Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: The OT?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jonathan D. Safren" <yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il>
  • To: "Bill Ross" <BillRoss AT norisksoftware.com>, "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The OT?
  • Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:57:06 +0200



<Bill>
Is there concensus among Jews as to what constitutes the Hebrew bible?

[JDS] Yes.

I thought that when the christian canons
were formed, the Hebrew bible ended with 2 Chronicles. Is that not true?

[JDS} It still does end with Chronicles. Only the order of the books and
their arrangement are different:

I. Torah = 5 Books of Moses

II. Prophets
A. Former Prophets
1. Joshua
2.Judges
3. I & IISamuel
4. I & II Kings

B. Latter Prophets
1. Isaiah
2. Jeremiah
3. Ezekiel
4. The Twekve Proohets (Dodecapropheton)

C. Writings
A. The Emet Books
1. Psalms
2. Proverbs
3.Job (in some codices, e.g. Leningrad, Job precedes Proverbs)

B. The 5 Scrolls
1. Song of Songs
2. Ruth
3. Lamentations
4. Ecclesiastes
5. Esther (here too other codices have a differentarrangement)

C, Other Writings
1. Daniel
2. Ezra-Nehemiah
3. I & II Chronicles

All in all, 24 Books


[Bill] What, if any, are the main strains of consensus concerning the Hebrew
canon, and is it considered "canon" or "rule" or is it only the
covenant, or Torah (Gen-Deut) that constitute the commandments?

[JDS] If by canon you mean Holy Scriptures, there has been 100% consensus
among Jews since the second century CE at the latest. The Samaritans have
only the Torah and an entirely different and shorter Joshua.
As for laws or commandments, there are none outside the Torah.

<Jonathon>
>>So, although Jewish and Christian scholars may be talking about two
similar colllections of books and the same individual books, I feel it
would be best to specify which Bible is being referred to, especially
when the order of books makes a difference.

<Bill>
As I muse on this, the christian scriptures uniformly apply the
appellation "the scriptures" or "the writings" to the Hebrew bible,
along with "the law and prophets" and the "older treasure" [OT], and
never even give a name to any newer collection [which did not exist,
obviously].

[JDS] In the Mishna, one finds the following terms used to describe the
Jewish Bible or Tanakh: kitvei haQodesh (Holy Scriptures), 24 Sefarim (the
24 Books).

{Bill] The Tanach refers specifically to the Hebrew bible as recognized
today,
and specifically to the version in the certain order, etc. How long has
this been the recognized "canon?"

[JDS] As I wrote above, since at least the second century CE.
Tanakh is a late name, and couldn't have come into existence before the Jews
starting writing codices of the whole Bible, i.e., not before the 8th
century. But check me on the dates.

[Bill} But let's all pleeeaasse lose the ridiculous word "testament!"

[JDS] Not a ridiculous word at all, just archaic. Testament = Covenant,
treaty. The idea is that God made a treaty with the Israelites in which they
accepted him as their sole sovereign and took upon themselves the
obligations of observing the stipulations in this suzerainty treaty, the
main one being that they are not to serve any other sovereigns.
As for Old and New, these are a matter of Christian theology. But I think
that any serious student of the Tanakh will accept that the Torah is the
story of a divine covenant =suzerainty treaty, or covenants, and the
classical prophets were the defenders of this covenant.
--------------
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
Beit Berl Post Office
44905 Israel

"sha'alu shelom yerushalayim yishlayu kol 'ohavayikh"






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page