, versus 0.5 billion abide to a Hebrew OT Christian Bible canon.

Those are the cold facts.

Unless, wikipedia is ready to claim that only those that abide to a Rabbinical Hebrew Bible canon are true Christians (and somehow pretend they are disrespecting no-one) then change nothing or even better "fudge" the data in the cited articles for something more "acceptable" and inaccurate and lose all credibilty.--Micael 04:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on this subject, and I express no opinion on the question of whether the majority of Christians regard the Septuagint or the Masoretic Text as canonical. Could you identify some sources on this issue? The Masoretic text article currently says that Roman Catholics now use this text rather than the Septuagint. Do you have sources that this is incorrect? Suggest using the term Masoretic text rather than "Rabbinic Hebrew Bible" if this is what is meant. Traditional Jews of course believe that this is essentially the same Hebrew text as was used in earlier times, but not everyone shares this view. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 06:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW Shira, thanks for the correspondance, I can't figure out how to use the "user talk" selection and somehow dismissed your page, while attemting to write back to you...help please. --Micael 04:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've replied on your talk page. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * When asking whether someone uses an ancient text of the Bible, the issue is whether we are talking about them using the manuscripts or using the canon. If the issue is manuscript, then yes, to my knowledge, everyone uses the masoretic texts - they are much more reliable than those of the LXX or the Vulg. If we are talking about the canon, that is a different issue; in that case, it would be fair to say that most Christians primarily rely on the Masoretic canon, with many Christians ascribing secondary authority to the expanded (or broader) canon of the LXX.  (Thus the term deutero-canonical -- even those who rely on the LXX canon admit that it is a secondary canon).  But to say that either canon is not ultimately derived from the Hebrew Bible is misleading at best - a fallacy at worst.  Pastordavid 07:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Absurd Chronological suggestions and comments on Jerome
Please correct the statement under "Old Testament" where it mentions these obvious chronological errors and associated suggestions -

"The Septuagint (Greek translation, from Alexandria in Egypt under the Ptolemies) was generally abandoned in favor of the Masoretic text(~10th century CE)as the basis for translations of the Old Testament into Western languages from Saint Jerome's(347-420 CE)Vulgate to the present day. " -I have added the dates in parentheses to note these errors.

First there is no evidence of Christians abiding to a Hebrew (Pharisaic) Old Testament prior to Martin Luther and Reformation. Even the statements regarding Jerome skew the truth.

St. Jerome, early, while translating the Hebrew Scriptures(was heavily influence by Rabbinic Judaism- residing his last 32 years in Bethlehem, Palestine), questioned the deuterocanonicals inspiration and thus their application to doctrine and authority. However, he eventually, changed his position, and included them in the Vulgate though he did not translate the majority of the deuterocanonical books. Additionally, in practice Jerome, actually did utilized deuterocanon as inspired and authoritative as he writes in his book -Against the Pelagians: Dialogue Between Atticus, a Catholic, and Critobulus, a Heretic- (though he erroneously states the following quote is from the Book of Wisdom, it actually is from the Book of Sirach, both of which are Deuterocanonical books)...

