Disputatio:Biblia

Scripsit 80.132.24.95: (Connexiones: ja, ru, zh-cn remutavi, quod novae apud meum computatorem non ad certae paginae ducebant; zh delevi, quod cum zh-cn par fuit; pt addidi)

Respondo Iustinus: Vae mihi, haec sine dubio ex culpa mea factum est. Me paenitet! Debebo memorem manere ne tales paginas Exploratore recenseam.

Iudaeorum?

As you can see above, I've destroyed the interwikis before. I need to be more careful with that.

However: The term "Bible" has always been used to cover both the Jewish and the Christian scriptures, and is a term used by Jews (speaking as one myself.) The term תנ״ך Tanakh is used interchangeably with the term "Hebrew Bible" (or "Jewish Bible"). In other words, at Tanakh does not replace the word "Bible," it is merely a synonym (at least in contexts where the New Testament isn't involved.) The term it does replace is "Old Testament." Many Jews (again, myself included) are uncomfortable with the English term because of the implication that it has been supplanted by a new testament ("Testament" in this context originally meant "Covenant" afterall), so we tend to use the Hebrew term instead.

If we want to take Jewish usage and sensibilities into account (which of course we should) we should not really be dividing "Bible" and "Tanakh" into separate articles (I am rather uncomfortable, frankly, with the idea that the Jewish Bible and Christian Old Testament are different books!), but rather explain that for Jews the term does not include the New Testament. Including the word Tanakh is certainly a possibility (in Latin it would presumably be spelled Thanach, at least based on how the Romans spelled Hebrew words), but it should be as an alternate term for Vetus Testamentum, IMHO, not a different entity alien to the concept of Biblia. --Iustinus 03:52 mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

To avoid destroying interwikis while restoring an earlier version you can go to the earlier version via the "historia" and then press "recensere". Normaly the interwikis should not change then. I made the change, because the article suggests that Jews use the complete Bible, while they only use the first part, which is the Tanach. I will think about a better formulation and propose it here, but it may take some time, because I can read Latin, but writing is more difficult. Jcb 12:54 mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize that about the interwiki. The problem is that my preferred browser is more than a little out of date, so I have to remember to switch to a different browser when dealing with Unicode, and I often forget.

And you have a point about the phrasing. The changes I've made help a little, but it is true that it's still rather Christian POV, and it's hard to come up with a phrasing that isn't! But let me know what you come up with, and perhaps I can help with the Latin, if you need it.

--Iustinus 17:33 mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Biblia .. sunt scriptura ..

Nonne? -- 86.7.17.9 07:52, 22 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Pro certo. Gratias agimus! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:41, 22 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Latine scripta

Excuse me, why "multa documenta historica Latine scripta." with a capital L? Luca Italy (disputatio) 15:55, 15 Octobris 2022 (UTC)

Videte nunc Vicipaedia:Taberna#Lilia Elbe. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:49, 15 Octobris 2022 (UTC)