Subject: Re: OT, Hebrew Bible, or ...?

From: [email-masked] (Richard Corliss)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:25:32 +0500

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
[email-masked]

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:49:07 -0500 (EST)

> 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 <-----------------