"Your argument is ingenious, but you do not see THAT IT GOES AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTURE...(he begins quoting from Numbers 35:8, Ezekiel 18:23, and proceeds ) ... A. Do you expect me to explain the purposes and plans of God? The Book of Wisdom gives an answer to your foolish question:   ‘Look not into things above thee, and search not things too mighty for thee.’(Sir 3:21) And elsewhere,    ‘Make not thyself overwise, and argue not more than is fitting.’ And in the same place, ‘In wisdom and simplicity of heart seek God.’ You will perhaps deny the authority of this book....”(from Against the Pelagians: Dialogue Between Atticus, a CATHOLIC, and Critobulus, a Heretic [Book I]NPNF2, VI:464-5; see: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.I_1.html - last paragraphs.)--Micael 21:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on the "Hebrew Bible" Issue
I wanted to say a little bit more, but take into a seperate discussion so that the other does not get too weighed down.
 * 1) It is undeniable that the early Christians fully accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as they were defined by contemporary Jews.
 * 2) When the canons of Hebrew Scripture were narrowed to not include some of the texts that originated in the Greek language, Christians also quickly began to ascribe less authority to them.  (thus, the term deutero-canonical is normative among those who accept the authority of those writings)
 * 3) The issue, for me, with trying to seperate the Christian OT from the Hebrew Scriptures is that it paves the way and leaves the door open for (a) the worst sorts of supercessionist theology, and (b) the gnostic-marcionite heresy of denying our roots and indebtedness to Israel and her God.  Pastordavid 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this is something that has been discussed a little bit before. The problem is, the Christian Old Testament is not the same as the Hebrew Bible as far as content goes (1), and also as far as its essential quality (2).  To explain, on (1), the canon used by the majority of Christians includes extra texts not found in the Hebrew text.  There is absolutely no lesser status given to the LXX books, at least in Catholicism.  They are scripture, same as the reset.  I believe that even those groups that reject the LXX books still employ a different organization and division of books than Jews do.  Concerning (2), the Christian Old Testament is not intended to stand alone.  Its meaning is understood in relation to the New Testament, especially in relation to Christ / Christological doctrines (and neither is the New Testament to stand alone).  However, the "Hebrew Bible", insofar as Jews employ it, stands alone quite well for them, and is obviously understood quite differently because.  So when we say "Bible" we mean the whole of Scripture; in the Jewish context that is the Hebrew Bible, in the Christian context it is not the Hebrew Bible, but the Old and New Testaments which equal the Christian Bible. Lostcaesar 11:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lostceaser and would add that it is simply not the place for Wikipedia articles to "decide" debates among Christian theologians, nor are Wikipedia articles to be edited on the basis of Christian theology. We have core policies, like NOR and NPOV, and they alone should guide us.  Jews and Christians mean different things when they use the word "Bible."  That is a fact whether it aligns with one's theology or not.  I have no doubts that Christian theologians are quite capable of accounting for this fact without compromising on their theology.  But this article is not the place to do it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is a false notion that Judaism had a single canon. How could they, when different groups held widely different beliefs? There were Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Samaritans, and even groups of Jews in different countries. The LXX is typical of the Alexandrian Jews, while the Hebrew Bible's canon was only formulated in 200 AD, after the New Testament was written (see Mishnah), while the LXX is much older (albeit in Greek, and not the original Hebrew). There is an excellent entry on this in the Catholic Encyclopedia,Canon of the Old Testament which is appropriate here, this entry being part of the Wikiproject: Catholicism. Also, there is much truth in the article on the Biblical Canon. poopsix 09:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Errors in article text
The TaNaKh does not have commonality in canon with Chrisitian version because Jews do not have a canon. Not only that, but even the division of the text is different. As a Jew I am not going to have somone ignorant of this declare that there is any commonality between Jewish TaNaKh and Chrisitina version which usually excludes the Hebrew text.

TaNaKh is an acronym (as the text states), and needs to be spelles as such, not as 'Tanakh' which looks like a name of the text.

