Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - HB/OT

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Søren Holst <sh AT teol.ku.dk>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Cc: "'b.gardner AT abdn.ac.uk'" <b.gardner AT abdn.ac.uk>, 'Dave Washburn' <dwashbur AT nyx.net>, 'Charles David Isbell' <cisbell AT home.com>
  • Subject: HB/OT
  • Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:17:04 +0100


Hi Bruce, Charles and Dave

"Hold the wedding" as Kinky Friedman would say. Letting oneself be insulted
is the second worst thing (next to being insulting) for keeping a civil
discussion going.

And scholarship is precisely that: A discussion. As soon as it stops being a
two-way communication, it stops being scholarship. Therefore, if somebody
says that a certain interpretation of the Hebrew Bible is "proven" because
the New Testament or Talmud or Qur'an (or personal revelations) say so, he
may for all I know be speaking the truth, but he's not making a *scholarly*
statement, because you can only agree or disagree with the claim, you can't
*discuss* it unless you share the person's religious convictions.

Personally I don't see what the fuss is about "Old Testament" - as a
christian of sorts I always took the "old" to mean "primary" and NOT
"superceded", but if it bothers anyone I'll try not to use it.

brakhot lekolkem
Soren Holst
Univ. of Copenhagen





> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: b.gardner AT abdn.ac.uk [SMTP:b.gardner AT abdn.ac.uk]
> Sendt: 15. februar 2001 14:08
> Til: Biblical Hebrew
> Cc: dependabol AT hotmail.com
> Emne: HB, not OT, please.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [sh AT teol.ku.dk]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.



  • HB/OT, Søren Holst, 02/15/2001

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page