Talk:Hebrew Bible (term)/Archive 1

Hebrew Bible vs. Tanakh
I'm sorry that RK and Stephen are bumping heads over this one. It's hard for me to see why the article's explanation of the distinctive use of this term isn't sufficient reason for keeping it separate from, but largely dependent upon Tanakh. I understand RK's good point, that these are the same book; however, they are not precisely synonymous terms. The use of one term does not exhaust what is meant by the other. Can this be discussed before it is blanked again? Mkmcconn 07:38 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

The main point of this article is to clarify the term, its usage and its importance. Therefore I agree that it should mention and be linked to Masoretic text. But I removed the mention of the Tiberian masoretes (Ben Asher Family) because not all "masoretic" text (for the purposes of Hebrew Bible) is Tiberian: Are Hebrew Bibles based on the Babylonian mesorah not masoretic? Is the medieval Ashkenazic rescension (printed many times) not masoretic?

Further, the question of whether the Ben Asher family were Karaites or not is a significant one that a number of scholars have dealt with. There is not a lot of hard evidence either way, but there are some rather inconclusive arguments (which lean towards that they were not Karaites). Be that as it may, the whole issue, if it is to be discussed, should not be here but rather under Masoretic text or under a new article on the Ben Ashers.Zabek 03:23, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Need for this article
Sorry, RK, I strongly disagree. I think it is extremely important to have an article that explains the origin, use, and importance of this term, and that it give some basic information about the meaning of the term.

If there are no objections I will revert back.Dovi 05:07, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

OK, done. Dovi 05:38, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for proposed merger
So I'm proposing a merger between Hebrew Bible and Tanakh (which has apparently been contemplated before) and also Mikra.

I realize that these are distinct terms which differ in the ordering of the books, neutrality of tone, etc. But because they both refer to the same collection of books, there only needs to be one article explaining more or less everything except about how the two terms are different.

When I'm reading Tanakh, I'm thinking, "should I click on Hebrew Bible"? Isn't it the same thing as what I'm reading now? It's important that I the information explaining the difference between the Tanakh, Hebrew Bible, and Old Testament, no matter which article I'm reading.

Unfortunately, different information is starting to accumulate in the two different articles. For example, Hebrew Bible talks about the recommendation of the Society of Biblical Literature and also some stuff about the original languages of Daniel and Ezra, and some other things I'm not entirely sure are reflected in Tanakh. People looking for information about the Hebrew Bible beyond the terminology issue will definitely have to go see the main article; even then, it's incomplete, because it doesn't mention Mikra.

So I think it's much cleaner, easier to read, and easier to maintain, if the explanation about terminology is all in one place, as a section of the main article. That way, everyone has easy access to all the content directly relevant to the subject at hand, and there aren't two or three article with content that slowly diverges.

Reasons why not
Because the terminologies "Tanakh", "Hebrew Bible", "Old Testiment" are so deeply sensitive to so many people, and every nuance in the way they are used is taken very seriously (maybe too seriously? :-), it is very important there be a separate article on this. This article is to explain the terminology and why there are those who recommend it; nothing more. The brief remark on Aramaic is simply there to explain why it is nevertheless called Hebrew Bible. It is extremely important, after writing "Tanakh" in an article to be able to include an explanatory parenthecial link to "Hebrew Bible" both to explain what Tanakh is, and also to explain why "Old Testament" is not being used. And yes, there is also something ideological about this: "Hebrew Bible" is an excellent example of a purely NPOV term that should be promoted. "Tanakh" and "Old Testament" should be used in the articles that deal with their own respective religious traditions. But the neutral term should be promoted alongside them. For this reason if no other it deserves its own Wikipedia article. (Plenty of far less relevant things have their own articles too.) Dovi 06:04, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that in the body text, the distinct terms can be treated equally sensitively whether they have one article or two. If the information about how each of the terms is used is so important, why risk people missing it by hiding it in three different places?


 * The only sensitive question is what the title of the combined article should be. The combined category tree uses "Hebrew Bible/Tenakh".  If the merger proceeds, it might be a good idea to use the same title for the category structure and the main article.-- Beland 09:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Beland, I changed my mind about this. Here is my current suggestion: this page would be renamed to, for example, Versions of the Hebrew Bible, and the first few lines of it erased. The Tanakh page should be renamed to Hebrew Bible, since there seems to be an agreement that this is the most NPOV title. Tanakh, Tanach and Mikra should direct to Hebrew Bible. The first few lines of the new combined article should explain briefly that there are a few names which are not completely equivalent, and point to "versions..." for a full discussion.


 * This only leaves out the page Old Testament, merging of which with Hebrew Bible should be considered separately. What do people think about all this? Gadykozma 12:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but accuracy and throughness are important too, and WP espires to include entire topical encyclopedias on smaller topics as well. "Tanakh" alone is a whole field of study that has nothing to do with "Old Testament" - its organization, writing system, history of exegesis, history of printing... the list could go on and on. It cannot possibly be simply combined with Old Testament or Hebrew Bible. We are dealing with a number of distinct religious traditions here, each with its own entire history. These are precisely the reasons why "Hebrew Bible", rather than being subsumed under one or the other, should be left separate as a neutral NPOV term, that can be added parenthetically to explain the correct terms from the various traditions:

E.g. "we find in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible)..."

This kind of thing has already been employed usefully in lots of articles.

I have a slight feeling that the people here who are overzealous to combine articles don't fully understand the breadth of the differing fields of study we are talking about it. You might consider raising the issue with the people who work on Tanakh all the time at the talk page of the WikiProject Judaism page. "Old Testament" is also an entire field of study for Christians, in which the idea of "Tanakh" plays a very minor role. You can't just combine things simplistically. Dovi 12:40, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Please respond also to the suggestion that does not involve the old testament. Gadykozma 19:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Since nobody responded in 5 days, I went ahead and did it. In the meantime I discovered some other related pages on Wikipedia so my final actions were not exactly as discribed above, but similar in spirit. Gadykozma 17:40, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry I've been out of it for a while - it is hard to keep on top of everything in a project that evolves and changes so rapidly! In any case, I like your compromise.  Good job. Dovi 17:24, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm glad you liked it.


 * BTW, Dovi, who are you addressing in the paragraph you added? Wikipedia editors? Still quoting from the manual of style? If you are addressing Wikipedia editors, maybe you want to move this to WikiProject Bible or something else not for readers Manual of Style? Gadykozma 18:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * There was no reply so I erased it (erased text follows). Gadykozma 10:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral term?
While I greatly respect the desire to find a term that is both neutral and acceptable to both Jews and Christians, I have to say that "Hebrew Bible" isn't quite it. As an Orthodox Christian, I have a Bible given to me that is ostensibly comprised of two parts, an Old Testament and a New Testament. I am also told that the Old Testament is essentially identical to the Septuagint, or a native language translation of the Septuagint. While most of its content broadly overlaps the Tanakh, it is not identical to it because it contains additional materials. In addition, a number of verses common to both are translated quite differently in the Septuagint and Masoretic texts, especially those that Christians believe are prophecies of Jesus Christ.

Consequently, it seems important to distinguish between the Christian "Old Testament" and the Jewish Tanakh, rather than pretend that these two are the same. While I don't think it's intended this way, the trend towards saying everywhere looks like a propaganda campaign to dismiss the Septuagint, the Old Testament most widely quoted in the New Testament and most widely used by Christians in the first several centuries. I raise the issue here mainly to make other editors aware that the issue exists. Wesley 05:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "Hebrew Bible" is pretty much now the standard term used in academic-level, non-sectarian Biblical scholarship (e.g. The SBL Handbook of Style for Ancient, Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies, p.17). Perhaps, the relatively few Eastern Orthodox scholars publishing in Western languages (i.e. English, German, or French) has not made Western scholars fully appreciative of possible anti-Orthodox bias, but as a practical matter, these scholars quote and cite the texts in the ancient languages.  If some Hebrew is cited, I fail to see how calling it from the Hebrew Bible is problematic.  scc 05:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This in academic circles. More theologically oriented or sectarian articles or books tend to go with "Septuagint," "Old Testament," or "Tanakh."  To Orthodox Christians, the Old Testament is the Septuagint (LXX) based on its Greek text; Roman Catholics, as far as understand it, accepts all the books of the LXX OT but considers the Hebrew text to be the authoritative translation base; Protestants largely accept both the extent of the books and the Hebrew text of the Tanakh, but not their arrangement.  scc 05:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, if some Hebrew is cited, then it would be appropriate to call it from the Hebrew Bible. By the same token, if some Greek text is cited, then it should be called the Septuagint, or possibly the Old Testament. This was used in most of Christianity for the first few centuries, until Jerome gave greater weight to the Hebrew when translating the Latin Vulgate. As "Hebrew Bible" corresponds most closely to the extent and text of the Tanakh, it clearly lends greater weight to the textual position taken by Protestants and Jews, and as such is an inherently sectarian term. To pretend otherwise appears to be an attempt to hide this bias. Mind you, I don't disagree with your statement that it is the standard term used in academic level Biblical scholarship. Wesley 05:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I see your point. In academic-level Biblical scholarship (which is more philogical than theological), the text is usually cited in the original languages, e.g. Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, and the linguistic aspect of their work is the main force behind the designations.  If Hebrew or Aramaic is cited, it is from the "Hebrew Bible"; if Greek is quoted, the body of material is called the LXX (if from the Septuagint) or sometimes from the OG (Old Greek), Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, if a non-Septuagintal translation is cited.  Because almost all of the Deuterocanon was originally written in Greek,* it is not in the Hebrew Bible, but it is in the LXX.  (* IIRC, a Hebrew version of Sirach / Ecclesiasticus was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and there is a tendency to look at the Hebrew Sirach when doing studies of Biblical Hebrew.)  I'm not aware of any study of Greek in the OT in Biblical Studies (e.g. lexical or grammatical studies of Greek words and phrases) that explicitly excludes the Deuterocanon from its scope, and the standard reference tools include those books.  Nevertheless, I suppose that the attempt at "bias-free" terminology would be different if most of the Deuterocanon was originally written in Hebrew.  scc 02:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Two points: 1. The article cites the SBL handbook for the proposition that Tanakh is a biased term. A review of the relevant section of the handbook (See http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/PublishingWithSBL/SBLHS.pdf, page 29 of the pdf file) shows that SBL only condemns "Old Testament" as biased, not Tanakh.

