Talk:Old Testament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] OT laws fragment

In the section, "The naming of the Old Testament" in the paragraph beginning "The relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament is controversial among Christians," there seems to be a fragment: "Similarly, the degree to which the Old Testament and its laws applies to Christians." This does not seem to me to be a sentence. I would edit it, but I'm not sure exactly what is intended or how to fix it cleanly.

--Jberk 16:48, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship with Tanakh

Shouldn't this page be redirected to the one on Tanach, and this material added there? There are many Wikipedia pages that are unnecessary duplicates, like this one, and the ones on Go/Pente and the ones on Jehovah/Yahweh. RK

I would say not. The view that the Tanakh and the Old Testament are the same is a very Christian view, not supported by most Jewish people I know. The discussion on Communion, the Lord's Supper, the Last Supper, and the Eucharist, clearly pointed out an advantage of Wiki is not paper.

I don't follow this; there must be some linguistic confusion here. For a few sentences here and there, Jews and Christians disagree over the text - but for the vast majority of the text, over 99% of it - they agree that it is precisely the same thing. Is this debate over a few sentences here and there what those Jewish people you know were referring to? Or do they believe that Christians added entire new books to the Hebrew Bible? Chrisitians, in fact, did not do this. But they did add the New Testament and Apocrypha; however, Chrisitians have never claimed that these books are part of the Old Testament/Tanach. RK

You're right, they did not, RK. We need to decide what to do with different terms for similar rites and liturgical phenomena. I do agree that in this case there is little difference. However I still think it should have two entries, or at least a double title. Someone familiar with Christianity will no doubt have trouble finding the Old Testament under 'Tanach'. The case of Eucharist/Communion as I see it deserves two separate entries, since the liturgical practice of each version of the 'Last Supper' and the theological doctrines behind them differ significantly, and could each probably be regarded typical of Roman Catholicism and of Protestantism.--TK

Could someone tell me more about which Christian scholars think the New Testament doesn't apply to Jews and why? Clearly Jews would think it doesn't apply to them, but the New Testament authors were mostly Jews, if not all of them, and their audiences clearly included both Jews and Gentiles. This is especially obvious in the Gospel according to St. Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews. I don't mind including that view here, but it would be helpful to include the rationale as well, I would think. --Wesley

As I had never heard of the "Tanach" until coming here, the idea that it is identical with the Old Testament is certainly new to me. It would have been impossible for someone like myself, who is rather well-read in a variety of subjects, including the bible, to find the Old Testament if there were only an entry labeled "Tanach". -- Zoe

Ok, enough back and forth. Regarding the Old Testament and the Jewish canon, I would agree based on what others have written in the Biblical canon article that the Jewish canon did not change in the second century, simply because it had not been formally discussed and approved until then, around the time of the Council of Jamnia if I'm not mistaken. Before that time, it's clear that many Jews used the Septuagint, and that most extant manuscripts of the Septuagint include part or all of the books generally called Deuterocanonical or Apocryphal. When the Jews did officially designate a canon, it was of course based on Hebrew manuscripts that did not include these books. Would not those Jews and synagogues who discontinued use of the Septuagint in favor of Hebrew manuscripts, not also at least informally have discontinued use of the Deuterocanonical books? Or am I reading into history something that didn't happen?

The larger point is that I think this article should avoid saying that the Jewish Tanach as used today is synonymous with the Christian Old Testament. For the first 1,500 years of its history, the Christian Church included the 'deuterocanonical' books in its Old Testament; the Tanach corresponds only to the Protestant Old Testament which has those books removed. The two canons are still very similar, but they are not identical. Wesley 04:23 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

I see no reason to assume that the Jews used the same manuscripts for the septuagint as non-Jews. Perhaps not all books were part of the original septuagint and additional books were translated separately into Greek and incorporated without note into the non-Jewish version. Ezra Wax

Well, the reason to assume it is that AFAIK there aren't any septuagint manuscripts that correspond to the Tanach canon, although some manuscripts omit a couple of books that others contain, like IV Maccabees or the 151st Psalm. However, some differences like the prayers in the book of Esther or the Song of the Three Youths in the book of Daniel are interspersed with the main text, and (in my purely amateur opinion) unlikely to have been translated separately. Is there any particular reason or evidence to suppose there were separate 'jewish' and 'non-jewish' versions of the septuagint? But I should probably do some additional research and see whether the scholars who study these things have a more informed opinion. Wesley