It seems to me that unless the Chistians want to do nothing less then hijack what is a Jewish cultural heritage, that these and other important errors be eliminated from the article.--Mrg3105 22:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There would seem to be some dispute between your position and reality. In researching the net I find several Jewish groups that do not use your proposed spelling.  One group uses all caps. Could you give alternative sources?  Regardless, it would seem to be a much more diputable position than the strident one you present.
 * It seems you might feel badly about Christians "hijacking" Jewish heritage. This would be one interpretation.  Another would be that the individual Christians feel most strongly about, Jesus Christ, was a Jew.  It would be impossible to separate Jesus and Christianity from Judaism.  In the public domain such as wikipedia, it may be best not to take things personally.  This is an informational source that strives to be accurate and neutral.  Please take the time to contribute and to review wiki policies about NPOV.  Cheers.  Storm Rider (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there may be a misunderstanding about the term "Canon". The Rabbis of the Talmud had a larger number of books to select from than are in the current Tanakh. They selected some and excluded others. They agreed on a final list, and today everyone in Judaism agrees on what that list is. This is all that is meant by there being a "canon". The issue of how to transliterate Hebrew is currently a matter of preference rather than standard. Obviously some will disagree with any given choice. There is currently a WikiProject, Hebrew, to arrive at a common standard for naming conventions, but none has been agreed on yet. Finally, there has been agreement among editors that Jewish approaches to the "Tanakh" and Christian approaches to the "Old Testament" should be discussed separately because they are not the same, both because some Christian groups include a larger canon and/or use the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text, and also because Christianity sometimes has a very different interpretation of what the text means. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Shirahadasha, Please AT LEAST consider looking up terms in Wiki itself before you make statements. Canon from Greek kanon "rule" (perhaps originally from kanna "reed", cognate to cane) is used in various meanings. There is no Jewish entry here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon. There is however a "Biblical canon" which includes a Jewish canon section. However there are rules on why some books are included in TaNaKh, and some are not. There is NO evidence in JEWISH sources that there EVER was a 'canon' in the Christian sense of the word. Most deduction is based on non-Jewish sources and modern academic research. Therefore you can not call TaNaKh a canon just so it can fall into the same definition as Christian works. This is particularly true since the TaNaKh is not consistently used by Christianity to 'rule' on issues of dogma, and the Christian canon is not used at all in Jewish halacha. --Mrg3105 07:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you object to the existence of a Biblical canon entry in Wikipedia, you should follow the Articles for Deletion procedure and ask to have the section deleted. You should be aware, however, that most English words that relate to religion have etymological origins or specialized meanings with non-Jewish theological connotations. To pick an arbitrary example at random, the Wikipedia entry on Blessing says that "To bless (from Anglo-Saxon blēdsian or blētsian, Common Germanic blōdisōjan) originally meant "to sprinkle with blood" during the pagan sacrifices called "Blót" (reference: AHD)." Would you object to use of the word "blessing" in (say) the List of Jewish prayers and blessings article given this etymology? Given the pervasiveness of non-Jewish etymologies and specialized meanings in the ordinary words available to describe religious topics in English, the objection you raised would appear to make it illegitimate to use the English language to describe Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no need to delete...only to correct the already written text.
 * Etymology is a reallt bad example since many etymologies are far from 'ironclad' in definition. What I suggested need not apply to Hebrew only. When discussing any terms originating outside of English, spelling that reflects original language of use should be used. Anything less is likely to misinform. --Mrg3105 11:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Further I posted this to the Tanakh discussion:
 * There is a problem with the use of Tanakh as spelling for the acronym. In Hebrew the spelling is TNK, and the added letters are only there to assist non-Hebrew speaker. To remain an acronym, the spelling needs to be TaNaKh, because the speling of Tanakh is a proper name used in some cultures as boys' name which has a Hebrew meaning "Who humbles thee, who answers thee" --Mrg3105 01:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If TaNaKh is an acronym, then common rules of spelling suggest it is not spelled as a proper name. The only reason is is spelled TaNaKh in English is to allow the non-Hebrew speaker to pronounce the acronym correctly. I fthis was not done, the spelling would be TNK.--Mrg3105 00:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bible is a Christian concept. The article needs to show this at every possible instance where the reader may be misled into thinking that there is a sharing of anything with any concepts of the Jews. Namely the Christian Bible is not commonly printed in Hebrew; it is divided differently to the Jewish Torah; it is interpreted differently; its theological purpose is different; it is NOT considered old as a Testament; no part of the Jewish texts have any relationship to Jesus. All these would reflect accuracy of the text. I will continue to look in on this page and if these changes are not made I will make them and report the inaccuracies to the page administrator/s.