2. If Orthodox Christians consider an inaccurate Greek translation to be more authoritative than the original text from which the translation was taken, can't we all just agree that they are in error?


 * The issue isn't that simple. The oldest complete Masoretic text we have is from around the 10th century, while the oldest complete Septuagint is from around the 4th. We have no complete "original" text. Yes, the Dead Sea Scrolls corroborate at least certain portions of the Masoretic text we have, but parts of those scrolls also better support the Septuagint. I think it's generally agreed that the Masoretes condensed a number of textual variants to arrive at what they thought was the best one, but the Septuagint is plausibly based on other textual variants that we no longer have. The existence of such variants is also supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm sure there are counterarguments to this line of thinking and I don't aim to convince everyone, merely to show that there are sound historical and academic reasons to rely on the Septuagint; this isn't a case of blind fundamentalism or something. Wesley 13:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate that Jerome was convinced to use the texts the Jews were using at the time. 71.198.169.9 10:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, didn't the Masoretic scribes get rid of the name of "YHWH" in something like 143 places? and didn't they also tamper with Messianic prophecies to lessen their validity?Lil&#39;dummy 13:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew naming conventions
Urgent: see Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 17:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

narf

informal request for comment
Would people who regularly follow/contribute to this article please look at Yahwism and the talk page, where I express my concerns? Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Which books
Could someone please add to the article exactly which books are included in the Hebrew Bible. I would, but I just don't know. -ReuvenkT C E 21:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image
The image at the top of the page, may indeed be from a volume that includes a Targum, but there's no sign of the Targum in the picture, making the caption a little misleading. I'll edit. Dweller 11:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You may not have noticed, but this is the type of medieval manuscript that interpolates the Targum with the Hebrew, verse by verse. It's there, though you won't see it with a casual glance, unless you actually enlarge the picture and read it. Dovi 13:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Gosh. How interesting. You're right of course. Thanks Dweller 16:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

English translation of the Hebrew bible issue
What should be the policy of wikipedia when it comes to page titles and naming... does it follow the English translation or the actual source? I think it is very important to stick to the source and notify for historical translation errors of pronounciations and spellings. - AvihooI


 * Sorry, I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. Please explain. Dovi 04:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

For instance, the Hebrew bible has Moshe in it, but the English translation reads it Moses... what should be the page title, Moses or Moshe? considering the source is Moshe and the English translation is Moses. - AvihooI


 * Are you talking about the title of the article on Moses? In my opinion, as the English Wikipedia it should be the Anglicized name in most places. But what is the relevance of this to the article on Hebrew Bible? Dovi 17:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No relevance, I couldn't find anywhere else to discuss this, maybe there should be a greater discussion about this - AvihooI

Let's talk
I'm dropping a note here for Wesley and Eliyak. I don't know the answers on this one, but you two seem knowledgable on the issues and keen to get this right.

I think we might all agree on some things.
 * Jewish articles are free to use Tanakh, Orthodox articles to use Old Testament
 * Common articles have a real difficulty in finding a genuinely common term
 * Hebrew Bible does not equal either Tanakh or Old Testament
 * Tanakh is well-defined wrt contents, and implies something about structuring
 * Old Testament is not well-defined wrt contents, and implies something theological

Any frustrations you may have, or suggestions, or knowledge of previous debates at Wiki would be helpful to me. There's so much in common between the traditions, that although we should allow for differences, it's a pity if those differences cause obstacles when working on things that are genuinely common, say contributing at Book of Genesis, for example. Alastair Haines 10:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See, I was under the impression that "Hebrew Bible" is equivalent to "Tanakh," or at least to its contents. The difference is, as you imply, that "Hebrew Bible" makes the most sense to use when discussing those books in the context of both religions (although the terms "Old Testament" and "Tanakh" could easily be used alongside it in those articles). I think it is obvious that when discussing the Deuterocanonical books, one would use the term "Old Testament," since that is the main way those books have been preserved. All your other points are right on target.


 * By the way, you may or may not have noticed that many categories named "Tanakh" have recently been switched to "Hebrew Bible," on the grounds that "Tanakh" is not a well-known term generally. --Eliyak T · C 03:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Hebrew Bible" is indeed the same as Tanakh in a general way, but not with regard to many specific elements. "Tanakh" represents a specific textual tradition, which is why things that are part of that specific tradition (like masorah, masoretic manuscripts & editions, cantillation, targum, parshanut) would probably do better under the category "Tanakh."

I agree with every single one of Alastair Haines's list of points above. Regarding the last one, that "Old Testament" implies something theological, I think the article must clearly state why Jewish scholars have nearly always avoided the term, no matter which Christian interpretation of it is offered. That avoidance is the prime reason the SBL promotes the term Hebrew Bible. Dovi 06:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for your comments. In particular, I've noticed changes from Tanakh to Hebrew Bible in several places. I haven't thought through each case, but I trust your judgment Eliyak. I agree that Tanakh is a loan word in English, not widely known outside Jewish circles. Additionally, at a conference I just attended, 95% of delegates were Jewish professors. Mostly they spoke Hebrew (or Israeli), when they used English they said "Bible" more often than Tanakh — to them Tanakh is equivalent to Bible, not to Old Testament. I think they also feel Tanakh is not really an English word, or not one they feel they can share with English speakers who don't understand all its Hebrew connotations.


 * The problem with deuterocanonical books, as you call them, is that there are many issues and many terms: intertestimental (date), para-biblical (standard term in DJD, literary relationship), psuedepigraphical (Wisdom of Solomon, regarding title), apocryphal (authenticity), deuterocanonical, extrabiblical, extracanonical (peer review status, i.e. official determination). The term deuterocanonical is inherently biased, because it is exclusive to Catholicism and some Orthodox groups. Other Orthodox groups do not define a canon, and Jews and Protestants do not have any deuterocanonical books. In fact, deuterocanonical is not how some Catholics view the books, there is nothing "secondary" about them. It is not a term they use willingly.


 * I think it is worth mentioning that Hebrew Bible doesn't equal Tanach, which equals Torah + Navi'im + Ketuvim (in that order for a reason), because it is used for content common to all traditions, rather than for interpretation (divisions of subsections, ordering, textual criticism, pointing and even chapter and verse divisions).


 * One thought that may be helpful is that context clarifies definitions. On a Catholic page, Old Testament is a clearly defined term, they will quote sources that assume the Catholic context, I don't think we should "correct" their usage. It will be clear to readers. Our problem lies with pages where no common understanding of Old Testament can be assumed (not that it's always a problem). If we're to help one another at Wiki to make appropriate terminological selections, I think we want to encourage Jews to feel free to use Tanakh in Jewish contexts, Catholics to use Old Testament with their understanding in Catholic context. We can also help by providing a wide range of terms suitable for topic areas relevant to multiple traditions. In some contexts, deliberate generalizations can help, like — Scriptures, Bible, etc. (without endlessly rehashing that these words mean different things to different people). In other contexts, specificity avoids unnecessary conflict over terminology — not *"The first book of the Ketuvim had a liturgical function ..." rather "Psalms had a liturgical function ..."