This paragraph is quite problematic:

The Christian Old Testament, for the most part, is identical to the Tanach. The first difference encountered is that they have a slightly different order of books. The second major difference is that the Christian Old Testament also includes many books that have extra paragraphs that do not exist in the Jewish version of the Bible. This is because the Christian Old Testament comes from the Septuagint, while the Jewish Tanach draws from a similar, but distinct textual tradition.

I have no problem for the first difference; however, there are major difficulties (mainly failure of nuance and precision) in the second difference. For one, the base text of the O.T. for Protestants is not the Septuagint (LXX) as implied in the article, but the Hebrew Massoretic text. Eastern Orthodoxy still uses the LXX, and the article should also incorporate the Roman Catholic position as well. SCCarlson 01:11 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] "the Old Testament is a translation and modification of the Tanach"

User:Jesus Saves! removed edits to this page indicating that the Old Testament is a translation, that the translation includes modifications. He retained the portion of the edit that indicates the books are reordered. (Though he did introduce that idea that Kings I and Kings II are separate books, as opposed to two volumes of a single book.) I propose that the previous edit be restored. OneVoice 01:24, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think you've got the Old Testament and the LXX mixed up; the LXX does include a lot of changes, and it's in fact the only text which includes the Apocrypha. However, Christians do not need the LXX; the Masoretic Text is widely used in translations of the Old Testament.

This would be folly for NT scholars. Quotes from the OT that appear in the NT are clearly from the LXX. There's really no debate about that. The LXX was used by the NT writers and is therefore very important. Also, your use of the term "Apocrypha" puts you in a Protestant camp and your neutral point of view is therefore compromised. AstralisLux

Perhaps so, but I think not. The Masoretic Text contains both kri and ktiv...this concept is lost in translation. In addition, some passages are translated to further a particular viewpoint, one that holds that the Old Testament foretells the birth and life of Jesus rather than possibly better translations that would not fit the widely accepted account(s) of the life of Jesus. I would rather not enter into a detailed discussion of each passage and how it could/should be translated. The fact of translation means that one must choose between words in English, or whichever language, that do not match the original text. This choice of words in the translated language often contains significant editorial content. The act of translation inherently contains acts of modification of meaning. A simple example is that several names are used to God in the Tanach, any faithful translation must use the same word for each name of God each time it appears. This is not the case in any translation that I have ever seen. Another conflict-free (hopefully) indication is how to translation malachah as opposed to avodah. Hence, the claim that the Old Testament is a translation and modification of the Tanach. OneVoice 02:41, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I deleted this phrase: Judaism accepts as Scripture the same books as those found in the Protestant Old Testament, though the ordering of the books in the Jewish Bible differs from that of the Protestant English Old Testament.

To: Most Jews accept...

The reason is that Judaism is not monolithic. There are many Jews, (Ethiopian Jews, for example) who accept books that are found in the Catholic bible, which are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics and apocryphal by Protestants. To claim that Judaism rejects these books is false. The strains of Judaism around the globe who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their canon are just as ancient as the Palestinian Jews who are the most common. AstralisLux 13:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that any picture of Judiasm that implies that it considers JUST these books to be the whole of Scriptural knowledge is actually more of a Protestant Christian view than a Jewish one. Judiasm certainly has a special place for Scripture, but Scripture is and understanding Scripture is actually a much much broader rnge of sources, tranditions, and so forth. What I'm saying is that in Judiasm, the implied "Sola Scriptura" concept doesn't really apply or make sense. Judiasm is far far more fluid and compromising as to what sources and citations it considers important to understanding the religion.

[edit] "Jews count the 12 "minor" prophets as a single book"?

The page indicates that Jews count the 12 "minor" prophets as a single book. does anyone have a reference to this? OneVoice 00:31, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you were to look into any copy of the Tanach you would see that they are treated as one book called "Trei Asar" meaning (the book of) Twelve. Ezra Wax

Yes, indeed, but is it an indication that they are one book? The Torah has five distinct books yet we have one name for it. Could the Trei Asar, a collection of 12 independent books, be a section of Neviim rather like Neviim Rishonim and Neviim Achronim? OneVoice 00:48, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I recall that the reason why the books were included in one book was because they were so small that the Rabbis were worried that they would get lost if they weren't put together into one book. I don't, however, have a source for you. Ezra Wax

Surely that would be one scroll rather than one book. Each is an independent work, no? Indeed Ovadiah could be easily misplaced. Not his fault really. ;) OneVoice

I was thinking about whether to call it a book or a scroll. I don't think it makes a difference. In hebrew it's sefer. The same word for both book and scroll. Ezra Wax

Yes, indeed, but its not the same in English. This is one small indication of the dangers of translation. Something as simple as one sefer, is it one book or one scroll? Which makes sense from the point of view of the Amoraim? The Torah is one scroll, yet it is five books. Would it not make sense to place the 12 books of the Trei Asar in one scroll? (not one book.) OneVoice 01:14, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Do either of you actually know what you are talking about? A scroll is a megillah (rolled on only one side). A sefer is generic and refers to any other text (scroll rolled on both sides or a bound book with pages). And yes, Trei Asar is traditionally counted as one book. Danny 01:17, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes. You are pointing out another confusing translation. The word scroll can refer to either two sided scroll or a one sided scroll, while the word sefer can refer to a two sided scroll or a book but not a one sided scroll. And a one sided scroll is specifically a megillah. There you have it. The ganze megillah. Ezra Wax

Danny, can you provide a source for "And yes, Trei Asar is traditionally counted as one book." OneVoice 01:22, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's a gemara in the first perek of Megillah where they count the books of the Tanach and describe what goes in. Don't have it here, but if you have a Shas look it up, with the Rishonim. Danny 01:23, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Which daf? I looked there before, but somehow I kept on missing it. Ezra Wax

Don't remember offhand. Try dalet or vav. Danny 01:29, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

All I can find is on daf zayin where it talks about koheles, shir hashirim, and esther. Are you sure it is in Megillah? Is it perhaps in Sanhedrin? Ezra Wax

Could be Danny 02:34, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In his prologues to the Vulgate, Jerome enumerates 24 books in the Old Testament, counting the 12 minor prophets as one book (liber). He says the 24 books are the 24 elders who threw their crowns before the Lamb in the Book of Revelation. Rwflammang 00:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject

Based on a suggestion in Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, I have started the skeleton of a WikiProject to try to cut down on the overlap between the various presentations of the canon. I think that a lot of people working here will want input on this. Feel free! Mpolo 13:28, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV re: Jesus of Nazareth / Christ

Dear Jfdwolff: my editing on 7 June 2005 of the last sentence of the first para resulting in "Judaism ... does not recognise or accept Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Saviour and Christ of God, nor therefore the New Testament" was intended to deal precisely with the problem exisitng in the text as I found it ("Judaism ... does not recognize or accept Jesus and the New Testament"), namely that in this form it did injustice to the position of those of the earlier Covenant, the Jewish people. You cannot deny the accuracy of the logic of my emendation. This is precisely what separates Christians from Jews, not that either of them seriously denies that Jesus of Nazareth has ever lived, but that Christians believe him to be the Saviour and Christ of G-d promised in the Hebrew Scriptures, whilst Jews do not. Jews are awaiting the first coming of G-d's promised Saviour, Christians his second. –- Furthermore, with genuine respect for your sensitivity in this matter, Jesus Who?? e.g. Jesus ben Sirach? What is the problem with identifying him at the earliest opportunity in this article as Jesus of Nazareth? I have previously been wrapped over the knuckles, and quite rightly so, that this encyclopedia aims to inform the hitherto uninformed. Portress 13:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: Having just gone back to the article and glanced over the rest of it – I have to admit that I still have not read it in full as I chanced across it, and it is not my priority –, I am highly amused to find that it has hitherto aroused no NPOV criticism that several times the office/name "Christ" has been used (which, remember, means "the Anointed One", and if used of Jesus of Nazareth the claim "of G-d" is always implied), without the qualification I would certainly expect in a universal encyclopedia article dealing with a subject that concerns essentially Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. The belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ of G-d promised in the Hebrew Scriptures is not shared by the Muslims either, despite their high regard for him (and for his mother Mary for that matter). Portress 14:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV: BC (and AD)

NPOV requires BCE (and CE), even though this takes into account only the Jewish and the Chrisian position, since there is no universally accepted year numbering. Portress 14:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christian POV?

Article seems very Christian-centric. I have not yet found any discussion on which books Islam accepts - or not --JimWae 07:36, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

Islam doesn't accept any of the Old Testament officially, saying that the texts are corrupt and untrustworthy. Their only scripture is the Quran. I suppose this might be worth mentioning. The article is Christian-centric because it's about a Christian text. Hebrew Bible and Talmud, for instance, are separate articles, partly because they would never call this the "Old Testament." Wesley 15:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Dietary Laws

Christians do not follow the dietary restricions proscribed in the Hebrew Bible, due to a passage in Christian Bible's Mark 7:19, where Jesus makes "all foods clean." There is also in Christian Bible's Acts 11:5-10, where a Christian disciple has a vision (or dream?) about eating anything.

Still, how Christians pick which laws to obey from the Old Testament is quite inconsistent. Neither do they seem interested in applying the barbaric punishments for breaking them.

Shame on you. Just read the text. What "barbaric punishments" does the Torah actually indicate for violating the dietary laws? JFW | T@lk 09:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with dietary laws. Christians have the loopholes as I mentioned above. The other laws have barbaric punishments" Lev. 10:6, where God will kill everyone if just the priests misbehave; Lev. 20:9, any child cursing his ma or pa will be put to death; Exodus 21:29, where if someone's ox accidentally gores someone to death, the ox will be stoned to death and the owner killed; Numbers 15:32, where the Israelites stone someone to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath... ad nauseum. The bizarre, cruel, and ritualistic killing of animals (as commondanded by God). The shame is not mine.

Those that have the 10 Commandments monument fetish here in the U.S. really should add the punishments for breaking them. Exodus 20:3, e.g., requires the stoning to death of those who do not worship God (or their version thereof).

Your language remains offensive, and your Biblical literacy leaves much to be desided. I don't think there is the slightest point in offering rebuttals until you moderate your language. Here's for starters: the Mishnah (tractate Makkot) relates that religious courts rarely passed the death verdict more than once every 70 years. That is a better track record than Texas and Florida. Now go terrorise a blog somewhere and stop trolling Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 17:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The language is the Bible's, not mine. Those *are* the punishments. Look them up yourself. "Biblical literacy?" You think I made those verses up?

"bizarre, cruel, and ritualistic" is certainly not the Bible's. Anyway, have a nice day. JFW | T@lk 14:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template: Old Testament

I am willing to edit the template from the New Testament article if we can decide on an acceptable means of displaying the differences in canon by religion. This might just be a can of worms better left closed though. Rkevins82 08:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the New Testament template assumes Catholic, Protestant and Greek Orthodox but excludes the additional books of the Armenian Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox. An Old Testament template could likewise just cite the Catholic, Protestant and Greek Orthodox, as is done at Books of the Bible, or one could include the other faiths also, as is done at Biblical Canon.

[edit] and potentially offensive?

i take offence to the "The term Old Testament is considered outdated and potentially offensive to a multi-religious audience." sentence. Any self-resecting religion recognizes and respects other religions' beliefs. If you are Christian call it Old Testament, if you are Jewish, it's the Tanakh, same as the British and old Commonwealth countries have 'colour' and Americans have 'color'. Has anyone thought that indeed 'Hebrew Testament' might ALSO be deemed offensive by a multi-religious audience? (Just sayin') We should add a link to a 'Hebrew perspecive' or something (the Tanakh article), and remove the 'offensive' crap. It's always been the Old Testament. It always will be the Old Testament as far as Christians are concerned. All Bibles I have ever seen have the thing listed as 'Old Testament' -- Hexagon1 14:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In addition, that sentence was really espousing a POV in a dab note that should be just to inform, as the rest of the note already does. It's gone now. Wesley 07:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments below at [1] Josh-Levin@ieee.org 02:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Judaism, Christianity & Islam