If anyone feels they have an argument they can make it here. Saying that "there are Jewish groups" who believe this or that is not good enough. There is a Jewish orthodoxy derived from sources using non-humanistic deductive methods, and it is accepted as being correct. The meaning of 'orthodox' in Greek is correct opinion. One can not have two correct opinions about something in this context (though this is possible within the interpretation of the Torah and other Jewish texts).--Mrg3105 07:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In an effort to improve the quality of this article, I have reverted the changes by Mrg3105. What caught my eye was the grave error dropped right into the lead: "the first part of TaNaKh, the Torah, is also known in Christian usage as the Old Testament" (an error also introduced later on in the article, so it looks deliberate).  Since the entire Tanakh (Torah, Prophets, and Writings) constitutes the Christian Old Testament, this alerted me that the article had recently suffered badly informed changes.  There were also careless infelicities such as "respectively Hebrew and Greek...respectively" and "those Jews who begun [sic] to adhere."  I do not believe that we may speak of a unique "Jewish orthodoxy" to justify the content of an encyclopedia article any more than we may make tendentious generalizations about "Christian churches."  So, while I would not presume to say that none of Mrg3105's changes contains valuable clarification, I do suggest that further discussion on this talk page would be worthwhile before they are reintroduced.  A developing consensus will help identify and preserve the changes and additions that will help the article improve.  This is how Wikipedia works; there are no "page administrator/s" or other authorities to whom inaccuracies are reported, only the editors working together.  Mrg3105: as you are in your second month as a contributing editor, I would like to welcome you to Wikipedia and invite you to learn more about how Wikipedia works; I can assure you that once you familiarize yourself with its ethos and policies, you will find that they do make it possible to use reason and scholarship to correct real deficiencies in articles (though the process takes work and time).  Wareh 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How can these editors be contacted? I am not going to undo the changes every day. I just think that if Wiki aspires to present encyclopaedic knowledge, it needs to be 100% correct --Mrg3105 11:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Does an encyclopaedia article require precision?

In fact only the Torah and ONLY for Jews is a 'testament' All other texts are not testaments. Consider the entry here that defines testament http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testament as "A testament is a document that the author has sworn to be true." No Christian is able to accept this definition because that would invalidate their beliefs, and hence forms the separation of orthodox Jews and Christian Jews in ancient Judea. The reason is that most of the Jewish law (halacha) is derived from the Torah. Most of Christian doctrine is NOT derived from the Torah or the texts of NaKh, but from the letters of apostles. In fact the vast number of statements in the Torah are NOT held to be true by Christianity. This is the reason Jews object to Christians using the term Old Testament, and not the chronological dating of texts as most suppose. This is also the reason I stated that 'Old Testament' can only refer to the Torah. That is the first text where the people of Israel testify to the truth of the various covenants made between them and God. In Jewish halachic law, the Torah is at once a collection of texts and a legal document, the testament being used in the legal (court room) application, and not just a collection of stories. The later parts of Nakh are not regarded as such in law, and in fact contain a great number of judgements made based on the earlier testaments. This distinction is not made in Christianity.
 * You say: "the first part of TaNaKh, the Torah, is also known in Christian usage as the Old Testament" (an error also introduced later on in the article, so it looks deliberate). Since the entire Tanakh (Torah, Prophets, and Writings) constitutes the Christian Old Testament, this alerted me that the article had recently suffered badly informed changes."

I may have overused on the 'respectively', however there is no denial that the first Christians were largely Hellenised Jews. The did begin to adhere to the non-orthodox beliefs proposed by followers of Paul and others who proposed Jesus to be messiah.
 * You say: "There were also careless infelicities such as "respectively Hebrew and Greek...respectively" and "those Jews who begun [sic] to adhere."

There is a unique Jewish orthodoxy. To be 'orthodox', one has to have the correct opinion (literally) of a given subject. Ultimately there can only be one correct opinion in Jewish law, though application of the opinion is a matter of degrees of strictness or leniency. From http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=orthodox&searchmode=none orthodox 1581, from L.L. orthodoxus, from Gk. orthodoxos "having the right opinion," from orthos "right, true, straight" + doxa "opinion, praise," from dokein "to seem," Ultimately Jewish groups (since 1853) who do not profess orthodoxy have discarded some parts of the Torah as applicable to their lives. This same generalization can be made about the Christian churches which have discarded most of the Torah, including literal adherence to the ten commandments they consider the sole obligatory law within the dogma. The upshot of this is that one can not retain 'orthodox' view by discarding parts of evidence which testifies to the contrary :-)
 * You say: "I do not believe that we may speak of a unique "Jewish orthodoxy" to justify the content of an encyclopaedia article any more than we may make tendentious generalizations about "Christian churches."


 * I would be very cautious about inferring the tenets of a religion from a dictionary definition of its title. Orthodox Jews actually form a number of distinct groups and movements which hold a diversity of views on a number issues (see e.g. Haredi Judaism, Modern Orthodox Judaism, Hasidic Judaism, Ashkenazic Judaism, Sephardic Judaism, Mizrahi Jews, etc.) Despite the dictionary meaning of "Orthodox", Orthodox Judaism has no centralized doctrinal or decision-making authority. In a similar vein, not everyone (and not even every Christian) is a Catholic, even though relying solely on the dictionary meaning of Catholic (universal) might lead one to believe that they all were. --Shirahadasha 05:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, lets have discussion and develop consensus...as long as the consensus is not based on secular academic sources. The TaNaKh is a Jewish cultural heritage. No one had been granted licence to 'disect' this as if performing some scientific experiment. If Christianity chooses to use parts of this cultural legacy as a basis of their beliefs, it is a chocie for them to make. This CHOICE needs to be clearly defined and made explicit in the taxt here as was NOT done in the encyclopaedias written in Christian countries largely at the turn of the 20th century. There is no "Judeo-Christian tradition". There is only Jewish law (halacha), Jewish traditions (minhagim) which have a standing in the halacha, and Christian interpretation of the TaNaKh text based largely on Greek and Latin translations and applied subject to dogmatic decree made by various churches.
 * You say: "So, while I would not presume to say that none of Mrg3105's changes contain valuable clarification, I do suggest that further discussion on this talk page would be worthwhile before they are reintroduced. A developing consensus will help identify and preserve the changes and additions that will help the article improve."


