Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: The OT?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>
  • To: "'Biblical Hebrew'" <b-hebrew AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: The OT?
  • Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 20:50:20 +0100


Luther was not innovating when he accepted only the books of the Hebrew
Bible (Tanakh) into his "OT". Jerome, in the 4th century, also accepted
only these books as the authoritative "OT" while considering the other
some other books from LXX as helpful for reading but not for
establishing doctrine.

As for the NT canon, Luther found James very difficult to interpret but
did not reject it from the canon.

Peter Kirk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles David Isbell [mailto:cisbell AT cox.net]
> Sent: 25 August 2002 19:37
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: The OT?
>
> Regarding a consensus among Christians about the "OT," we should
review
> the
> various canons of the Roman Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the
> canons
> of Ethiopia, Armenia, etc. all of which include books not found among
the
> 24
> Hebrew books of the T-N-Kh. The Protestant choice, following Luther's
> appreciation of Hebrew I believe, includes the Hebrew 24, but divides
them
> into 39, and arranges them differently [as has already been pointed
out
> here]. So yes, I think it is quite accurate to say that there is no
> consensus among Christians about the canonical limits of the "OT".
> Incidentally, also according to Luther, the NT canon itself was
subject to
> attack, non? Did he not seek to exclude the Letter to the Hebrews?
Did
> he
> not dismiss the letter of James as "an epistle of straw?" Within
Judaism,
> since the disappearance from history of the Sadducees, I am not aware
of
> any
> disagreement among Jews about the extent or identity of the 24 books
of
> the
> T-N-Kh. About their meaning, well .... But which 24 we argue about,
> that
> is settled. Even the Karaites, who reject torah she-be`al peh, worked
> with
> the 24 designated books in the Hebrew canon.
> I regret that some feel put upon as Christians about the term Old
> Testament.
> In the interest of accuracy, we should at least refer to "the
Protestant
> OT"
> or "the Catholic OT," etc. I think the plea to discard the word
> "testament"
> is also directly on target. And perhaps it would be well to remember
that
> the phrase "new covenant" itself was framed by the prophet Jeremiah
> [31.31-34]. His vision was of a "new covenant" between YHWH and the
> houses
> of Israel and Judah, not new in content, but new in the level of
> internalization. In fact, Jeremiah is at pains to suggest that what
will
> become internalized is the very "torah" that had been broken so often.
> The
> Christian claim to appropriate Jeremiah's term appears to rest on
their
> belief that those who relate to God through Christianity have become
the
> houses of Israel and Judah. How this makes the original 24
Scriptural
> book
> s "old" is open to the variety of opinions we have seen expressed
here.
> Shalom,
> Charles David Isbell
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [Peter_Kirk AT sil.org]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-hebrew-
> 14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page