Most Muslims take the Qur'an as the verbatim word of Allah. I have heard it said that Christians and Jews throughout history have generally take their own scriptures as divinely "inspired" and yet humanly mediated reports, not usually as verbatim words of God. If so, there has always been a bit more distance between the Jews and their scriptures and the Christians and their scriptures than between Muslims and the Qur'an. Huston Smith and Daniel Boorstin both wrote that the Muslims believe in the "Inlibration" of God in the Qur'an. I imagine most Jews have for centuries or even millennia considered their own scriptures not as "Inlibrations" of God, but rather as paradoxically or problematically both proximate to and yet distant from God, both eloquent of the divine yet distinct from the divine. Am I on the right track in thinking this true of most of Judaism and its history? Can anyone help me back this idea up with facts?

I'm not very familiar with Muslim attitudes to the Qur'an, but my understanding is, as you say, that they believe it literally dictated word for word by Allah; that is why it is preferred to be read in Arabic. I can tell you that Christians don't believe the same about the Bible. They believe that God inspired the biblical writers through their own natural gifts and particular focusses (as well as the Holy Spirit) to produce the works they did. That's one reason why the fact that there are four Gospels is no problem - it's possible to believe that each Gospel reflects the concerns and viewpoint of the human authors as well as being the Word of God. DJ Clayworth 15:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For Christians holding to the verbal, plenary inspiration theory, the idea is not that there is more distance between the reader and God's original words, as if the human writers were a "filter" that diluted the message of God. Rather, the idea is that the Holy Spirit used the writers' individual personalities and experiences in such a way that the resulting texts were 100% human, but also 100% the words that God desired. Hence, interpreters in that school of thought will often speak of "what God was saying through Moses" (e.g.) OR of "what Moses is saying." The Presbyterian Church in America takes this position [2].

Christians who do *not* hold to the verbal, plenary inspiration theory will go a step further and posit that the human writers did introduce a certain distance or filtering of God's word. So the Presbyterian Church, USA will call the Bible an "authoritative" record of God's word, but not an "inerrant" one [3].jrcagle 02:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Warfield, representing the plenary verbal inspiration school, put it like this:

God is Himself the author of the instruments He employs. . .and has framed them into precisely the instruments He desired. . . There is just ground for the expectation that He will use all the instruments He employs according to their natures; intelligent therefore as intelligent beings, moral agents as moral agents. . . If God wished to give His people a series of letters like Paul's, He prepared a Paul to write them, and the Paul He brought to the task was a Paul who spontaniously would write just such letters. (The Biblical Idea of Revelation, pp. 92-93).

» MonkeeSage « 05:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple reverts: 'Original Testament'

Note that there have been at least two attempts -- perhaps more -- to search-and-replace the term "Old Testament" with "Original Testament." Is there anyway to permanently stop this bit of vandalism? The Editrix 20:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection? Clinkophonist 22:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a simple sentence to the introduction, mentioning "Original Testament". It is far less derogatory to Jews, and will be understood, and can be used by, Jews and Christians alike. I hope that, eventually, "Original Testament" will become the accepted term. It also carries an implication that the "Original Testament" is sufficient as the covenant between God and the Jews, independent of the Christian "New Testament".

I would appreciate an e-mail from the editrix (or editor) on this matter. Josh-Levin@ieee.org 16:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian View of the Ten Commandments

I have attempted a couple of times to clarify the paragraph which states:

"On the other hand, the New Testament repeats and applies to Christians a number of Old Testament laws, including "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18; cf. Golden Rule), "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul and strength" (Deut 6:4, the Shema), as well as every commandment of the Decalogue or Ten Commandments (Exod 20:1–17)."

It has been reverted twice by unregistered users. My point to clarify is that the New Testament restates 9 of the 10 commandments. It does not explicitly restate observance of the Sabbath. This isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of reading the text to see what is there. The latest revert claimed that prohibitions against murder and theft are not explicitly restated, so here are the cites: Matthew 19:18-19, Mark 10:18-19, Romans 13:9, James 2:11. That took about five seconds with a search engine.

My point is that if the entry explicitly says "every commandment of the Decalogue", that is simply textually inaccurate. Either include a notation concerning the Sabbath or change the phrase to something like "most of the Decalogue".

--shift6 05:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the phrase "every commandment of" to be explicitly clear. While it may be interpreted that "the whole law" includes a reiteration of the ten commandments, the specific commandment concerning the Sabbath itself was not restated.

--shift6 17:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"The Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath", etc. See Sabbath for details. Some people think only 6 of the commandments were selected by Jesus, see Hang Six: "What�s intriguing is that, in theological terms, Christianity should have Six Commandments, not Ten. Jesus deliberately snipped out four of the commandments, endorsing only six. The six he favored are moral standards that could readily be posted in any public structure, without violating the line between church and state. It is the Six Commandments, not the Ten, that ought to be central to this debate. ... Christianity honors the Old Testament, but views it as amended by the New--and in the New Testament, Jesus consciously rejects the Ten Commandments, replacing them with the Six Commandments. The story of the Six Commandments comes when a young man asks Jesus what a person must do to obtain entry to heaven. Jesus replies, "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." (Christ often simply said "life" to mean "eternal life," implying that the spirit world is the reality and the physical world is the veil.) Instructed to "keep the commandments," the young man then inquires, "Which ones?" Which ones? Aren�t there a famously invariant Ten Commandments? Debating which laws mean more than others was a favorite exercise of the rabbinical tradition in which Jesus was educated. Still, Talmudic commentators did not take it upon themselves to pick and choose among the Commandments that God gave to humanity etched in stone. Jesus, on the other hand, in Christian thinking holds a divine license to amend the scripture. And here�s what he says: "And Jesus said, �You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness. Honor your father and mother. Also, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.�" (Matthew 19:17-19, New Revised Standard Version. A parallel telling of the Six Commandments exchange is found at Mark 10:17-23.) Six count �em Six Commandments, not Ten. Can you name the missing four? " See also Cafeteria Christianity.

(unsigned)

Could we please avoid original research ? Clinkophonist 12:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Since there is conflict, even among biblical scholars, on how many and which of the ten commandments are re-inforced by Jesus, the article should stay as stating "some" since that is a more accurate view of the situation. Or alternatively, we could have a technical article that discusses the various arguments in-depth, if anyone wants to do that. Wjhonson 19:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Is 9 of 10 acceptable? With the Sabbath command noted as controversial? That's how I did my latest edit. As for an indepth discussion, seems like that's better held elsewhere, like at Ten Commandments, Sabbath, Antinomianism, Expounding of the Law#Antithesis of the Law, Cafeteria Christianity. 64.149.83.182 20:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When and how was the OT written?

I think this is an important omission here, or maybe deserves its own article. What do we know about the time and historical process in which the OT was written?

Dianelos 10:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this would be good... but I'm afraid that it will get sabatoged by fundamentalist scholars who want to believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (because of theological reasons), even though nearly every scholar at a major university thinks otherwise.

[edit] Historicity Section is APOLOGIA, not history?

This section claims that "For a time during that era, one group of scholars claimed that most of the societies mentioned in the Bible, such as the Assyrians and Babylonians, were allegedly fictional due to a (then) lack of archaeological evidence. This view had to be abandoned when the ruins of Nineveh, Babylon, Ashur, and other cities were found, complete with extant tablets describing many of the same events mentioned in the Old Testament, such as the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib during the reign of Hezekiah."

Who were these scholars? Who was this group? I've seen this claim bfore, but always on evangelical websites, and the scholars or their views are never quoted, nor is any reference given to a credible discussion of the field at that time. People that I've seen look into this issue generally find that when these sorts of claims are made, they tend to be a gross misrepresentation of the issues discussed, even in the 19th century: http://www.eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?p=10252

The point, of course, to make it look like any doubts to the historicity of the OT are always absurdly overzealous and quickly proven wrong.

