Relating to this question: Is the Jewish Tanakh same as the 'Old Testament' which Christians use?
Do they contain the same books and is the textual content same? If not where do they differ?
-
2Variants of this question have also been asked here and here on C.SE.– CalebMar 5, 2013 at 9:56
-
The question has nothing to do with canonicity , but explicitly where does tanakh differs from Christian OT.– bibJul 4, 2013 at 3:25
-
There was an answer here which gave sufficient evidence that they differ significantly , so why was it deleted? I guess it talked about some peschita versions..– bibApr 2, 2015 at 5:53
-
@bib both are same things - the Tanakh is Old Testament. Books are identical. The only difference between Jewish and Christian version of OT is in English translations and verse numbering in some places.– Michael16Oct 12, 2016 at 16:51
-
Important difference is the role played by Tanakh and the Old Testament in the respective religious traditions. While in Christianity the two Testaments are the foundation books, with later writings being comments/interpretation of the two, Tanakh is the earliest in the series of the texts (followed by the Talmuds, Mishnah, Gemara, etc.), which are largely reporting historical and intellectual developments over along period of time.– Roger V.Apr 6 at 9:14
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
Here is a chart which gives a comparison of the books and order:
The other important thing to remember is that the Jewish Tanach exists primarily in Hebrew and is augmented by commentary from within the Jewish tradition. Any translation, especially one whose translation was influenced by other theologies will deviate in terms of content.
-
2Thanks for the useful link resends: please can you summarise the content within your answer in case it doesn't last forever? Mar 4, 2013 at 16:28
-
1It looks to me like that article is the result of a bad copy-and-paste job. There are some strange missing words in it. One example: "the oldest copy of the Tanakh, the , places Chronicles at the head of the third division". Huh?– TRiGMar 4, 2013 at 19:38
-
3
In general the Tanakh is the same as the Christian Old Testament. The differences are:
Some Christians use a few extra books, which are called deuterocanonical (or apocrypha, by those who reject them). These books are found in the earliest Greek translation of the Tanakh, but were later rejected by the rabbis.
The books of the Tanakh are usually printed in a different order than you will find in Christian editions. Also, some books (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, and the twelve minor prophets) are split in the Old Testament. Wikipedia has a wonderful table showing these differences.
Jewish publishers use a different versification scheme than Christian publishers. This is perhaps the biggest practical difference and can be a real hassle on this site. Thankfully, the chapter and verse divisions are not original and can be ignored in interpretation. This difference just makes citing verses tricky.
The Jewish Tanakh follows the Masoretic textual tradition, while some Christian groups follow ancient translations based on other textual traditions (Septuagint, Peshitta, Vulgate, etc.) or combine readings from different textual traditions. The Jewish Publishing Society's 1917 English translation is subtitled, "According to the Masoretic Text". Eastern Orthodox translators follow the Septuagint reading. Syriac Orthodox translators use an ancient translation called Peshitta. Catholic translators regularly consult the Vulgate, an ancient Latin translation. Protestant and interdenominational translation are influenced by these sources and (since 1946) the Dead Sea Scrolls. Generally, the differences are minor to nonexistent, but occasionally a word or phrase will differ. Usually the translator will note such variations in footnotes.
Jewish and Christian translators sometimes pick a primary reading of a Hebrew text because of doctrinal considerations. The good news is that we have access to the same original text and can reason together about their meaning in the original language.
Summary
Jews and Christians use essentially the same set of Hebrew Scriptures. Like any text from before the invention of the printing press, there are variations between copies. But as a practical matter, the variations are minor and rarely impact interpretation.
answered Mar 5, 2013 at 21:39
Jon 'links in bio' EricsonJon 'links in bio' Ericson
30.2k41 gold badges154 silver badges332 bronze badges
-
Hey @Jon, in point 5 you mention that "We have access to the same original text and can reason together". Where would I find the original text of scripture (Old Testament in my case)? I know ESV and ASV are very close translations to the original text. Mar 12, 2013 at 4:46
-
2@contactmatt: Well, I mean the Hebrew text itself in that point. Obviously that requires knowing the language or having access to someone who does. (I gloss over the issues in #4, of course, and assume we can use the MT, rather than the LXX. Not everyone agrees about that.) But your question is so good it's been asked before: Which 'modern' English translation of the Bible is considered the 'closest' or most accurate translation? Mar 12, 2013 at 16:49
-
@JonEricson, #4 should read "One textual tradition of the Tanakh is called the Masoretic Text." It's like in NT studies there are the different families of manuscripts; Western, Receptus, and Alexandrian. Apr 27, 2013 at 17:09
-
I agree with @FrankLuke that point 4 isn't phrased exactly right, but am not sure if his suggestion gets at the point you're trying to make. Maybe something like: "The Jewish Tanakh follows the Masoretic textual tradition, while some Christian groups follow ancient translations based on other textual traditions (Septuagint, Peshitta, Vulgate, etc.) or combine readings from different textual traditions."– NoahApr 28, 2013 at 23:07
-
2@Ali: Not at all! A better analogy is that oranges bought in one store are the same as oranges sold in another even though they are packaged differently. Jul 2, 2013 at 8:56
The question has mostly been answered, but I just wanted add a few things and to point out again that the Jewish text puts the Tanakh (Old Testament) in order of:
- Law (Torah)
- Prophets
- Writings
While the "Christian" version mixes it all up all over the place.
Jesus said in Luke 24:44 that He had fulfilled much of what was spoken of Him in "The law, the prophets and the writings." So one must ask if changing the order could possibly impact our reading understanding or emphasis of importance at times.
The word "Tanakh" is an acronym which stands for "Torah (law), Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings).
The words "Old Testament" and "New Testament" are extra biblical and can create a division between the two sections to the extent that many see the "Old Testament" as being "Old" and therefore irrelevant or less relevant than the newer testament.
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." 2 Tim 3:16-17
Paul used only the Old Testament scriptures to prove what he was teaching to the Bereans showing that it is not only possible but wise to use the earliest scriptures to really understand the context the Messiah walked into AND what He has fulfilled already and what He is YET to fulfil at the second coming.
Examples of end times in the Tanakh:
Isaiah 2
Micah 4
Zechariah 14
Ezekiel 40-48
Isaiah 65 and 66
-
1"Testament" is an old word for "covenant", so the Old Testament is a book based on the "old covenant", i.e. the Mosaic/Dueteronomic covenant. The New Testament is based on the new covenant of the cross. For Christians there are legitimate reasons to call the old covenant "old", and it Biblical too, see 2 Cor 3:14 and Hebrews 8:6, and 8:13.– curiousdannii ♦Apr 2, 2015 at 7:47
-
@user8276 Welcome to BHSE! We're a little different here, please read our Site Directives as you ask and answer questions. Thank you!– TauApr 4, 2015 at 3:50
-
@user8276 While your information may have some bearing on the OP's question, it fails to address it, and instead, goes off on a tangent not addressed by the OP(End Times Prophecy). I'm sure this is the reason for the -1; you could have posted some of this as a comment, otherwise consider sticking to responding to the OP's question, and refrain from 'editorializing'. Thank you!– TauApr 4, 2015 at 3:56