Thu Nov 30 13:25:46 1995

From majordom  Thu Nov 30 13:25:46 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA00047; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:25:46 +0500
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:25:32 +0500
Message-Id: <9511301825.AA00039@scholar.cc.emory.edu>
X-Sender: rcorliss@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: rcorliss@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu (Richard Corliss)
Subject: Re: OT, Hebrew Bible, or ...?
Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Content-Length: 691
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk

James Adair:
>The SBL has a section called the "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible" 
>section.  Emanuel Tov's book has a similar title.  On the other hand, 
>Wuerthwein's book is _The Text of the Old Testament_, and many seminaries 
>offer a course called Old Testament Textual Criticism.  What are the 
>pros and cons of these terms, and are there better alternatives?
>
In my class on world religions I use the phrase `Jewish Bible'. Is this not
appropriate? Does it not avoid the introduction of new language that needs
to be explained, as in First Testament and Second Testament. 

Richard Corliss
Department of Philosophy
St. Cloud State University
RCorliss@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu

Back