The Prophets are considered to be less authoritative than the Torah. In particular, a mitzvah cannot be deduced from them if it is not at least suggested in the Torah, although they can be used to demonstrate how a particular mitzvah was (or wasn’t) observed.
The Writings are considered even less authoritative than the Prophets. They are considered “inspired”, in very much the sense that that word is used in English, but are not considered incontrovertible.
Your second sentence is true, but it is not the result of your first. The reason no new commandments can be deduced from them is because all the commandments were contained in the Torah. One of these commandments was that no new (Biblical) commandments were to be subsequently added. So the prophets were precluded from adding new commandments. This does not imply that they are less authoritative - they were not.
[Nitpick] The Hebrew word for “virgin” is b’tullah. OK, the t/s I get (un-dotted Tav is “t” in Modern Hebrew - but it is often pronounced “s” by people who learned Hebrew in its Ashkenazi form) - but where did you get that first “a” sound from? [/nitpick]
The Torah was dictated to Moses when he was in a conscious state, and in humanly comprehensible terms.
The Prophets (other than Moses) were spoken to in dreams and visions; they recorded these dreams and visions later, using their own style. Whilst we may suppose the content of they wrote is what was communicated to them, their phrasing is not Divine.
The Writings are the result of ruach hakodesh. They do not convey any direct message from Heaven, may (and do) contain symbolism and allegory, and any predictions made them need not have come true.
For the record: My yeshivah education essentially squares with Akatsukami’s explanation above.
Just speaking for myself, as an Orthodox Jew, I definitely wouldn’t say the Christian translations of the Old Testament are correct. I would even be marginally uncomfortable with the Conservative translations. As has been posted here, the original Hebrew is the only truly reliable version. The translations vary hugely and are interesting to compare, but they’re certainly not the final word in what is actually the Torah.
Also: In addition to literal explanations of the text, translations also rely on translation-centric commentaries. One of the more widely used commentaries is the 11th century Frech scholar Rashi, who has commentary on all of Tanakh as well as the Talmud.
In cases where an editor is particularly concerned about not mistranslating, you will sometimes see the occasional italicized transliteration of a word for which there is no universally accepted translation.
Just to add on the almah thing. Both my New Jerusalem and RSV- Catholic Edition give young woman in the Isaiah passage, giving virgin as a secondary reading.
But this didn’t happen due to Christian influence, but rather through the work of Hellenistic Jews writing the Septuagint (LXX). It is them who give the virgin reading.
St. Matthew uses the LXX as the basis of his text. He doesn’t deny the original meaning, which was a historical fact, but amplifies it to include the Virgin Mary.
Akatsukami, I don’t disagree with much of your most recent post. But none of that implies that the writings of the Prophets are less authoritative, which is what we were discussing.
Izzy and ‘Katsu’ – If I’m understanding you correctly, the Law which guides the life of the devout Jew is found exclusively in Torah, and while the Prophets and the Writings can guide one’s understanding of Torah and are themselves Holy Scripture, they do not have the authority given to Torah. Is that accurate?
(Note for Christians: while we understand the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings to be historical books, Jews look on them as the record of the teachings of the prophets whi did not themselves write, such as Samuel, Nathan, and Elijah and Elisha, and therefore classify them with Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets as part of the category “the Prophets.”)
Final comment on Isaiah 7:14: The Septuagint translates almah as parthenos – but it’s important to remember that, while literally meaning “virgin,” this had a particular social meaning of “unmarried young woman” at that time and for centuries either side of the time, and was not intended to specifically mean “person who has not yet engaged in sexual intercourse.” Paul, for example, speaks of what men in authority over households should do regarding their “virgins” – the unmarried young women for whom they are responsible, as opposed to girls they haven’t screwed yet. An accurate translation carrying the proper connotation of the Hebrew and the Greek would be “maiden” – the almah Isaiah points to may well have been bethrothed and hoping to bear her husband-to-be a son in the near future.
It is apparently accurate in terms of Akatsukami’s position. But I’ve been pretty clear in saying that the Prophets and Writings are equally authoritative. Someone who disputes anything in them is a heretic, from the perspective of the Jewish religion, which is about as authoritative as you can get.
What is true is that the Law is to be found in the Torah, as mentioned earlier. The primary focus of the other works is religious, moral, and ethical exhortations.
The biggest difference I’ve found is the translation of Psalm 22:16 (Psalm 22:17), what many Christians refer to as the “Crucifixion Psalm”.
KJV: *Dogs have compassed me; the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet. *
Hebrew translation: Dogs have encompassed me. A company of evildoers has enclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.
Quite a difference since many use this verse as Jesus’ crucifixion fulfilling a prophecy, while the correct translation would be much more difficult to apply as such.
Ok, being the OP & still confused, may I wrap this up (for myself) & ask: Can one currently go to into a store (like Barnes & Noble Books) & purchase a stand-alone Jewish “Bible” (though that’s probably not the correct word as Bible is apparently a Christian term) of The Old Testament (which is also probably incorrect as that would denote A New Testament)…oh whatever? And what would one ask for?