 * I can't quite work out if you see a distinction between Hebrew Bible and Tanakh, Eliyak. How many books would you say there are in the Hebrew Bible? How many in the Tanakh? Alastair Haines 08:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree with your description "it is used for content common to all traditions." That is what I had felt beforehand; your comments about ordering and the masoretic text really helped to flesh out the details. Thanks. --Eliyak T · C 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Revisions
Hi. With all due respect, I find the latest revisions problematic on a number of points:
 * The introduction must clear state that "Old Testament" has theological allusions that are foreign to mainstream Jewish thought. This and nothing else (not matters of canon and not matters of history or language) is the major reason academics favor "Hebrew Bible" as a neutral term.
 * We do not need explanations and examples here of what a "confessional term" is. What is needed are simple links, and at the very most short explanations of aspects of Christian theology connected to the "Old" in "Old Testament" that make the term problematic for Jewish scholars.
 * What exactly "Old" implies has been debated for millenium, and no attempt should be made to decide the issue in this article (a decision that is likely to be a partisan one). Such material belongs in Old Testament, not here. Rather, as above, concise links to the theological issues are called for, and nothing more. Dovi 13:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Shalom. (I mean that sincerely, and apologize if it is offensive to you.)
 * First, thanks for taking the time and trouble to make a comment, and to drop a note on my talk page.
 * Second, I care very much to try to work out something good for readers, and satisfactory to you as well.
 * In reply to your comments.
 * Please cite a source that says alleged allusions of Old Testament is the major reason academics favour HB over OT. I am just ignorant about that. I am aware of many reasons, and that is certainly one of them. It seems unlikely to me that it is the major one. That's only my opinion though, and I'm often wrong unless I check things. Can you please share with us, where you learned that this is the major reason.
 * I did not introduce the word "confessional term", nor did I introduce the section "confessional terms". Since there seemed to be some confusion regarding this, I provided the explanation. Actually, I think the editor who introduced the word and the section made a helpful contribution worth expanding. Anyway, I agree with you, the main thing is discussing Old Testament, I am in the process of doing that right now. I suspect you might be surprised at what Christians really think about this. Actually, Christians decided in the 2nd century that "replacement" of the Hebrew scriptures was a heresy, in other words, not a Christian view. I have a lot more to write in that section. Please criticise it as much as you like. But I agree, it is an important part of this article.
 * I am confused by your second and third comments. Comment 2 wants more on Old in Old Testament. Comment 3 wants less. For the time being I will take the risk that what I write is covered elsewhere at Wiki. Marcion certainly is. I will have to check Covenant. What I am writing is indeed a summary. There's no way I can cover everything about Marcion, Antinomianism, Covenant Theology or Dispensationalism.
 * It appears you want this article to say one thing and one thing only, forgive me if I'm wrong. You would like it to say: "Christians say Old Testament because they think their New Testament replaces the Tanakh, therefore academic powers have told them to use Hebrew Bible from now on." Unfortunately, neither of those statements is true, so it would be hard to find a reliable source that says so.
 * Let me admit that Christians are hopeless at understanding Jews and the Tanakh, in fact, it's my job in real life to teach them to know better. However, it is also true, that Jews can misunderstand Christians in some areas. Please be patient, I am starting with the Jewish perspective and then demonstrating the Christian perspective. I will be using the best available online sources so you can check everything.
 * I'm sad there is only one way you seem to understand the words Old Testament, especially as it has hardly ever been used that way. Feel free to show me reliable sources where Christians use OT to mean replaced covenant. I think you will find them hard to locate. Prove me wrong! :D Alastair Haines 13:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, over the past 5-6 years of my life it has been one of my (part-time) committments to get to know Christians better, especially clergy, and it has been a truly fascinating experience I've learned a lot from. Years ago, when I was more closely involved with the world of academic bible study specifically, was when I learned of "Hebrew Bible" as a handy term to use for academics with firm commitments to Judaism. The term was not forced upon anybody, and was obviously imperfect (none of the terms are perfect), and yet could be used by those who wanted to do so without giving offense to anyone, and yet remaining perfectly clear. At the time, I actually thought the term was coined by Christian scholars who wanted to avoid causing discomfort to their Jewish colleagues, but that may not actually be the case (see below).

The very relationship between "Old" & "New" Testaments reflects an age-old tension within Christianity. The issue is not the books per se, as all mainstream Christian denominations hallow the OT (though not all in the very same way), but "testament" as "covenant": How does the new covenant relate to the old one? Does it replace it? Fulfill it? Clarify its "true" meaning? This entire range of possibilities has been employed throughout Christian history with many nuances, sometimes in the context of very harsh debates. And that is OK: inner tension is a good thing. Judaism is built almost entirely upon inner tensions between potentially contradictory values (thought not these particular values).

On one end, in the classic polemical literature of the middle ages, the center of the fierce debate between Jews and (Catholic) Christians was on whether interpretation of the HB showed that the covenant with old Israel would be replaced by a covenant with new Israel (the church), whereby "salvation" (in the Christian sense of the word) in the new covenant requires Jesus. This basic position was not revoked by the Church until the 1960s, and is a classic theme in both historical Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. On the other end, most modern Christians I have come in contact with prefer to stress that the NT is an expansion/fulfillment of the original testament, not a replacement of it. Both of these themes exist within the inner tension of Christianity, but neither end is palatable to mainstream Judaism. Dialogue on this central, irreconcilable issue truly means learning to agree to disagree.

No one is suggesting that the gamut of Christian theology on "old" versus "new" is simplistic. But it is still nevertheless clear that the entire range of Christian opinion on this is entirely foreign to Jewish thought, and that a very large part of that range makes "OT" a term that cannot be used in good faith by Jews who are committed to their Judaism, including a lot of Jewish academics. Christians may be surprised by this, or find it hard to understand, but it is nevertheless the basic, straightforward reaction of a religious tradition that neither recognizes a need for "salvation" of the soul, nor puts any stock in the replacement/expansion/allegorization of the covenant with Israel. And that is the main point of the term this article discusses (while the nuances of Christian theology belong in Old Testament).

As for sources, WP's need for citations is a good policy, which nevertheless has some drawbacks (sort of like "Hebrew Bible"...). What is one to do when common knowledge in the field is not likely to be addressed in an explicit manner? Hundreds of scholars use Hebrew Bible for fairly obvious reasons, but how many actually ruminate about its usage?

I was rather pessimistic about actually finding sources, but an initial Google check turned up a bit more than I expected. Here are some reflections on the term by a respectible Christian professor. Tyler actually assumes that "The label Hebrew Bible originates within the Jewish community and is gaining ground in academic biblical studies." This is contrary to my initial assumption that its use was begun by Christian scholars who went out of their way to be especially sensitive. Nevertheless, regardless of who began using it first, it is quite clear that the main impetus towards using the term is its neutrality with regard to Judaism. Where there no Jews around, it is safe to assume that academic discourse would be of the "Old Testament" alone, regardless of intra-Christian nuances.

Tyler also notes that Christians too are not all of one mind regarding "Old Testament" and that is important to be aware of, and important for our WP article. But that the main impetus for usage comes from Judaism is clear. This is also clear from a more popular source, an article on the topic in the Chicago Tribune, which also indicates that the main point of the term neutrality within Jewish-Christian dialogue or academic discourse. That article refers to an article by none other than William Safire on the term "Hebrew Bible" which I would love to read by did not find a link for.

By the way, though I do think that Jewish-Christian discourse is the main reason for the term (and these links bear this out), I never claimed that in my edits to the article itself. All I did was refer to it as a reason, and was rather surprised when that reason was removed from the introduction and relegated to a later section, which itself didn't stress the actual elements that led to the term HB, and even seemed to try to hide them.

One thing I am happy about, besides the dialogue here which I hope has been (and will continue to be) fruitful, is that earlier attempts to question the notability of this term have apparently been put to rest. Even William Safire has written an article about it... Dovi 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. When I posted this I hadn't yet read the latest revisions. In brief:
 * Let's get rid of "confessional term" (I didn't start that either but used what I found) and use something more understandible like "religious term" or "connotation".
 * My position is that discussion of the term OT is only relevant in as far as it explains why "Hebrew Bible" is used by many. In that context it is very relevant. Anything beyond that context (including a lot of present text) belongs in other articles. Dovi 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A couple of quick comments now, I'll be back later.


 * First, I really appreciate hearing more about your own scholarship. I also think I understand your positive feelings about interactions with Christians about matters of faith, as long as we can agree to disagree. I find exactly the same experience in discussing things with Jews. Jewish scholarship on the Tanakh is just awesome and I appreciate generosity extended by them to take our common ground seriously, when discussing it. Generally they and I just use Bible for Tanakh. But back to the article.


 * You say '"OT" a term that cannot be used in good faith by Jews who are committed to their Judaism'


 * I think that is a very important, if not the most important point. That is why "confessional term" is rather a good description. Whatever the meaning of old in OT, old implies acceptance of the new! That is definitely common to all Christians and antithetical to Judaism.


 * On the other hand, a Christian can use Tanakh without violating any confessional commitment. In other words, the difficulties with the "confessional terms" are not simply "mirror images".


 * I think we can come up with something satisfactory to both of us. I think your point is profound. What could a Jew possibly mean by OT, how could they ever use it in good faith? It doesn't really matter what Christians mean by the term, it's more that it is completely foreign to Jewish thought and expression, so can't be used by them. Alastair Haines 22:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * PS regarding your last edit. My reservations about replacing "confessional term" with "religious connotations" is that the word Bible itself still carries religious connotations for English speakers; also it covers over the major point you make, that Jews cannot use OT because of what it can imply about one's own faith, i.e. one's own confession. If Jews are to surrender using Tanakh, what are they to say? Certainly not OT! Regarding deleting explanation of the meaning of "confessional term", to be quite honest, I had to research it to get the usage clear. It is a very accurate phrase to describe the issue, so I'm endebted to the editor who provided it, but feel we need to assist readers in being clear about it. Also, I believe it helps them feel the issue from the Jewish perspective more clearly, but you are more of an authority on that than I am.


 * I am more concerned about suggesting supercessionism to be typical of Christian understanding of the Hebrew scriptures. 2nd century theologians declared Marcionites non-Christians. The 20th century Catholic Encyclopedia declares them the "most dangerous foes of Christianity". With respect, the Christian views are complex and I feel easily misunderstood if over-simplified in the lead in. As you can see, I've tried to justice to both Jewish and Christian views in the OT section. It concludes with an honestly admission of why Christian views, of any kind, are completely unacceptable to Jews.


 * Finally, to be honest, I think you quite possibly understand the OT section better than the average Westerner from a traditional (but not believing) Christian background. Many do not realise that the "engine" of Christianity is the Jewish scriptures, hence centuries of anti-semitism, which is crazy as well as evil. The aim of that section is to provide a summary of a complex issue, for people who don't have the benefit of our detailed study. There's so much more that could be said! Perhaps you and I could collaberate on an article that addresses Jewish/Christian differences. Anyway, so much to do, so little time. Look forward to your comments. Alastair Haines 23:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wolf2191 00:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To Alastair: No problem regarding "confessional term." Regarding supercessionism I disagree, and think you focus far too much on an early Christian heresy and not nearly enough on the classical church, which clearly had a version of this (not rejecting the OT books but rather the primary meaning: one covenant superceeds another). Take a glance at WPs article on it, which to my mind is not too far off the mark. On this point I don't think your presentation is balanced at all.


 * With regard to what average Westerners do or do not know, I agree that complex issues should be explained. The question is just how much and where, and I think that the current explanation doesn't belong here but in the articles that deal with these subjects. All in all, this article is on nothing more than a suggested terminology that some use. It can and should explain why they use it, but fairly comprehensive surveys of related issues go beyond its legitimate scope.


 * Regarding multiple covenants (in the article), here too you touch upon an issue has been central to the Jewish-Christian debate for millenia. It should be an article (or part of another article), with views from both sides and a survey of medieval polemics on the topic. But arguing a Christian take on the topic with the old JE as a springboard is a strange way to go about doing things, especially in an article not devoted to the topic. I think you meant to give a ecumenical feeling by writing it this way, but I'm still not sure its the right way to go about doing things.


 * In the future I would love to collaberate on an article that addresses Jewish/Christian differences. I have no doubt these articles already exist (nearly everything has an article in WP), but maybe they could be rewritten.


 * Wolf, regarding Heschel, it would be great if we could get the quote! With all due respect to Tyler Williams, who seems like a fine fellow and scholar, a good quote from Heschel could be a centerpiece for the article. Dovi 03:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a look.Wolf2191 01:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

From his interview at Notre Dame - "It is true that the hebrew bible-a term that should replace the condescending term "old testament"....(I'm afraid this isn't quotable enough for this article but it does show how he felt about it).Wolf2191 04:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting surprize
Britannica 1911 has this: The kind of rule which the earliest Fathers thought the Scriptures to be can only be conjectured; it is certain that they believed the Old Testament books to be a divine and infallible guide. But the New Testament was not so considered till towards the close of the 2nd century, when the conception of a Catholic Church was realized. The collection of writings was not called Scripture, or put on a par with the Old Testament as sacred and inspired, till the time of Theophilus of Antioch (about 180 A.D.). So, according to Britannica 1991, Christians were clear about the Hebrew scriptures as sacred and inspired, before they settled either the matter of the New Testament, or conceived of a Catholic Church. If Christians have an established "replacement" theology regarding the OT, that really needs to be sourced and clearly marked for who believes it. It is not "mainstream" or "default" Christianity by any means. Please prove me wrong by all means. Alastair Haines 14:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. As already per above, there is nothing to prove, nor does this quote add anything the least bit surprising. There was and is replacement theology in Christianity: not replacement of the books but replacement of the covenant, and that is a very prominent interpretation of "Old Testament". This is why a great deal of what is currently in the article is completely irrelevant (in my opinion). Dovi 18:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you just helped clear my mind. I was overlooking the obvious. As you say, "not replacement of the books but replacement of the covenant." What is understood by Christians regarding covenant requires considerable interpretation — distinctions between denominations and over time included — a lot of work to present comprehensively and from the NPOV.
 * It looks as though the basic ideas are listed at other entries, though supercession (for one) is an article needing a fair bit of work. This article is not about something as important, but interpretative, as theologies of covenant.
 * This article is about the books. I would back the idea that we keep it simple and remove reference to issues and perceptions regarding covenant debates, and stick to facts about canon. Fact: Christians, actually accepted the Tanakh as canon, before even the NT! Some groups added books to that, but apart from heretics, no one rejected or replaced the books of the Jewish scriptures.
 * Covenant supercession (whatever it is, and whoever holds it or rejects it), likewise dispensationalism or covenant theology (how ever they are defined), are not the topic of this article, which regards books, rather than their interpretation. It's all about getting away from any confessional implications, not specifying what particular confessional implications might or might not exist.
 * Perhaps a way forward is to clarify that the Christian canon, historically, has been a matter of debating how much to add to the Jewish scriptures (including of course the NT), while denouncing rejection of them as scripture as heresy. Following that discussion, a simple reference to the articles concerning the more detailed matters of covenant would seem to me expedient. Though, even then, I don't think we should get drawn into attempting to say who holds which particular views. None of them seem to be universally held by Christians. Alastair Haines 12:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, remember that in the first couple centuries, the main Bible used by Jews and Christians was the Greek Septuagint. Many Jews even in Palestine were more familiar with Greek than Hebrew; this was even more the case in the Diaspora. As Christians adapted and used the Septuagint, there were a couple efforts by Jews to produce alternative Greek translations, before they eventually returned to widespread use of Hebrew scriptures. This is not just a question of "which books" but also "which ancient translations" of those books. Wesley 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the article is neither about books per se nor covenants, but about a particular terminology for the books that is suggested as an alternative to "Old Testament." Therefore it needs links (and not much more) to the theological positions that make "Old Testament" difficult for some. If providing such links could be misleading, then by all means provide along with it some brief explanation or context with links of its own in the body of the article.

Wesley, on the historical point: The Septuagint was the Bible of Hellenistic Judaism. When HJ faded away (partially in the process of making way for Christianity), so did the use by Jews of the Septuagint. But non-Hellenistic Jews never really "returned" to anything. Dovi 03:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not disagreeing with either of you. It seems after the LXX was produced, and up to say 150 give or take a bit, there were only two "Bibles" -- the Tanakh and the LXX. The former came to be prefered by the rabbis, the latter by Christians. At about that time Christians started settling the canon of the NT. He kaine diatheke as a name for this corpus likely led to the LXX becoming known as the OT, or vetus testamentum. It wasn't until the reformation some Christians, namely Protestants, brought their canon of the OT back into line with the Tanakh. They retained the name and the LXX ordering. Calvinist theology, which dates from the reformation, is decidedly non-supercessionist. Given the radical changes in terminology made on theological grounds at that time, it surprises me that this name was not changed were it to have been believed to imply supercession. I'll keep digging away for sources on these matters.


 * Anyway, part of the problem is that there are two POVs on this. Wiki must report both, neutrally, but without weasling or harmonization. From the Jewish POV, Christians succeeded from Judaism; from the Christian POV, Jews who rejected Christianity succeeded from a Messiah who included gentiles (as per Abrahamic covenant and Suffering servant of Isaiah). Wiki can't take sides as to which POV is correct (both could be wrong!). At this stage, supercession sounds more like a Jewish description of Christianity, than Christian self-description or a third party neutral description. As such, it deserves mention, but needs context to avoid being simply POV. Alastair Haines 05:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

More sources
Just doing a Google on supercessionism got me this. We know from many scriptural sources that Paul valued his Jewish heritage. When writing of the Torah, Paul used the metaphor of an olive tree, symbolizing the Jewish people and their way of faithfully serving God, as providing nourishment for an engrafted branch, the non-Jews who had come to faith in God through Jesus the Messiah. This means that the root nourishes the branch. It certainly does not render Judaism invalid, and is therefore not "replacement theology," also called supercessionism--the theology that Christianity has superceded Judaism, making it invalid. This 'replacement theology'--a now-discredited idea that dominated church teaching through the centuries and spawned anti-Semitism--maintains that the Israel of the Hebrew scriptures has been replaced by the new Israel. God has revoked his covenants and promises to the Jewish people, and transferred them to the church. Brad Young, 'What Did Paul Believe About Judaism?' It is true that supercessionism and anti-Semitism derive support from the teachings of Paul, but Paul himself was not anti-Semitic. He did not preach the abrogation of Torah or hatred for his people. This interpretation of Romans 9-11 is pretty standard. The other comments are rather general, political and sound a bit suspect to me. But he's a reliable source by Wiki standards, a professional scholar, who's published three books on Jewish roots of Christianity. Alastair Haines 08:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ben Witherington III quotes Andrew Lincoln favourably. [The writer of Hebrews] holds that, while the Scripture is still the authoritative vehicle of God’s self-disclosure, the sacrificial system, the law and the Sinaitic covenant, of which Scripture speaks, have been surpassed by God’s new and decisive word in Christ, and so in terms of present Christian experience are no longer appropriate. The law, its symbols and institutions remain crucial for interpreting the fulfillment of God’s purposes in Christ but do not determine Christian practice. Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice does away with the need for the sacrificial system (cf. 10.4-18) and indeed the covenant with Moses can be described as obsolete (8.13). It is in this sense that Hebrews can be appropriately called a ‘supercessionist’ document.” (Andrew Lincoln, Hebrews: A Guide, p. 114). However, he sees no conflict between this and his own prior statement. In my current work on a commentary on Hebrews, I have been struck by how forcefully the book of Hebrews completely undercuts a Dispensational approach to the reading of Scripture, and while we are at it, to a blind and unconditional support of the present secular nation-state of Israel regardless of its military practices and policies. He also says: In short, I do not think it is possible to avoid the scandal of particularity when it comes to the Christian form of Judaism. There was an inevitability to the parting of the ways between Christian and non-Christian Jews however long it took in different places, and the parting was only accelerated by the Pauline Gentile mission and its success.

