Tanakh

Does anyone use this i believe it claims to be the original Hebrew text of the OT. I bought it about 15 years ago and it languished at my dad’s house from then till now when i rediscovered it. Is it what it claims to be? It has lead me to a bit of You tubing listening to Rabbi’s though am not sure i should continue with it as, for example, one was talking about how they believe the original Hebrew demonstrates that Christians have mistranslated to back up their beliefs. One example quoted is that in the Hebrew text of Isiah 53 there is no mention of the suffering servant being pierced and that the servant is shown to mean a collective ( i assume meaning the people of Israel) not an individual.

The problem with the Tanakh (AKA the Masoretic Text, or Hebrew Canon) is that there is nothing authoritative whatsoever about it. There is no Hebrew (Jewish) Church with any authority to declare anything canonical. There never has been any such authority. The Jewish Faith has never had (and still does not have) any sort of authority which would be recognizable to any Catholic.

The Tanakh represents (at best) a consensus of many Sixth-Century Jewish Rabbis about what the Canon of the Hebrews ought to be. It is not, in any way, shape, or form, what the actual Canon of the Hebrews actually IS, because there is no Hebrew authority which can make that claim. And there never has been.

Jesus gave the Catholic Church actual AUTHORITY (Matt 16:18). The Catholic Church can actually DEFINE the Canon of Scripture.

The Jews didn’t go to the Hebrew text until well after the death of Christ and the destruction of the temple. I’m talking like 40 years after the resurrection. I’ve heard the argument that at the Jewish Council of Jamina the Rabbis removed the 7 books from the OT (Luther used this as an example). If you have read those 7 books you will find that they specifically for tell the coming of the Christ and they were being used to convert Jews. They also point to prayers for the dead and purgatory (things Luther didn’t like). Not that a Jewish decision long after the resurrection had any authority over Christianity anyway.

Some Christians seem permanently confused about Judaism - as if all we’ve been doing for the past couple of millennia has been to make up excuses for not believing in Jesus.

Funny!..and sadly, true…stand by my friend, I think the wrath of some CAF members is soon to befall you!

Peace and all good!

Certainly not I don’t think that at all but alas WWII really hurt the belief of many Jews throughout the world don’t you think? If you really think that a serious concerted effort wasn’t made after the destruction of the temple I don’t know who’s teaching your history and formation classes. Maybe its the same people teaching our RCIA classes :smiley:

The way I look at it Jamina was an effort by the Jewish leaders at what I would call a buy American campaign. Salvaging the faith that was hemoriging people to Christ.

It seems most Jews are infinitely confused about Catholics. You don’t get any more Jewish than a Catholic!

While our scriptures have a context for Christians, it’s a mistake to think that Judaism is, somehow, Christianity minus Jesus, it isn’t. It’s a very different religion.

To Christians, what you call the Old Testament is really prophesies and setting the stage for the arrival of your Saviour and your scriptures. In Judaism, however, everything centres on the first five books of the Tanakh - the Torah, the Law. Everything else - the rest of the Tanakh (Prophets and the Writings), then what we call ‘Oral Torah’ and writings/discussions even to this day could be described as being about Torah. Taking away the technical language, it could be described as endless discussions about how to live ethical monotheism.

In other words the two religions have a different focus and ‘work’ quite differently - they could be said to be about rather different things - one religion could be described as more concerned with ‘orthodoxy’/correct belief while the other is more concerned with ‘orthopraxy’/correct action. Certainly, the preoccupations of one are not the preoccupations of the other.

Wow you really missed the whole essence of Catholicism! Is this what you think Catholicism is? Honestly while some of what you say is true I think your comment that they are completely separate and different is WAY off. I think maybe you need to listen to some Jewish converts and I highly recommend anything from Scott Haun.

I expect you mean Scott Hahn.

Yes thanks for the correction :shrug:

Another good person is Roy H. Schoeman who does quite a bit on Catholic-Jewish relations

Perhaps you might take time to notice my joining date here and wonder whether your approach is likely to be novel and whether what I’ve written might have been the product of numerous discussions with Catholic/Christian members in the past?

Oh I did most certainly notice. Probably why I was so shocked at you’re comment

Probably because you haven’t much idea about Judaism from a Jewish perspective.

How would you know?

I have this strange ability, it’s called being able to read.

So from that ability you discerned that I might be a former Jew (or fulfilled)? I might have been born in Jerusalem and I might know a little something about Judaism? I think that your two different religion comments might as well be better directed at the Judaism itself since post temple Judaism resembles little of the original faith? You certainly have a amazing ability there. Any tips on how to discern someone’s life story from a few comments?

One only has to read what you write.

Anyway, I’ll leave you with the final word in this conversation.

Hashem yevarech otha!

Correct–and just to elaborate a bit–as you suggested, it was no accident. The actual original Hebrew scriptures were lost after the sack of J’lem by the Romans circa 70 AD, and the ensuing diaspora of the Jews. Hence in order to reconstitute the ‘original Hebrew scriptures’ (to the best of their ability)–in approximately 200 AD, they had to look largely to–and essentially de-translate–the Septuagint, which was [essentially] the Greek translation of those lost original Hebrew texts between 200-100 BC, with all 12 tribes of Israel being represented to ‘filter’ and ratify their authenticity/accuracy.

What’s significant to note here, is that by this time (circa 200 AD), Christianity had taken root, but remained mostly a sub-sect of Judaism. Hence, in this ‘reconstituting’ process, the Jewish authorities were inclined to render the ‘OT’ less christological, which entailed, among other things, removing those 6 (7) books which were included in the Septuagint (and which are referred to by the protestants as “apocrypha”)–as they were included in the actual but lost, original Heb. scrip’s–due to their ‘christologicity’ (pardon; for lack of better word).

What I’ve always found…idk…ironic–is that St. Jerome mostly used the reconstituted Heb. Scrip’s, rather than the Septuagint, in generating the Latin Vulgate. What’s not ironic, but appripos, is that Pope Damasus (who commissioned St. Jerome to translate the scriptures into Latin–hence the Vulgate), over rode St. Jerome’s stated intent to exclude those books (which again, the protestants call “apocryphal”), based on the above. That, and the fact that they were in the Septuagint, and that was the scripture that Christ and the Apostles knew.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.