Disputatio:Thanach

Ugh... great I'm going to have to write a whole thing on why I object to this :/ --Iustinus (disputatio) 18:21, 14 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's only two sentences ... maybe just rewrite the way you want to, and see what Utilo says? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:29, 14 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's four sentences now! What's the objection, Iustine? I'll leave you and Utilo to discuss it ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:43, 15 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also from my side, please, spare us the suspense and tell us what's wrong with this page (or title, or content, or what?)!--Utilo (disputatio) 19:58, 15 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I was so coy about it because I didn't have time to go off on all the issues here (especially, involved as I am, in a ridiculously long article on a Jewish topic I have been writing offline—and I will not spare you *that* suspense ;) ). But thinking about it, I guess I'm assuming too many of the issues raised at Disputatio:Biblia#Iudaeorum, which may not apply here. Specifically, can the תנ״ך legitimately be called Biblia in Latin? To which I say "of course it can!" Biblia (or at least βιβλία) was already the settled term well before the New Testament became an issue. I had started researching citations for this, but now that I think of it that's probably moot, because you're likely not arguing that תנ״ך replaces Biblia, but Vetus Testamentum.

But even that has its problems. Keep in mind that the Hebrew Bible is old enough for the Romans to have encountered it. I know that's obvious, but think about what that implies: why are we insisting on Hebrew words, in Modern pronunciation, spelled with a (I presume) German-based transliteration system, when we're talking about an ancient Mediterranean literature? If we're going to use Hebrew, shouldn't we at least go by Translitteratio Linguae Hebraicae here? I mean, Thora is already attested in antiquity (e.g. Isidori Hispalansis Etymologiarum liber 6.1.5—by the way, a good passage in general for this topic!), and while I can't find any ancient attestations for Nebiim or Chethubim, neither would we be the first to use those. To say nothing of the lemma itself, which, if we're going to use it, should really be Thanach

--Iustinus (disputatio) 02:05, 16 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, another attestation of Thora occurs in Origen, Selecta in Ezechielem 13.801: Δεύτερος δὲ ἔλεγε σύμβολον εἶναι τὸ Θαῦ τῶν τὸν νόμον τετηρηκότων· ἐπείπερ ὁ νόμος παρ’ Ἑβραίοις Θωρὰ καλεῖται, καὶ τὸ πρῶτον αὐτοῦ στοιχεῖόν ἐστι τὸ Θαῦ· καὶ σύμβολον εἶναι τῶν κατὰ τὸν νόμον βεβιωκότων. Still nothing for the "nakh" though. --Iustinus (disputatio) 00:47, 17 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'd rather merge this with Biblia anyway. I mean, in the vernacular I normally use "Bible," and just understand that Christians add some more books... I only use "Tanakh" or "Hebrew Bible" when I'm actively contrasting with the New Testament. --Iustinus (disputatio) 05:11, 16 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanations! And: I am looking forward to your article on that Jewish topic! - Pronunciation: I don't object, if we use Translitteratio Linguae Hebraicae instead of my "German-based" system (indeed, I've taken it from the German Wikipedia) and also Thanach, Nebiim or Chetubim. But I don't think we should bother about ancient pronunciation when speaking about the word "Thanach", which seems to be a rather modern term; better look how modern Israelis pronounce it. - An extra-article? Many Wikipedias have separate articles on Thanach and (Christian) Bible, maybe to give Jews and Christians a chance, to express their (distinct?) point of view (even when writing on a "scientific" level). The Hebrew Wikipedia only has Tanach, while the lemma Bible refers to Thora, Christianity and New Testament.--Utilo (disputatio) 19:05, 16 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]