I'll keep on gathering sources. I don't personally know who coined the term supercession. It may not have been Christians. We can't claim that unless we can verify it. Clearly Christians do use and discuss the term, but, it would appear, it is far from being a Christian slogan. It is qualified, even where conditional support is given.

Witherington's claim, "Of course what [is said] in Hebrews would inevitably be viewed as supercessionist by those Jews who had not and did not see Jesus as the completion of God’s plans for them or the fulfillment of earlier covenants." That is, supercessionism would be an apt term for Jewish views of Christian thought. But perhaps he's wrong. Perhaps Jewish thought does not view Christianity as supercessionist. Jewish scholars have to be the authority on that. But the same works in reverse. If Christian scholars don't use supercessionist to describe their own thinking, the word should not be put in their mouths.

There's genuine disagreement in views, it's at the heart of the difference between the religions. I'm not really sure we want to give space to what the Christian view actually is (it drifts off topic), however we cannot suppress it, if we articulate the counter-view. I'd recommend dropping both, and sticking with the generic "confessional term", an option a previous editor seems wisely to have adopted. The issue needs to be nutted out, but in other articles, would be my recommendation. But so long as we have specific criticisms of Christianity in the article, I'll defend the necessity of also articulating the other POV. Alastair Haines 09:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Random thought
I just realized why I don't like OT as a name. Not only is it poorly defined outside specific Christian denominations, it is quite simply anachronistic. The Hebrew scriptures do not describe themselves as "old" in opposition to "new". Since I spend most of my time trying to read these scriptures in their own historical context, I rarely think of them, nor describe them as the OT. My foibles are not normative of anyone else, of course. However, it is easy to see how the NT lends itself to being known by that name, I am wondering now if Jewish use of the term differs from Christian use in the understanding of new. From the Jewish perspective, new would be very naturally understood as a declaration of succession. Alastair Haines 05:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've been away a few days. You are absolutely correct. That is why when they refer to it, many Jews avoid the problem by simply calling it the "Christian New Testament" or "Christian Bible." Dovi 07:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hope your days were productive and/or enjoyable, and thanks for your reply. It fits with my limited experience. When I talk with Jewish academics, who know I'm a Christian, we tend to use Bible when talking about the books of the Tanakh, occasionally we may mention the NT. When I overhear them talking to one another in English they often say Bible, when refering to the Tanakh. I think I have even heard Christian NT, rather than simply NT. I think I passed it off as redundancy, but I can see it is a concise way of refering to the corpus, while distancing the speaker from any position regarding its contents or name. Alastair Haines 11:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Researching the Catholic position
Thanks to User:Thw1309, I have discovered there was a 2001 Pontifical Biblical Commission document called "The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible". Rabbi David Rosen writes about it at the Vatican website [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20051027_rabbi-rosen_en.html Nostra Aetate, Forty Years After Vatican II. Present & Future Perspectives]. Alastair Haines 19:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It would seem Pope John Paul II, in discussions with Jewish representatives, described the covenants of the Jewish scriptures as the "original" and "unbroken" covenant. It is not clear whether he said this in English, Italian, Polish, Latin or Hebrew, but I'm sure the point is accurately translated and reported. It is a very interesting question whether this Pope represented or represents a specific Christian or even Catholic tradition, or whether he viewed himself or was viewed by others as modifying or correcting another view. It is certainly beyond my reach to know if Rabbi Rosen is representative of Jewish opinions.

Regarding the Pope's terminology of "original" and "unbroken" regarding the covenants of the Jewish scriptures, that has been the explicit teaching of the Protestant denominations (and their many offspring) since their inception. Protestants would argue it is simply what the NT itself teaches. John speaks of a "new commandment" that is "not new" but "from the beginning" (how's that for a contradiction!). Jesus said, "not one jot or tittle will by any means disappear from the Law" JotAndTittle.co.uk.

I seem to find it easy to locate Christian sources that articulate their belief that they are beneficiaries under the terms of the unbroken covenants of the Jewish scriptures. References to those who call themselves Christian but see those covenants as redundant, so far seem to be references to extremists branded heretics. But I'll keep looking! ;)

I could source these for you, I have been taught a Christian is under the following covenants:
 * Adam: all humanity is under the covenant curse "in the day you eat of it, dying you will die."
 * Noah: all humanity is under the covenant blessing witnessed by the rainbow -- we shall never again be destroyed by flood.
 * Abraham: all who bless Abraham are blessed, and through him all nations are blessed
 * Moses: the NT claims the Levitical provision of atonement is fulfilled once and for all by Jesus as scapegoat (Hebrews).
 * David: a son of David rules God's people forever.
 * Jeremiah: the Law is written on the heart of those who seek to return to the one and only God.

Obviously, you need to warn me that if I believe these things, they rely on the bizarre belief that Jesus of Nazareth was decendended from David, and that God would accept him as a human sacrifice for atonement. Those are wildly unlikely claims, unless of course, he was raised from the dead. But you will say, that's to believe the unlikely on the basis of the impossible! Well, read the Aqedah -- Isaac's binding. I may be very, very wrong, but at least you'll see why Christians claim they share the faith of Abraham, and without the covenants of the Jewish scriptures remaining unbroken forever, there is no Christianity. Shalom. Alastair Haines 20:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The above was very interesting. Maybe in the future if we both have a lot of time (unfortunately I can't count on that), it would be cool to write an article on covenants in the Hebrew Bible, with their parallel interpretations in Judaism and Christianity. It is something that has always fasinated me. (But I stick to my guns that it is utterly irrelevant to this article.)

David Rosen is very active in the interfaith world. I once met him. I assume he reports things accurately. There is nothing new here at all, just a reiteration of the 1960s proclamations that heralded a huge change in Catholic theology.

Regarding covenants, in traditional Judaism they are understood as follows:
 * Adam: In Judaism there is no "covenant curse" or original sin in the Christian sense. Some of the talmudic rabbis attribute some of the "seven laws of Noah" to Adam.
 * Noah: God's side of the covenant is the rainbow, man's side is the "seven laws of Noah".
 * Abraham: Promised a nation and a land, commanded in circumcision. (Same for Isaac, Jacob and his sons.) Strong current in the talmudic tradition that attributes keeping the laws of the future Torah on Abraham's part.
 * Moses: There is no covenant at all with Moses per se (in fact Moses rejects this possibility in Exodus 32:10). Rather, he facilitates the covenant between God and Israel, i.e. the laws of the Torah.
 * Aaron -- you left him out. He and his descendants are chosen and commanded to serve in the Tabernacle/Temple, partake of offerings, tithes.
 * David -- kingship for himself and his (literal) descendants.
 * Jerusalem -- promised to David to be the eternal location of the Temple.
 * Jeremiah: No such thing. Traditional Judaism is quite emphatic that no prophet other than Moses delivers a covenant, all the rest exhort the people to keep God's covenant through Moses.

Other points you made: A traditional Jew has no need to "warn you" about supposedly bizarre beliefs, because as long as you are a decent, God-fearing person (which you certainly are) you have a place in the World to Come. In Judaism, one needn't be Jewish to be "saved." In mainstream Jewish interpretation Isaac was not revived from the dead, though such an opinion does appear in medieval midrash. Dovi 12:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all this Dovi. Thanks for your edifying and eirenic comments. Perhaps a good comment to make is that it is a good thing a term like Hebrew Bible exists and many, like us, support it. The world would be robbed of Jewish understanding of their own scriptures, were they forced to use either Christian terminology, or insist upon their own language being used to describe them. Obviously the latter would be preferable were the term Hebrew Bible unavailable. Alastair Haines 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * :D Parallel Jewish and Christian interpretations of the covenants sounds like a very interesting article and I would love to work on that with you.
 * 1) I agree that this article is about the text of the Hebrew scriptures, not the interpretation of the covenants.
 * 2) I trust your report of Rabbi Rosen's reliability
 * 3) Your explanation of the covenants is more detailed than mine, I conceed. I particularly appreciate the point that the "Mosaic covenant" is in fact with Israel and not Moses. I'm familiar with the absolutely wonderful narrative that spells this out.
 * 4) Regarding Jeremiah, I was not claiming a covenant was established here, but rather than one was promised. I do not insist that this is "new" so much as "renewal". Though I do take NT views of it seriously, what they mean and what Jeremiah meant are deep questions.
 * 5) Regarding Isaac, I now realise my interpretation is owed to Hebrews 11 which claims Abraham was commended for believing God could raise the dead. On reflection I can see this is no more than reading Christianity back into the Aqedah.
 * 6) Finally, Judaism does seem to be more inclusive than Christianity, broadly speaking, and that accords with differences between the core scriptures of each. From a certain perspective, Christianity appropriates the potential for inclusion of God-fearers in the Jewish scriptures, while, one might argue, turning around and anathematizing Jews if they do not embrace the "new teaching".

Some original "research"
Hmmm, I wonder if Ancient Testament and Less Ancient Testament would work. ;) Alastair Haines 21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A proposal
I'm not sure the opening line is actually the place to start. What I mean is, the meaning of Hebrew Bible does not start from the point of books common to Judaism and Christianity. In fact, it is more of a historical reference to the Jewish scriptures, that assumes nothing regarding the ordering of the books, or the interpretation of content. It is this that makes it suitable as a candidate for academic writing. It can additionally have a place in Jewish-Christian dialogue, since all Christian groups accept the Hebrew Bible as scripture also.

It is a subtle point, but I feel the Jewishness of the Hebrew Bible is inadvertently weasled by starting from the point of view of commonality of canonical works.

Would anyone object to something like the following:

The Hebrew Bible is the body of literature accepted as scripture in the Jewish tradition. In its Latin form, the name Biblia Hebraica is at least as old as the title of Rudolf Kittel's 1906 edition of the Tanakh, based on the Mikraot Gedolot.

In English, this name does not specify a particular classification of books within the corpus, as does Tanakh (a Hebrew acronym for Law-Prophets-Writings). Strictly speaking, it does not imply a particular textual tradition of these books either. However, the Masoretic Text is frequently implied, both because the Septuagint is a Greek translation, not Hebrew, and the Latin form of the name is still used for printed editions of the Leningrad Codex.

The text of the Hebrew Bible has other important witnesses, including the Aleppo Codex, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls (see Tanakh at Qumran), and various other ancient translations.

Christian denominations also accept the Hebrew Bible as scripture. In academic writing, where both Jewish and Christian scholars often co-operate in studying the Hebrew Bible, the name has been recommended as a non-confessional alternative to either Tanakh or Old Testament.


 * Yes, I object. It is extremely hard to keep up with your well-meaning activism regarding this article, which I feel will have to be redone completely someday. So I've given up entirely in the meantime, but I will insist on reverting the introduction, which should be short and to the point, especially given the mass of irrelevant data and opinion that the rest of the article has become.


 * You wrote:


 * It is a subtle point, but I feel the Jewishness of the Hebrew Bible is inadvertently weasled by starting from the point of view of commonality of canonical works.


 * Not very subtle at all. The term is indeed about the commonality of the books. If that implies Jewishness then I see little that can or should be done about it. To me it implies commonality. But whatever the implication, a concise statement of the facts is what is called for.


 * The Latin form has entitled editions of the masoretic text since the dawn of printing for that text. No irrelevant reference to Kittel is called for. All the rest is needless expansion which certainly doesn't belong in the intro, and probably not in the article at all but in the articles relevant biblical canon. Nothing more need be said than "common books" (anything else can be explained elsewhere in contexts regarding biblical canon). It is amazing that something so simple has become so incredibly convoluted.


 * In any case, will not be available for a day or two due to day of national mourning. Dovi 11:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, in an effort not to proceed faster than you can realistically interact with. I have only proposed this introduction here at the talk page.


 * I think I have not made my point clear. My point is that the Hebrew scriptures need to be understood as essentially Jewish. That Christians accept them also is quite secondary. They were the Jewish scriptures before ever there was a Christianity. The term is used to refer to writings that existed before Christianity and before the Septuagint (you can't translate books that don't already exist!)


 * Is Hebrew Bible correctly applied to books of the Torah, for instance, when considering their use prior to the production of the Septuagint. I'm fairly sure I can find attestation of this kind of usage. When used in this way, Christian views of the Torah are quite simply irrelevant. The term is simply more English and less confessional than Tanakh, in fact both Torah and Tanakh would actually be anachronistic in an early historical context, let alone OT!


 * Can you provide a reference for use of Biblia Hebraica prior to Kittle, because that would be very helpful. The aim here is to demonstrate that the expression Hebrew Bible, allbeit in Latin, actually has considerable history to it. I would think that is quite relevant to an article on Hebrew Bible, which is about the use of the term, rather than a comprehensive entry on the entity itself.


 * I think we are encountering a number of significant issues that do need to be addressed in this article, and agreeing that certain others are beyond its scope. I'm fairly sure others would agree with our conclusions. Here's a list, I look forward to your comments, at a more appropriate time.


 * HB refers to content, not textual tradition, nor ordering, nor subclassification
 * HB refers to both original language, and culture of origin
 * HB refers to a corpus that predates the LXX
 * HB refers to books that are universally accepted as scripture by Christians, hence are common to Jews and Christians, although differently interpreted in places


 * I think there's a logic to that series of points. Regarding the commonality definition, I would also argue that Latin usage refering to printed forms of the Tanakh predates any serious attempt to find common language for common scripture. It would appear that an already extant, descriptive term like HB suited itself to such common usage, rather than being coined to describe a set of books common to all canons.


 * Once again, my apologies for lack of clarity. I wish to stress the closeness of HB to the term Jewish scriptures, and slightly distance HB as "common books", which is true, but a logical consequence, and a historical development of the first, not the primary source of the term. The HB is, and always will be, first of all the book of the Hebrew people, and only ever derivatively included in cannons of other groups. The term is, after all not * Common Bible. ;) Alastair Haines 23:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As an Orthodox Christian, I thoroughly reject the notion that the Old Testament scriptures are essentially Jewish, assuming that by Jewish you mean the post-Temple religion known as Judaism today. I and many others feel that Christianity is proper continuation of the Hebrew/Jewish religion described in the Old Testament. If this article emphasizes the Hebrew Bible's Jewishness, then "Hebrew Bible" immediately loses any value as a religion-neutral term, and instead becomes a distinctly Jewish term in the same way that "Old Testament" is a distinctly Christian term. HB refers to books that are not only interpreted differently but are preserved in different forms and wording by Jews and Christians. Thus, "Hebrew Bible" appears to be just as much a confessional term as is "Old Testament," especially the way you describe it here. Wesley 01:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
Hi, first some replies to the above:


 * HB refers to content, not textual tradition, nor ordering, nor subclassification

Slightly more accurately: Although "Hebrew Bible" could be taken to refer to the masoretic text, as in the titles of old bibles, its possible range of meaning is much greater than that. Its widest possible meaning (i.e. "common books") is the one intended in current usage.


 * HB refers to both original language, and culture of origin

I tend to think it's really the former, but left the latter in because of some previous edits that were plausible (i.e. the term could be understood that way). It doesn't really matter.


 * HB refers to a corpus that predates the LXX

This is true, but such a statement opens a huge Pandora's box of issues utterly unrelated to the article: Canonization, the vorlage of the Septuagint, textual witnesses... None of this has any place at all in the intro except in the briefest possible remark (if at all). I don't even think it's relevant to the rest of the article.


 * HB refers to books that are universally accepted as scripture by Christians, hence are common to Jews and Christians, although differently interpreted in places

Of course, but that Jews & Christians have different exegetical traditions for these books is something that can be assumed. There is no need to spell it out or even mention it in the intro, except for points that directly impact on the article's title.


 * I think there's a logic to that series of points. Regarding the commonality definition, I would also argue that Latin usage refering to printed forms of the Tanakh predates any serious attempt to find common language for common scripture. It would appear that an already extant, descriptive term like HB suited itself to such common usage, rather than being coined to describe a set of books common to all canons.

This is absolutely correct. It was also expressed quite nicely without any verbosity in the initial sentences of the article.

I am citing here my own suggestion for the intro (the reverted one). Certainly not carved in stone, but it would be good to see direct comments on the "many small changes" that may or may not be needed (and why):


 * Hebrew Bible is a term that refers to the common portions of the Jewish and Christian biblical canons. In its Latin form, Biblia Hebraica, it traditionally serves as a title for printed editions of the masoretic text.


 * Many scholars advocate use of the term Hebrew Bible when discussing these books in academic writing, as a non-confessional substitute to confessional terms:
 * The Christian term Old Testament has theological implications at odds with the Jewish tradition. Expressions of these may be found in formulations such as supercessionism, dispensationalism, or covenant theology (which themselves have been debated in the history of Christianity).
 * The Jewish Tanakh is a Hebrew acronym that is likely to be unfamiliar to those outside the Jewish faith, and it refers to a particular text and arrangement of the biblical books (the masoretic text) that is not central to Christianity.


 * Hebrew in the name likely refers to the language of the books in the masoretic text, but it may also be taken as referring to the Jewish or Hebrew people, who read the masoretic Bible in that language and have preserved its text.

So first of all, for which parts of this do we have disagreements or suggestions for changes? Dovi 03:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We see things very much alike on most points, but these are some of the differences.


 * Firstly, I am completely unaware of any definition of Hebrew Bible as scriptures common to Judaism and Christianity. I would appreciate seeing a source for such a definition. What I am aware of is understanding and usage of Hebrew Bible for the scriptures as they circulated prior to the production of the LXX, and their continued use after that point. As it turns out, this corpus was accepted in its entirity by Christianity, which makes the statement about common books true, but it is a consequence of the definition, not the definition itself. Christians had no part in the composition of the Hebrew Bible, and no say in what was considered canonical. A fortiori they adopted the Hebrew Bible, because their own writings appealed to it for authority. Hebrew Bible is a non-Jewish term for the Tanakh. It is limited in its application as a substitute for the Christian term Old Testament, because Catholics and Orthodox base their canons on the LXX.


