Hi, I was wonderring if anyone in here has read both the Tanakh and the christian Old Testament and if so how similar are they? I know it would depend on what version of the OT we're talking about (details vary from version to version) but as far as the basic construct and theme are they basically the same book(s)? Are there any significant differences?
Hi Naykid. With the OT and the Tanach, some of the ordering of books is different, some of the chapter and verse numbering is different (most is the same), and Jews don't consider any translation to be official, instead going to the masoretic text. As you said, depending on the version of the OT, there may be some books included that we don't include, like in the Catholic OT. In my opinion the most important differences are in the way some words get translated in the OT to support the messiahship of Jesus, and where the book of Daniel is located. Daniel is not a prophetic book in Judaism. It's located in the section called ketuvim, or writings. To see a list of the books in the order they appear, you can follow this link: http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=63255 Hope that helps.
Thanks Dauer, that helps alot. I'm particularly interested in this; Are there any books in particular that would be worth comparing? : Most secular scholars treat Daniel the same way. There's a pretty interesting controvesry revolving around Daniel--the book's original (pre-septigent) placement, date of authorship. The most well supported argument (my opininon so far) ascribes a pre-alexandrian date to portions of the narrative with the prophetic portions inserted later (165 BCE, durring the maccabeean rebellion).
Well again, there's no official Jewish translation, but you might want to look at the way Isaiah is dealt with to see some of the differences. In particular you won't find the word virgin (you'll find the phrase "young woman") because virgin is a translation made possibly I think by the word used in the septuagint or vulgate, and you'll also find chapter 53, for example, reading a bit differently. The biggest difference, perhaps, is interpretation. I mean, both the OT and the Tanach have Genesis, but there's no Original Sin in Judaism. And that's only one example of where the two religions tend to diverge on understanding the text. Yes, I'm vaguely familiar with that argument. I haven't done much study on Daniel. I guess another important difference is that currently, the majority of the Jewish people accept secular scholarship as valid, although everything I've told you so far is based on traditional approaches to the text. Dauer
Yes, the confusion over the translation of "alma". This is one of those instances where both sides put up a good argument, but I think the significant point is that christian scholars (many) tend to take a term that's decidedly ambiquious and present their interpretation as difinitive. even if you don't come to any solid conclusions about the term itself you can pretty easily come to the conclusion that the apologists have an agenda. Thanks, I'll check it out. Sin in general, the nature of evil itself (and the persona of the devil in particular) are what I'm looking at right now; the duality of the spiritual realm, God vs Satan, doesn't seem to have any basis in the Old Testement, yet it's one of the central themes in christianity. LOL! I've spoken to some christians who consider all of secular scholarship (history in particular) to be part of a conspiracy against their religion. thanks again Dauer. I'm currently trying to make some determinations (for myself) about the origin of christian theology and it's becoming more and more apparent to me that at best it's only losely based on Judiasm (they seem to have hijacked the history and ignored the theology).
Yeah, the whole concept of sin and evil are read a bit different. Taking that Original Sin example, the word use there is chayt, which is an archery term, missing the mark. It's the least of the three types of sin referenced in the Torah, an error or mistake, which really changes the story a bit. Satan, or HaSatan as he is called in Judaism, is more like a prosecuting attorney, or someone running sting operations for the side of good. Sometimes he's really just seen as a sort of representation of the internal base drives, but that's some theology that I think has less basis in the Tanach itself, although certainly a possible read. Wikipedia has a very good page on the differences between Judaism and Christianity. Actually looks like it's been updated quite a bit since last I saw it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_Christianity I think the God vs. Satan stuff may have really been picked up from the Zoroastrians, but I think both Judaism and Christianity were influenced on some level by their contact with the Zoroastrians. Of course. One thing you might want to keep in mind, though, is that while Jewish theology does seem to have some sort of direction in which it's flowed, with occasional bends and turns, it has changed quite a bit, and during the time of the early Christians and the actual followers of Jesus, there was a lot of change and a lot of sectarian division. If anything, Jewish theology has simply tried harder to remain in agreement with Torah, for fairly obvious reasons, while Christian theology may have at times even been trying to distance itself from the OT. Still, if you look at, for example, some kabbalistic concepts like tzimtzum and such, it's a far cry from the plain meaning of the Torah. And there was a time when that was the Jewish theology, before the incidents of Sabbatianism and the mass dissemination of such things was quieted a bit. It's also probably important to mention that the primary early type of interpretation that appears in rabbinic Judaism is midrashic, which is exegetical and allegorical. Pshat, or plain meaning, didn't really get its emphasis until Judaism, Islam, and Christianity started talking and Jews really had to stick to the text to have some sort of ecumenical dialogue. It's possible that Jesus was simply a teacher of midrash who didn't do halachah, law, and if read that way, he comes across a bit differently. Dauer