There is also this later on: "a return to the 19th century idea that anything not confirmed by current archaeology should be dismissed." Well, I'm no expert here, but I don't ever remember that simplistic rule being a principle, in the 19th century or otherwise. Modern challenges to the historicity of the OT are not _merely_ arguments of abscence: they marshall lots of evidence that contradicts the stories and even gives insight on why or where they came from. There certainly are some arguments about why evidence we would expect to find if the stories were true is conspicuously missing: but they are a lot more involved than just "we haven't found evidence yet." See here for some discussion of these views: http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/reviews/unearthed.htm

Thus, I think this section should be put under strong suspicion of a POV-violation unless there is a truly rigorous evidence presented for the claims it makes. I'm not going to revise it without some discussion, but there should definately be some discussion! Plunge 20:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Another user: "Moderator" your points are completely accurate and the poster who keeps repasting these strawman arguments clearly has a fundamentalist agenda. It is spurious and dishonest rhetoric and the user should be ashamed of himself for deliberate lying... all to support his idea that the Bible must be totally historically accurate by claiming that people in respected academic circles make silly claims of absolute positivism. And his arguments about the gaellic wars? We aren't talking about the 13th century MT that has been handed down (e.g. a later copy) but being written later. Two different things. Too boot, his citation is an Egyptologist--not a biblical scholar. While K. Kitchen has done excellent work in Egyptian chronology, his book has been panned by every major journal and has only been praised in fundamentalist publications. Even Biblical Archaeology Review (R. Hendel), a source that would have been charitable to K. Kitchen was critical. He is uncomfortable even with the idea of doubt and that it is a matter of debate...

This objection has been here for several months, it fits with my (very) brief investigation and no sources have been forthcoming. I have removed the passage in question and reorganized the section slightly for style. Elliotreed 08:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The History section is illogical and obviously represents a fundamentalist agenda. K. Kitchen is not a biblical scholar, but an Egyptologist--nor does he represent mainstream scholarship. Citing Gaellic Wars is a non-sequitor. Nobody thinks that since the earliest manuscripts date from the 2nd century BC that the text has to be close to Pentateuch was written by that time; scholars date it later because it includes anachronisms, has late Hebrew, and generally reflects an Iron Age IIB perspective. Looking carefully at the text is not a return to Voltaire. Voltaire was the radical skeptic who questioned the Hittites--he, too, was not a biblical scholar and to quote him is a strawman fallacy.

[edit] jewish feasts

the jewish feast were in the spring

These feast were held mostly to celibrate being free or to celibrate God and all of his wounderful makings and also to get together and become one with there naighbors and friends —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.161.172.196 (talk • contribs).

Actually, that is not true. --ArmadilloFromHell 17:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page name

This article had been moved to Old Testament (Tanakh). I have reverted that change. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Parentheses are for disambiguation. For example, if Old Testament was a disambiguation page and there were pages like Old Testament (rock group), Old Testament (movie), Old Testament (city), etc, then Old Testament (Tanakh) would make sense. But preference is given to the term that most English speakers would recognize and 99.999% of English speakers consider the Old Testament to be this article. Hence, there is no need for a disambiguation page or patenthetical name. BigDT 20:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bible citations

Citations to passages which discuss "the Law" are not relevant to a specific discussion of the "Ten Commandments". If you want to discuss how Paul views the "Law" you should be quite clear and specific in your phrasing. Wjhonson 08:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epiphanius

This citation [4]: "We found this fellow perverting the nation and destroying the law and the prophets". See also Adherence to the Law and Antithesis of the Law.

is not going to fly. It's a page of a GREEK language edition of Ephiphanius with a few English footnotes. It says nothing about what the page is. This page here, is for English readers. We can't cite Greek texts with no comment. And we can't add our own comments on them. So tomorrow or so, I'm going to have to remove the cite. Feel free to find an English-language translation of what this page is supposed to say. Wjhonson 07:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ante-Nicene Fathers: Tertullian: Against Marcion: Dr. Holmes' Note: "In chap. xxiii. 2, after the words "perverting the nation," Marcion added, "and destroying the law and the prophets;" 75.0.7.56 10:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal

This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.

A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned. This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. Durova^Charge! 17:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bible

Can the information in this article be moved to the Old testament section in the Bible article? There is no information in the Bible articles "Old Testament" section. --69.244.153.46 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/l/d/Talk%7EOld_Testament_7680.html"