 * Secondly, it seems that textual issues are relevant to the article in your opinion, because you are willing to mention the Massoretic text. It seems to me that a very big question related to the article goes begging if the LXX is not mentioned. Why is the English language version of the Hebrew Bible in a different order, divided and named differently to the Tanakh and MT? In my proposed intro above, the matter is dealt with concisely with the pertinent points covered in a few sentences. I think one of its major draw-back is that it is too terse. However, I disagree that the textual history of the LXX needs to be entered into. I think that would go beyond the scope of the article and become verbose.


 * Thirdly, it is not necessarily obvious to a seventeen year old Chinese Buddhist starting religion 101 at Harvard that "common scriptures" would be differently interpreted. Harmonization is, broadly speaking, more typical in eastern religious traditions. On the other hand, the incorrect assertion that the term Old Testament has theological implications at odds with the Jewish Tradition, is arguably more tangential to the article. It is far more likely that our 17yo student would expect there to be theological differences between two religions, so if anything were to be granted as assumed knowledge, it would be this.


 * If the misperception of the meaning of old is to be mentioned, it opens a can of worms, which requires dealing with. Rather than edit war with you over it, I have provided both sides of the argument and sources in summary form in the body of the article to address it. If you are not satisfied with it, we can expand it. Frankly I'd rather provide more summary of the history of the canonization of the Tanakh and the history of the Masoretic text. The term Hebrew Bible is about canonization, text and history, even if understood as scriptures common with Christianity. I'd rather leave the Christian stuff out myself. It's covered elsewhere and is a huge and messy topic.


 * However, we are not constrained to 25 words or less. Wiki has googillians of squigglibytes of disk space. It is actually better to assume nothing. Spell things out step by step. Source everything if possible, and definitely if something is contentious. If sources exist for more than one claim, then both deserve to be recorded.


 * Although we don't want to include unnecessary information, decisions to exclude information are potentially just as biased as including disproportionate quantities of material relevant to one POV among several. Although I wish we could just leave theological interpretation of old out of this article, I think your sensitivities reflect issues many readers would like to see addressed by sourced information. Likewise, although you would prefer textual matters to be short and sweet, I would like to see these addressed in a summary form. In fact, I know little about internal Jewish opinions regarding alternatives to the Massoretic text. A little of that here could launch me at more thorough treatment in other articles.


 * I'm looking forward to your comments regarding: canon, text, interpretation, theology and length. Alastair Haines 11:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Catholic Encyclopedia
 * "the Hebrew Bible includes the entire Old Testament with the exception of the seven deuterocanonical books"
 * i.e. HB and OT are not synonyms for Catholics, as we know
 * "its threefold division, ... antedates the prologue to Ecclesiasticus"
 * i.e. HB is an entity which predates the LXX, so commonality with Chrn scripture anachronistic


 * Even if you and I agreed to the commonality definition, someone will come along and quote the Catholic Encyclopedia eventually.
 * If I believed in conspiracies, I'd be more inclined to believe HB was a Chrn conspiracy to provide an alternative name for the TNK, than that it was a Jewish conspiracy to provide an alternative to OT. ;) Alastair Haines 13:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I found the above very helpful, thanks.

"Firstly" - No one has claimed (nor has the text of the article) that commonality is the definition of HB. It has a range of meaning. The claim is rather that some scholars suggest using it this way, and that is exactly what the opening lines state (with sources). I don't see any disagreement between us here.

"Secondly" (on MT & LXX): MT is relevant because HB has been understood as refering to it (that is part of its range of meaning), and because it is part of the reason for the inadequacy of Tanakh (for which HB is suggested as an alternative by the SBL).

LXX is not directly relevant to the term HB. However, you have convinced me in above comments that the lack of complete "books in common" between HB and OT should be mentioned in the intro. It is true and relevant to the term.

What bothered me about dwelling on this too much is that overemphasizing a true limit to the accuracy of the commonality idea unfairly diminishes its usefulness (in the SBL sense), and I am thinking of some of Wesley's additions to the article in the past: Technically correct for non-Protestants, but hardly less useful in real conversation and writing. (I happen to know this for a fact, because much of my interfaith experience is with Israeli Arab Christians who belong to the classical churches.) The question is: How to express this in a concise, balanced way? Maybe by moving this up: Because "Hebrew Bible" refers to the common portions of the Jewish and Christian biblical canons, it does not encompass the deuterocanonical or apocryphal books, which are part of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and the Old Testament canon in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

"Thirdly" (on verbosity): WP has oodles of space, and that is part of its problem, that it is hard to process too much information. That is why it is so important for the intros to articles to be clear and concise. That is also why you are totally correct that we need to be careful with NPOV regarding what gets in and what doesn't. I wasn't careful enough in this regard for LXX.

On "Old": You have devoted an enormous amount of energy to this topic, but it is here that we do not agree and need to come to some mutually satisfactory resolution:


 * On the other hand, the incorrect assertion that the term Old Testament has theological implications at odds with the Jewish Tradition, is arguably more tangential to the article.

It is a correct assertion regarding mainstream Judaism. (Maybe we need to rephrase the POV as Mainstream/traditional Judaism regards...) And it is central to the article, perhaps even its main point, because that (as was shown and sourced) is a major reason or even the primary one why scholars suggest using "Hebrew Bible". Just like I have hesitancies with putting in too much on LXX (I explained why above), this is where you have great hesitancies.

From our talks about covenants, my best guess is that you view the assertion as inaccurate based on the evidence for covenants in the HB. But remember that such is your own understanding of biblical covenants, not the mainsteam/traditional Jewish view. Two different exegetical traditions...

I agree that the Christian stuff "is a huge and messy topic" with the all-too-real danger of being oversimplified. But on the other hand I don't think you have portrayed it entirely fairly. It is clear to both of us that the nature of the relationship between the "Old" and "New" testaments is central to Christianity, and that it has been explained in a number of different ways. But you use "anachronistic" much too loosely, and I even feel you do some injustice to Christian theology (sorry...). A theological formulation of the relationship between "old" and "new" is not anachronistic, even though it is attempting to explain something older than itself. Rather, it is an interpretation. Unless all interpretation is anachronistic...

You also have to keep our own historical context in mind. Today supercessionist-like theologies are very much out of vogue, and most churches go out of their way to stress other things. Which is fine if that is their belief, and that is most of what you'll find on the internet. But pre-contemporary theologies are relevant too, and it is important to know history. As a good doctoral student should know... ;-) Maybe we need a good article on the medieval Jewish-Christian biblical debates for a good dose of supercessionism...

Just out of curiousity, is that usage of HB from the old public domain Catholic en. or a newer version? It surprises me they would use that term so many years ago. Dovi 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for such a frank reply. Yet again it clarifies how very close our views about the article are.
 * It is good that we agree that HB is not defined by commonality. My only concern on this point is that the first sentence of the article should define HB, i.e. describe it in a way that covers all its uses. Start with a definition, move to uses.
 * You will note, in my proposed rewrite of the intro, that the commonality is mentioned. I have no objection at all to mentioning that commonality is a fact, nor that recommendation exist for it to be used as a non confessional substitute for Tanakh or OT. My only concern is to start with a definition and work forwards, rather than starting with proposed (and frequently practiced) usage, and working back to why this is proposed.
 * I agree that the commonality and the non confessional usage need to be mentioned in the lead. I also agree that differing canons among Christians needs to be there too. Check my proposal for the intro again, and you will see it is there.
 * I think we are agreeing on lots here.


