22

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 ...


16

Here is a chart which gives a comparison of the books and order: (source website) 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.


12

The short answer is "No". Perhaps there is a little confusion at work here, because this verse is embedded in one of the Aramaic passages found in the (otherwise) Hebrew Bible: it is not in Hebrew.1 The "-ah" ending that makes this look like "prophetess" (if the word was in Hebrew), is in fact the Aramaic definite article, = "the". (See heading 2.2, bullet #...


12

In the Hebrew Scriptures, death was "dirty." For example, contact with anything dead (whether animal or man) made the Israelite unclean in the ritual sense. Thus any scavenger was not appropriate for human consumption, since such animals consumed the refuse and/or carcasses of other animals. Only animals who chewed the cud (and split the hoof) were consumed ...


11

(Supplementary answer) kuriakē(i) (LSJ) (from κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ) is an adjectival form of kurios, "lord", which could be rendered "lordly" (on analogy of "royal" = "kingly", roughly!). As the adjective "royal" indicates something belonging to the monarch ("the royal palace"), so kuriakos indicates something belonging to the "lord". Rev 1:10 uses it with day: "...


11

In Judaism the final decision of which writings (Ketuvim, the third part of the Tanakh) were canonical did not happen until at least the end of the 1st century CE. This was after Christianity and Judaism had largely split, and so the two groups made different decisions about which writings were accepted as canonical. In particular, nascent Rabbinic Judaism ...


10

The lexical meaning of the noun שָׂטָן śāṭān in biblical Hebrew is "adversary" or the like. It occurs 27x in 23 verses in the Hebrew Bible. In most instances, it is clear this it is best translated by the word "adversary": in Psalm 109:6 it clearly refers to a hostile person; in the Samuel/Kings references, it refers to human opponents of Israel or its ...


9

Gen 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; God promised Abraham that his descendants would be as the sand of the sea, and as the stars of heaven. These two metaphors are in direct apposition to each other, and explain each other. The ...


9

Short Answer: "Generally it is the only translation" (but it is complicated) First, there are two (three?) different words in the references you give. The Nephilim (נְפִילִים; a word only ever found in plural form in OT) only appears three times in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 (twice). The word in 1 Ch 20:8 (also 1 Ch 20:6 and 1 Ch 8:2; cf. also 1 Ch 4:12) is ...


9

The ancient Hebrews used a lunar calendar; each month began with the sighting of the new crescent, and continued until the next sighting, which means that approximately half of the months had 29 days, and approximately half had 30. In order to keep the months in the correct seasons the Hebrews (like the Babylonians, Greeks etc.) must have practiced some form ...


9

The short answer to your questions is that none of these books have survived. This is not surprising; a very large number of books existed in the ancient world of which only a tiny minority have been preserved till now. But specifically to your first example: the Greek historian Ctesias claimed to have known the royal notebooks (basilikaì diphthérai), “in ...


9

From: B. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Eisenbrauns, 1990), § 21.2.3e, p. 361: +-------------+------+------------+------+ | Occurrences | Roots used* | | # % | # % | +----------+-------------+------+------------+------+ | Qal | 49180 | ...


9

Although I have my qualms about the particular way that OP has formulated the question, it is an interesting one and could be sharply focused on two texts -- or textual clusters -- in the Hebrew Bible. Terms must be distinguished; I would do it this way: polytheism is the belief that there are many gods who require devotion; henotheism is the belief that ...


9

Introduction I take it this is a question about the nature of the evidence relating to "life after death" in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament; hereafter "HB"), and the scholarly interpretation of that evidence. OP is looking for arguments in support of Christine Hayes' claim in the online lecture as cited: [Hayes:] No life after death in the Bible either ....


8

It's unlikely that John intended the phrase to refer to the "day of the Lord" as found in the prophets. While the phrase found in Revelation 1:10 isn't found elsewhere in the New Testament, the phrase "day of the Lord" is found in several places. When the phrase is used elsewhere in the New Testament, the grammar matches that found in the prophets. In 1 ...


8

This will be a partial answer, intended primarily as a supplement to this answer, since she mentioned that she is an expert in Jewish approaches but not in Christian approaches. (I can't add anything to her answer on Jewish approaches, so I won't bother trying to cover that material!) There are a variety of Christian approaches to the TaNaKh (i.e. the ...


8

You appear to be overlooking the obvious reading because you are attaching the plural to the wrong thing in your head. 1 sabbath = 1 period of 7 days ending in a day of rest. 2 sabbaths = 2 periods of 7 days with days of rest on each 7th day. 3 sabbaths = 3 periods of 7 days with days of rest on each 7th day. See the pattern? Most of those plural readings ...


7

They also show us that the canon was settled long before Jamnia. In the scrolls, we have at least partial copies of every book in the Old Testament except Esther. We also have many scrolls that are not canonical, however, even that teaches us something. Their literature can be broken down into three types. (The percentages are from my seminary notes with ...


7

The Greek translation of Jewish scripture (the Septuagint) occurred between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE. The canon of the Tanakh was finalized hundreds of years later. The Christian canon was debated from the 4th to the 16th centuries. We have a tendency of thinking of the Bible as written in stone, so to speak, but the canon has been the object of ...


7

By way of supplementing and extending the answers already provided for this question: As noted elsewhere in this Q&A, the kingdom that was united under the thrones of Saul, David, and Solomon, split in the aftermath of Solomon's reign into distinct "nations": one in the north, and one in the south (narrated in 1 Kings 12). When the two designations "...


7

I think it's helpful to frame answers in parts. So here goes a three-part response: First, 'flowing' connotes the abundance of something. (This point is a one-liner, because I won't insult anyone's intelligence by expounding on this.) Second, milk is obtained from domesticated livestock. Livestock survives in many habitats, but only overflow with milk in ...


7

In the article Hebrew Henotheism: Challenging the notion of Biblical Monotheism, the case is made that the Shema was to be understood relationally with Israel. The 1985 edition of the Jewish Publication Society translation of the TaNaKH portrays this when they translate the verse as “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” This reading ...


7

The "chabod" part of the name Ichabod (אִיכָבוֹד) comes without doubt from the word כָּבוֹד, which is the word for glory in the latter portion of the verse. The "I" (אִי) has been interpreted variously as "woe" (Greek), making the name mean "woe honor!"; "no" (Rashi), for "no honor"; or "where" (Radak), for "where is honor?" אִי as "no" appears in the ...


7

No, God did not contradict Himself, since He never forbade all kinds of images to begin with, that, going on to command images to be made, He could be said to contradict Himself. Something is always omitted when people use Exodus 20 to claim God forbids all images: the immediately surrounding words/context: Exodus 20:1-6 (DRB) And the Lord spoke all ...


6

In the MT there is a closed parsha break between the verses that are numbered in Christian editions as Micah 5:1 and 5:2. The Jews adopted the Christian chapter breaks in the printed editions of the MT except when the Christian chapter breaks split a parsha within three verses of the beginning or end of a parsha, in which case the printed MT editions move ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible