Thu Nov 30 13:49:28 1995

From majordom  Thu Nov 30 13:49:28 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA00192; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:49:28 +0500
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:49:07 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair" 
X-Sender: jadair@scholar
To: Richard Corliss 
Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: OT, Hebrew Bible, or ...?
In-Reply-To: <9511301825.AA00039@scholar.cc.emory.edu>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1010
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk



On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Richard Corliss wrote:

> 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. 

But the OT/Hebrew Bible is also part of the "Christian Bible," so I'm not 
sure this solves the problem.  A term like "biblical textual criticism" 
seems to be good as an umbrella term for both disciplines, since 
"biblical" is sufficiently multivalent (I think) to encompass a variety 
of views of canon.  The problem remains with describing the enterprise of 
examining one of the textual traditions.  Does anyone really want to say 
"textual criticism of the Judeo-Christian scriptures that originated in 
the pre-Christian era"???

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

Back