Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - HB, not OT, please.

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: b.gardner AT abdn.ac.uk
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Cc: dependabol AT hotmail.com
  • Subject: HB, not OT, please.
  • Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:08:11 GB


Dear All,

I agree with the posting regarding the nomenclature to be adopted regarding
the
Hebrew Bible. The term, 'Old Testament', is a Christian theological
expression,
but the OT is a revamped version of the LXX/HB over a very variable history.
I
believe that it was Jerome who persuaded the Pope of his day to adopt the HB
as
the base text of the OT, rather than the LXX - and interestingly for reasons
of
Jewish evangelism, because the rabbinical Jews would not take the LXX
seriously.

Thus, the politically understandable, but dangerously tendentious, practice
of
selecting 'our version' to be the foundation for strict theologies has
produced
absurdities: arguments about a textus receptus which border on McCarthyism,
and
in some less gentlemanly quarters trangresses that line with bold
recklessness.

Alongside this I have to Dan's recent statement that the Bible is a whole not
examinable in terms of Deuteronomic, Priestly, Chroncler or other layers of
tradition. In the naive world of anti-higher-criticism, opting-out of reason
is
a badge of belonging to a religious body of opinion, guaranteeing acceptance,
but it excludes others for whom that theological unity is quite spurious. I
refer to those who live in and study the Torah and Talmud, Qumranology etc.
If
we are to discuss the HB, let it be the HB we study in an atmopshere of
mutual
respect. It was respect that made me, like Dan also in the Third World scene,
form the opposite concusion to his. I knew that the best thing I could do was
go home and get my PhD, so that I would be able to teach them how to apply
the
insights which need not kill (whatever) faith but would guarantee that they
would have the choice whether or not to adopt Western theologies through the
presentation of an undifferentiated Bible where Western theology was held to
be
a self-evidently integrated part of the Bible text itself. So the role of
women
and the wearing of hats, or the singing of hymns or order of church
government
was all part and parcel of being 'allowed' to study the HB in the
missionary's
theological envelope and world-view - itself in deep need of examination as
to
its cultural neuroses, self-justification and survivalism. Fundamentalism
does
not liberate; it enslaves, manipulating the weak for the mission's home
purpose
whatever other spiritual benefits it seems to confer on inexperienced
believers.

Therefore, I am in favour of studying the HB, primarily - with extensions
into
LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, Targum, Peshitta, Mishnah/Talmud, and DS Scrolls -
in order to introduce a discipline and mutual respect into our cross-cultural
discusssion. If we deny that freedom and respect, we endorse that link which
many Christians, including myself, found it hard to acknowledge at first:
that
between the theory and practice of Christianity and 20thC Anti-semitic
Fascism.

Criticism is democracy. You cannot turn it off at tap. Neither can you say
that
non-Christians must be forced to study their literature in anchronistic forms.

So, please, HB, not OT. And let criticism be stated unhindered by absolutisms
which are at root the desire of powerful interest groups to escape
examination.

Bruce Gardner.





  • HB, not OT, please., b . gardner, 02/15/2001

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page