The OT?
Moshe Shulman
mshulman at ix.netcom.com
Sun Aug 25 11:26:04 EDT 2002
At 12:24 PM 8/24/02 -0400, you wrote:
>Ms. Fried says: "The first thing I do with my students is to teach
>them the difference between the OT and the HB.
>I tell them the OT is the LXX!
>(Not one of them has ever argued with me about it!) :)"
>The way you define the Old Testament is close to true (but not quite) for
>Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, but is definitely not
>true for Protestant Christians. The LXX includes the Apocrypha, which
>Protestants reject from being part of their Old Testament. Moreover,
>virtually all modern translations of the Old Testament by Christians of
>whatever stripe are based first and foremost on the Masoretic Text of the
>Hebrew Bible, not the LXX. Though the latter is regularly utilized for
>text-critical purposes, the Hebrew Bible is the main text.
I am not sure that Liz meant that seriously. (I sort of doubt it.) However
the issue of what terms to use in discussion is important. It is like the
BCE/BC discussion. I think her point was that in a University setting,
where 'scholarship' is supposed to be going on using OT, when refering to
the Hebrew text,is not accurate. Words like Tenach/OT have more of a
religious context, and are non-neutral. On the other hand when in a Jewish
context to refer to the 'OT' is not just insulting, but in a sense
meaningless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman outreach at messiahtruth.com 718-436-7705
Messiah Truth/Judaism's Answer: http://www.messiahtruth.com/
Outreach Judaism: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh http://www.chassidus.net
Chassidus discussion list: chassidus-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list