spin

Don't you think that calling the Hebrew bible "the Old Testament" is a matter of intellectual theft? These are in actual fact Jewish writings which have been misappropriated by xians to justify their "new" religion and act as a mine for their "prophecies" to give a depth to their religion missing in the furst centuries due to its newness and therefore lack of heritage?

Numerous posters here use "OT" as though it were a reasonable denomination for the Jewish literature... and I guess this is because xians have been purveying the work as their own by supercession.

I recommend that you call it for what it is and don't bolster xian arrogance. As you can see, I call it the Hebrew bible, HB, hb....


spin

Mageth

I call it "OT" when referring to the Christian Bible(s) (there's a Protestant and Catholic version of it, don't forget), where it is labeled as such. In the context of discussing Christianity and the Christian Bible, that seems reasonable to me.

Of course, I recognize that there is a different set of holy texts used by Jews, including some not found in the Christian Bible(s) at all. I'm not sure they refer to the collection, or part of the collection, of texts as the "Hebrew Bible", though.

spin

Actually the texts are almost exactly the same, at least in the Protestant recension. The Caths have included stuff that they received via late forms of the LXX. The extra stuff is called in the Apocrypha. When most people refer to the "OT", it refers to those texts misappropriated from the jews which make up the Tanak (TNK = Torah, prophets and writings ). The only difference is in the division of books.

If you find it in the xian bible it is unacknowledged intellectual theft of Jewish cultural heritage. You seem to have no problem in acknowledging that theft as ok.


spin

funinspace

And maybe aid and abetting?

:notworthy :notworthy

I will second the motion for HB. I know my pet peeve is Yoshua. After all, so many little fundy ditty's drool over the name, you would think they would want it right. After all I don't go around calling say "George" Jorge.

DK

Mageth

Originally posted by spin
Actually the texts are almost exactly the same, at least in the Protestant recension. The Caths have included stuff that they received via late forms of the LXX. The extra stuff is called in the Apocrypha. When most people refer to the "OT", it refers to those texts misappropriated from the jews which make up the Tanak (TNK = Torah, prophets and writings ). The only difference is in the division of books.

Yes, there's the Tenach, and I suppose it could be referred to as the "Hebrew Bible". But by your argument, why not just "Bible", or even better "Tenach"? Isn't designating it the "Hebrew Bible" acknowledging that there is also a Christian Bible?

But note that the Tenach is not the only Jewish religious text. There's also the:

Talmud Bavli
Talmud Yerushalmi
Mishna
Tosefta
Mishne Torah leRambam
Shulchan Aruch

and probalby some other Jewish texts, including rabbinical musings on the Torah, etc. I'm not very familar with the subject of Jewish religious literature, but the following site seems to be:

http://www.torah.org/learning/texts.php3

The Jewish religion hasn't been restricted from adding to their religious texts like the Christians imagine they have.

Hence, my comment: "I recognize that there is a different set of holy texts used by Jews, including some not found in the Christian Bible(s) at all. I'm not sure they refer to the collection, or part of the collection, of texts as the "Hebrew Bible", though."

That statement appears to be essentially correct, as the part of the Jewish religious texts that is equivalent to the "OT" is preferably referred to as the Tenach.

If you find it in the xian bible it is unacknowledged intellectual theft of Jewish cultural heritage. You seem to have no problem in acknowledging that theft as ok.

I personally don't know of any Christians that wouldn't acknowledge that their religion branched out of Judaism, or that what they call the Old Testament was/is the Jewish Tenach (though most probably would call it "bible"). Besides, I consider the Christian religion as essentially a branch or sect of Judaism.

And religions have been borrowing texts and stories from other religions for as long as religions have been around. Heck, parts of the Tenach (or Old Testament) were borrowed from previous religions. Is this "theft"? Not really. The Jews still have their Tenach, after all, don't they?

Religions change over time; Judaism itself has changed dramatically. Judaism today is almost as, if not just as, different from Judaism prior to 0 CE as Christianity is. And both sprang from the same root of Judaism, at about the same time. So the same charge of "theft" could conceivably be leveled at modern Judaism as well.

So when I refer to the Christian Bible, I'll continue to refer to the "Old Testament". In doing so, I'm not acknowledging that "theft is OK", I'm merely acknowledging that that is how the Christians (that peculiar Jewish sect) refer to it, and anyone who knows their head from a hole in the ground about the Bible knows that the Christian Old Testament is functionally equivalent to the Jewish Tenach. No one's being deceived.

judge

Isn't this circular reasoning?
You are assuming Christianity is not the fulfillment in order to justify the supposed "theft".

rlogan

Spin, it does indeed grant the xians too much to call it the OT. So the question is what term is most accurate and also compact.


What was wrong with Tanak?

NOGO

If you think that distributing/selling the Illiad and Odeyssey in English is intellectual thef then I suppose that I can agree with with you.

Otherwise call them what the originals were called and leave them in Greek.

spin

No.

I don't enter into any theological/ideological presuppositions to conclude that if culture 1 writes texts and culture 2 appropriates them giving them a name and context which fundamentally robs culture 1 of the rights to those texts and the benefits thereof we have intellectual theft.


spin

spin

Point missed. We are not simply dealing with translations; besides, Iliad and Oddysey are relatively faithful to the original names.

This is our old testament, ie it's ours but it's been superceded by our Mark II, based on all new technology, brand spanking new testament.


spin

Oh, and Tanak is ok; it's just that Hebrew bible is more transparent.