 * The next issue is more tricky. We have previously agreed that HB is basically used as a term for a body of writing, not for any interpretation of that body. In fact, that is why people propose it as non confessional. HB is about books not theological systematizing of covenants.
 * Now, personally, I think it is quite significant that Christians adopted the HB as scripture before they settled on a New Testament. I also think it is significant that this debate was so acrimonious, and so early, it led to the first early charges of heresy by Christians. (At this time Christians themselves were rightly considered heretics by Jewish and Roman authorities.) Because it was early it is claimed by all current major divisions of Christianity.
 * On the other hand, both diversity of views and their history regarding understanding of covenant, are big issues, not strictly covered by the matter of uninterpreted text included in canons. I would leave this out of the article. It would mean removing reference to supercession.
 * But I'm not convinced that this would be fair. The Jewish Encyclopedia is sufficient evidence that a Jewish perception of Christian understanding is supercession. This is an issue related to Jews and Christians speaking common language. A Christian can quite happily use Tanakh, but OT carries unacceptable baggage to a Jew, whether or not the Jewish percepetion of the Christian view is correct.
 * The thing is, if we describe what the Jewish sources say regarding the Christian view. That is an authority regarding the Jewish perspective, it is not actually an authority on what the Christian view is. In fact, the supercession view is very much a minority. Sources can be quoted to cover this.
 * Suppose George Bush says, "our political analysts in Iraq tell us there is broad support for our continued presence." Can a Wiki article say, therefore it is a sourced fact that the Iraqis want the US to stay. Such a statement simply begs for a list of Iraqi sources that say the opposite to Bush.
 * If you think it worth going into what Christians mean theologically by OT, by all means lets do that. I just think that could be frustrating, because I think we will find that it very rarely conforms to what the Jewish encyclopedia suggests it may be. I would be eager to do this in a way that reflects no discredit on the Jewish encyclopedia. We could start with it, and with Christian sources that demonstrate precisely what the JE claims. However, we cannot stop there, given that there is a massive literature of Christian views that are exactly the opposite in their understanding.
 * My recommendation would simply be to leave supercession (and its competitors dispensationalism and covenant theology) out of the article, and to strip the OT section down to the fact that Christians accepted the HB before they even settled on their own NT. Perhaps this section would be better presented as brief summaries of the settling of Jewish and Christian canons -- the Jewish canon first, because it is most relevant, and in fact, really part of the definition of HB. The Christian canon article is incredibly convoluted imo. Wiki needs a much more concise summary, that could be used in a range of articles in fact. We would only need to pick up on the OT part of that, and essentially on the results rather than the process.
 * Looking forward to more of your comments. Alastair Haines 00:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PS I realize I've only mentioned that I think there is documented evidence of Jewish misperceptions regarding Christianity. Let me add, I think Christians are hopeless at understanding Judaism, which is a very serious problem. It is beyond the scope of this article, of course. The sad fact of the matter is, however, that Christians typically treat their OT as though it were superceeded, and even where they do use it, they tend to be far too quick to read NT ideas into any and every OT text. My own area atm is Song of Songs -- about Jesus and the Church ... I think not! Alastair Haines 00:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PPS when I say anachronistic, I mean it fairly strictly. Interpretation is not anachronistic, as you point out. However, like the Song example, to interpret texts as though later interpretations were available to writer and readers is anachronistic. Also, as I've said before, my whole objection to OT is that it does precisely this. The Tanakh speaks of berit olam not berit zeqenah. The covenants in the Tanakh are ancient regarding inception, but fresh in regard to relevance in the teaching of the writing prophets. When speaking to Christians I use OT because it is normal usage. When writing about the HB, I use HB, because that is what I mean -- the scriptures as understood by those who wrote them -- before the LXX. Alastair Haines 01:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a constructive dialog; I hope I can join it in the same spirit. Historically, Christians did not need to explicitly "accept" or "adopt" the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, they continued to use the same scriptures they used when they were Jews. By all accounts the first Christians were Jews, though it quickly spread to the Gentiles. The Gospels record Jesus reading the scriptures in the synagogue, and quotations of it and allusions to it appear throughout the New Testament. (Most quotations appear to be from the LXX incidentally.) Questions of canon didn't come up seriously until Marcion (2d century) tried to reject the entire Old Testament, and also tried to reject the God it described as an evil being. Naturally, he was condemned as a heretic and the issue of canon had to be addressed. Christians and Jews grew apart very gradually; during the Kochbar (sp?) around 135, some of his supporters finally balked when he called himself the Messiah, suggesting they were otherwise supportive of the Jewish revolt. In the 4th century, in Antioch, John Chrysostom had to tell Christians not to take part in Jewish festivities, suggesting that at least in that city there was still considerable overlap. As far as referring to the scriptures as understood by those who wrote them, that itself is a matter of interpretation. Christians naturally believe that the prophets were believing in and anticipating Jesus Christ. To assume they did not is to adapt the Jewish perspective. That's perfectly fine of course, and it's a view adapted even in some Protestant seminaries, but it is not 100% neutral with regard to Judaism and Christianity. I honestly don't know what could be. Wesley 01:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about taking so long to reply (and thanks for your patience).

To Alastair: I agree with nearly everything in principle, it's now mostly a matter of writing it up well. Regarding Jewish vs. Christian views of Christianity's approach to "old" and "new" testaments, I think you understand that in my opinion it is not just a matter of opposing POV's, but of historical scholarship. However, even that is not the issue at hand. What is important, rather, is that since the idea of "old and new" covenants underlies use of the term "Old Testament" for biblical books, and it is the objection to that usage (mostly for that precise reason) which gives this article most of its relevance, there do need to be links to articles explaining how "Old Testament" has been understood as a theological idea in Christian history (and today). This includes supercessionism, which is not mostly about ancient Marcion, but about the idea that salvation through practical commandments has been superceeded by salvation through Jesus, and made contingent upon the latter. Not just a few contemporary Christians believe this, and in my opinion supersessionism must remain. So much for things relevant to the article itself.

To Alastair and Wesley: Less relevant to the article, but because this dialogue has been quite fruitful, is the following: Often one finds an axis of tension between two seemingly conflicting values within a group. When this happens, what defines the borderlines of the group are the extremists who reject one or the other poles of the axis. This is highly typical of Judaism.

In Christianity this exists (among other things) in the tension between Old and New Testaments: How can they both be true? The possible responses are (a) to resolve the apparent contradiction and affirm the value of both, or (b) to reject either the Old or New Testaments. The latter course was taken by Judaism (no New Testament) and by Marcion (no Old Testament), such that both remained outside Christianity, and even served to help define the historical limits of Christianity itself. A Christian who remains within those borders may resolve the apparent conflict in quite a number of ways, but these are not likely to be acceptable to those outside the group.

To Wesley: I agree overall, though some of the details seem a bit fuzzy. In general, historical Christianity found it necessary to do things to disassociate itself from Judaism for far longer than the reverse. Bar-Kokhba seems to have nothing to do with Christianity.

That "Christians naturally believe that the prophets were believing in and anticipating Jesus Christ" and Jews not, this is of course quite true and is the basis for both the Jewish-Christian (forced) disputes of the middle ages, and even for missionary / counter-missionary polemics today.


 * As far as referring to the scriptures as understood by those who wrote them, that itself is a matter of interpretation. Christians naturally believe that the prophets were believing in and anticipating Jesus Christ. To assume they did not is to adapt the Jewish perspective.

There is some truth in this, but it needs more precision. "The scriptures as understood by those who wrote them" is called the peshat tradition in Judaism, such that there is a position within traditional rabbinic Judaism that was willing to read the bible beyond the limits of the rabbinic interpretive tradition of the oral law. Such an approach was rare in classical Christianity (i.e to read the bible without assuming it implies Jesus), which is why even today an Orthodox Jew may be more comfortable with an approach that reads the bible using literary techniques (techniques that imply neither Jesus nor rabbinic law) than would a fundamentalist Christian. "The scriptures as understood by those who wrote them" is presumably also a reference to academic study of the bible, which is indeed a kind of interpretation, and one that doesn't see the prophets as anticipating Jesus according to most of its practitioners. Christian bible scholars generally see the prophets as anticipating Jesus in an allegorical or spiritual fashion, but not in the plain sense of their words. Dovi 06:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be so long in replying Dovi. You introduce a new issue (in my opinion) with "salvation through practical commandments has been superceeded". Catholic theologians, in particular, would oppose this interpretation of Christianity. However, Protestants are also opposed to antinomianism. Yes antinomian, free-from-law, views of Christianity would certainly argue this way. However, there is a huge volume of Christian literature from Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant writers who generally express the view that obedience to God's laws brings freedom from slavery to pursuing our own desires.


 * This goes beyond the article, but I'm sure Jewish writers say the same thing too. Faith in God is seen in obedience. This kind of faith is evidence of salvation. I would have thought this was part of our common theology. The difference, I would have thought, lies in understanding atonement for disobedience, not in what constitutes obedience. The theologically astounding claim of the New Testament is that past, present and future disobedience is once and for all atoned for by the crucifixion of the man Jesus of Nazareth. This was preached while the second temple still stood, and sacrifices were still being offered! Saul of Tarsus even fulfilled a vow at the second temple, after returning from preaching the Nazarene Way in Greece. Amazing stuff.


 * I think, despite what I've just said, and despite my previous objections, so long as supercessionism is presented with some kind of caveat, it is a highly relevant issue. Hebrew Bible is a term, mainly for those of Jewish and Christian faith or knowledgable of these faiths. It is not a blanket, "politically correct" replacement for Tanakh or OT. As such, this article needs to help those who would mistakenly apply the word as a substitute for OT or Tanakh. But more importantly, it should help people of Jewish or Christian faith articulate their position with objective precision in an academic context. Some treatment of textual and theological issues has its place, then.


 * But to conclude, I wholeheartedly agree with the peshat approach you mention, Dovi. I have been so guilty of "looking for Jesus" in OT texts in the past, that I'm humbled enough to be patient with others who make that mistake. But for sure, it is a mistake, and a serious one if you believe God to be the one who is actually speaking through the text of the Jewish scriptures. What I do now, however, is see the Tanakh everywhere in the NT. Perhaps I'm just as guilty of reading the Ancient Scriptures into the New Commentary of the early Christians, but I don't think so, since they cite them everywhere. Alastair Haines 13:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, just got back from vacation. You wrote:


 * You introduce a new issue (in my opinion) with "salvation through practical commandments has been superceeded".


 * Actually nothing new, but perhaps I should have been more clear and written "salvation through the practical commandments has been superceeded", i.e. the practical commandments of the Mosaic Law, which are the terms of what Christianity regards as the older covenant, and it is these which it views as having been largely superceeded through Jesus. I never meant to imply that Christianity, Catholic or Protestant, is antinomian or denies the value of acts in general. Dovi 08:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)