Epinoia

Ah, thank you. My impression was that HB--->Sep--->OT. If this is not correct, did Sep have anything to do with the HB--->OT evolution, and how did it come about? Simply through Jerome's translation? If so, is there wide agreement as to the veracity of the Hebrew--->Greek translation? Also, how do we know Jerome just translated as opposed to spinning, redacting, interpolating etc.? The Church Fathers have somewhat of a history on this, so I've gotta ask. If anyone has cites, please provide.

As I stated forthright, I am far from an expert on HB/OT and could very well have been confused about HB--->Sep--->OT. Even so, the basic question stands:

To what extent does OT reflect a spun redacted, interpolated or otherwise corrupted translation of HB?

This argument, too, remains: The more corrupt the translation, the more OT =! HB. OTOH, if OT is a mere translation of T/HB, then T/HB=OT. If that equivalence exists, then T/HB undoubtedly came first and it seems more fair to refer to it as such. However, abbreviations themselves can beg further quick clarification, what with all these "T's" running around. Discuss Talmud and Torah and Tanakh in the same thread, and things can get really thorny.

In addition, Greyline does have a point. However wrong Christianity was in taking the HB and re-christianing it the OT, the fact still remains that Christians consider that its name. After all, their Bible tells them so. Christian or not, fair or not, it's also true that more Americans and probably even Canadians and Euros recognize the term "Old Testament" over "Hebrew Bible" or "Tanakh." Even over here among relative newbies, HB or T could easily seem less obvious than OT. Sheesh, I used to think "Tanakh" had something to do with the amulet in Logan's Run. Looking back on it now, though, that would be "ankh."

All that having been said: Using T/HB with an initial parenthetical OT for clarity's sake seems cricket if it's proven that T/HB=OT. Should that be the case, Spin, I personally will endeavor to do this. At the same time, I also have to say that crucifying those who don't does seem a bit harsh. Using "OT" might come down to convenience or mere habit, but I doubt it's meant as a slur.

spin

Serious modern translations of the Hebrew bible done by Christians often in conjunction with Jews are predominantly based on the Hebrew texts. The effort in these translations is to reconstruct a text which reflects the best of the earliest Hebrew tradition. The New Revised Standard Version, like its predecessor, was strongly built on the standard scholarly Hebrew text, but it has the added advantage of using material from the Dead Sea Scrolls in that effort to have the best reconstruction of the Hebrew text.

The earliest forms of Hebrew bible used in Europe were based on the LXX and, though it is still considered while making modern translations priority is normally given to the Hebrew.

That something has reached a status of unthought out custom doesn't mean that it doesn't contain a slur. In the south, the term "nigger/nigra" was often used by people who didn't know how offensive the term could be.


spin

Epinoia

Excellent then, I will endeavor to use T/HB (aka OT). Also excellent is that I own an NRVD. I would assume that what you said is edition-specific to that as opposed to Living Bible or KJV (which I also have); please advise if not.

Also, Spin... if ever I get into the heat of the convo or it's 3 a.m. or whatever, please consider not ripping me a new one should I slip up, at least not at first. Not saying you wouldn't have reasons or that those reasons are less than valid, but old habits die hard in most people and I suspect I'm no different. At the moment, it does seem highly unlikely I could ever forget this convo for a second, but knowing myself it is possible.

Thanks again for clearing this up. I've been wondering about this for a while.


if I inadvertently slip up, please consider not ripping me a new one at least at first. It's entirely possible that

Sven

I didn't dispute any of your arguments. You may very well be right. The point is that it's simply of no special interest to the reader of the original thread, because it was off-topic and blew up an interesting thread while burying the original, interesting question. One post would have been sufficient. Arguing about this in a new thread doesn't change my lack of interest in it (I'll quite after this response; I still think it was bickering with respect to the OP), but at least it doesn't stiffle discussion of the original question.

Lugubert

When specifically referring to the TaNaK, Tanak, TaNaCh, Tanach or however you may want to write, I think that HB is a poor alternative. The first few times I encountered it, I interpreted it as the "Holy Bible". In spite of the extra key operations compared to HB, from a European linguist's point of view I prefer TaNaK.

Amaleq13

Within the context of the OP, I think reading it as "Holy Bible" would still be preferable to "Old Testament".

Lugubert

Next problem: It could even be the "Holy Book", which would require explaining for whom. Writing "The HB for Jews and Christians" isn't exactly to be preferred over TaNaK, and there are other books. BTW, I like the acronym SGGS as well as the book: Sri Guru Granth Sahib aka Adi Granth.

And another: Will Xians be offended by "TaNaK"? That might be understood as implying that the book belongs exclusively to Judaism. And what about a piece of writing comparing Jewish and Xian views of the book? "Some Jews try to follow all the regulations of the TaNaK, but no Xian even knows about all the rules in the OT."

Finally: If "OT" is offensive, then "NT" must be quite as bad, as it presupposes an "OT". I would love another word/acronym for "NT" that I can use in Religiuos studies, ingenious enough to irritate or at least confuse the more devout Xians, but which can be apologized not to be offensive.

spin

I'm impressed with the depth this thread has reached!

Context is a wonderful helper.

The term is purely descriptive.

Nice non sequitur.

The offence of "OT" is to the Jews. The nt has nothing to do with the Jews and I'd guess that they wouldn't care too much what the xian called that book.

If you must have one call it the CT (C = xian) or NB (Naz. bib.), but I'm sure you could come up with something all by yourself.


spin

Magdlyn

"Naz bib?" Nazarene Bible? Why?

Greek Scriptures or Xtian Scriptures works for me.

spin

Why not? Anders wanted suggestions. The earliest name for xians is apparently Nazarenes. NB fulfills the criterion of the request.
That's good. If it works and it's not offensive...


spin