 * Now I noticed that you changed TaNaKh back to Tanakh. Which part of the difference between acronym and proper name do you not understand? Please don't site to me other Jewish sources that do not use the same form of spelling. Mistakes made by others is not a justification of them being repeated. Please read what I wrote above about spelling of acronyms where the terms are not derived from English. Hebrew is the World's largest user of acronyms, so trust me on this one :-) --Mrg3105 00:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is indisputably false that "the first part of TaNaKh, the Torah, is also known in Christian usage as the Old Testament." This sentence, as you have written it, means plainly that Christians use the term "Old Testament" to designate only the Five Books of Moses, whereas in fact Christians use the term "Old Testament" to designate the entire Tanakh.
 * You say "...as long as the consensus is not based on secular academic sources." I am glad you are so candid about your bias.  In fact, Wikipedia is a secular, academic encyclopedia.  While the encyclopedia may relate, from a secular, academic point of view, what a well-defined group believes, practices, or regards as orthodoxy, it certainly must not attempt to observe orthodoxy!  According to official Wikipedia policy, "Neutral point of view requires views to be represented without...religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others."  See further Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ.  Your view as to what constitutes "orthodoxy" and how the article should depend on it seems a good example of such a bias.  If you can't abide an encyclopedia "based on secular academic sources," then your problem is with Wikipedia.
 * There is nothing wrong with the spelling Tanakh (as opposed to TaNaKh), and in fact "Tanakh" is the form most commonly used in well-edited Jewish publications in the English language (for example, in the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh). Yes, it is an acronym, but, no, it is not a mistake.  (In fact, Tanakh is written this way in English to respect the difference between Hebrew, in which it's pronounced as a word, and English, in which we say "You Ess Ay" for USA.  Compare the English word "snafu.")  Moreover, with your changes to TaNaKh, you broke many functioning wikilinks.  Its perversities like this that caused another exasperated editor to remark (when you changed "alphabet" to "alephbet" in the Greek alphabet article), "misspellings broke several links and made them red and are not otherwise particularly helpful."
 * Finally, to get to the main point here. Please respect the general guideline of working through consensus.  The explanation on "secular, academic" above should remove your only stated objection to seeking consensus.  There is a reason why your edits are not lasting, and it is that they have not garnered any support from other editors.  Wikipedia has many very learned editors, editors conversant with Jewish tradition, etc., and it would be better to earn their support rather than lecturing us about how your reckless edits are so well informed.  Correct, careful contributions, full of good sense and free of religious bias, eccentric usages, and tendentiousness, will have a much better chance.  Wareh 01:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you are saying that these learned editiors are so learned they coulodn't see the errors I pointed out as obvious. And to fix errors I don;t need logic or knowledge, but only the ability to 'garner support'. In fact this is exactly haow academia works, and I am not going to do that. I have posted my reasons, and I'm waiting four replies. However if your learned editors are so learned that they want Wikipedia to actually have respect for being accurate, then they will not 'garner support' but edit for true meaning regardless of how many egoes this may bruise, including their own --Mrg3105 11:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not going to argue the differences between the TaNaKh and the Old Testament, but I will argue for it to be written as TaNaKh. First of all, in Hebrew, TaNaKh is written as an acronym, not a word - תנ״ך, not תנאך. In addition, all acronyms in Hebrew are pronounced as if they were words. The JPS writes it as TANAKH, always capitalized throughout, which does not indicate that it should be either Tanakh or TaNaKH. There is no disputing, no matter what your religion, that the TaNaKh is the Hebrew Bible. For the most part, I have not heard a Gentile refer to the Old Testament, or the "Part that doesn't have Jesus in it," or the thing that isn't the New Testament as the tanakh. With that in mind, the original meaning should be with-held as TaNaKh. Furthermore, if you do pronounce Tanakh in english, it should be written as Tanach, but writing it as Tanakh keeps the original Hebrew "flair" in it. If you really do not want to write it as TaNaKh, but as Tanakh, I recommend that you write it as Tanach to truely "respect" the differences between Hebrew and English.
 * Goalie1998 07:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The truth is that the question has never come up in academia or Bible publishing before. Few if any orthodox Jews ever read these editions, and academics are not so particular. By not adopting TaNaKh, Wiki just perpetuates ignorance --Mrg3105 11:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll reply only to say that the JPS does write it "Tanakh." When I wrote that, I had my copy of the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh in my lap.  On the cover and title page, indeed all caps are used (as in many books), but in the introductions, bibliographic information, etc., it was always, and several times, "Tanakh."  Wareh 17:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * JPS is not an authority on Hebrew usage. It is one of the least respected translations in the Jewish orthodox publishing, and the reason why Artscroll had published new editions that have pretty much replaced JPS in useage. However that publication also uses TANACH and Tanach in the same edition. This still does not make it right! --Mrg3105 11:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It would seem to be an advantage to use a term that is notable based on sources. It would be better to use a term people are likely to search for than a term people are relatively unfamiliar with. I don't see how use of a well-known term can be deemed an "error" even by those who'd prefer a different one, so I don't understand why this claim was made. --Shirahadasha 17:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Does TV refer to cathod ray black and white set or LCD screen digital? This is the issue. Yes, if somone goes to purchase a set they just say "I'm looking for a TV set", but a TV design engineer knows there are many more uses for the technology then just home entertaining, and there are many specific technology uses whcih have their own specific names. Professionals use these, and not 'TV'. What the casual reader sees in Wiki has to serve both the lay person and the professional. This is the core issue of encyclopaedic knowledge. --Mrg3105 11:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am against introducing a spelling of Tanakh any other way than Tanakh. We are speaking English not Hebrew. It may be an acronym in Hebrew, but I assure you it is not in English. More importantly, I provided six Jewish sources at the beginning of the article that all used Tanakh, not one of them used the term TaNaKh.

I find the argument that we need to use a specific spelling because it of its spelling in a foreign language to be without any merit. It reminds me of cultural imperialism; I do it this way in may country therefor all of you must do it my way. Those that are accustomed to speaking different languages and traveling or those who simply are interested in diverse cultures do not make this kind of mistake. I am not trying to be offenive (and realize that I very easily could be), but the argument is without merit. It is a proposal that I have have found no source to support and yet I have supplied several sources that demonstrate that English speaking Jews spell it Tanakh. Move on. Storm Rider (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will reply by saying that you are speking in English about Hebrew terms and concepts. There is a small but significant difference here. Think about it. Just because your six sources never considered this, does not make them correct. There was a time when every authoratitative church opinion stated that the World is flat. Most English speaking Jews either don;t care, or have never thought about it. However IF you trully want to understand what you are reading, you have to be precise. I therefore dedicate this post to Galleleo :-)--Mrg3105 11:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I just did a google search for "tanach" and found 531,000 hits, mostly (meaning the first few pages with 100 results per page) from "Jewish sources." I know it is far less than if you do a search for "Tanakh," but it is still a large number. I will say that I personally do not accept "Tanach" to be the correct spelling, but there obviously are those who do. Why is this spelling not included? Because the editors of the page decided that since they don't think "Tanach" is correct, most other people that do not edit will feel this way too. I have had many books in my many years of Hebrew School that spell it as "Tanach," as well as many others that spell it "Tanakh," as well as many others that spell it "TaNaKh." (All three on the translated part) All three are correct - the latter two indicating that it is not an English word, with the last one indicating that it is an acronym; and the former seeming to lean more towards an English word. In fact, the version I have sitting on my book shelf spells it as "Tanach." I do agree that writing it as "Tanakh" is much simpler than writing it as "TaNaKh," especially on the internet, but that doesn't mean that the masses prefer it, or will even recognize it better as "Tanakh."
 * Goalie1998 22:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * CAN ALL THREE BE CORRECT?! Something is either correct or it is not. If anything is correct, why bother to learn how to spell? Indeed in English this is not a huge problem because English spelling was only standardized two centuries ago. However in Hebrew a small change in spelling can make a huge difference. Probably you learned this in Hebrew school also. Of course I appreciate that for many years Tanach, Tanakh and TANACH have been used in Jewish and non-Jewish publications, including encyclopaedias, but when all the arguments are presented the fact remains that transliteration of the Hebrew acronym is TNK.
 * which is correct, "color" or "colour?" "neighbor" or neighbour?" in both examples, both are. it all depends on where the word is being spelled. All of the acronyms that i have seen in hebrew (clearly i havent seen all of them) are pronounced as words. therefore, im pretty sure that the correct transliteration would have to be a word, not just the transliteration of the letters themselves.
 * Goalie1998 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Does not follow
I am not disputing that the following is true. However, I do think the sentence is unclear in that it does not follow. Maybe if it said "could not be the authors of the complete Torah".


 * "Benedict Spinoza concluded from a study of such contradictions that the Torah could not have had a single author, and thus, neither God nor Moses could be the authors of the Torah."

StudyAndBeWise 03:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * People often say things that other people think don't follow, especially in religion. We need sources for what Spinoza said. What he said is what matters. It doesn't matter if we think he should instead have said something clearer or which "follows". If you dispute that Spinoza said this -- and I'm no Spinoza expert -- sources contradicting it would be appraciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We could just change the "thus" to a "moreover." The source is his Theological Political Tractate. I cannot provide a page number though.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)