Comments on: Old Testament/Hebrew Bible/Tanakh/Jewish Scriptures/Etc.

By: Hebrew Bible vs. Old Testament « kata ta biblia

Hebrew Bible vs. Old Testament « kata ta biblia — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:31:16 +0000

[...] There is also a pretty hearty conversation going on in the comment section of John’s post. In an older post of mine (two years ago), I shared some of my thoughts on the topic–and linked to other [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:45:00 +0000

There are common references that both Faiths use:

The Scriptures (Exodus 32:16 " המכתב " ;" τας γραφας " Luke 24:45) are THE WRITINGS.

The Word (Exodus 4:15; Matthew 7:24;13:20)is the COMMUNICATION that flows out of the mouth of God, his messengers, and believers under his influence.

By: Jim Getz

Jim Getz — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:14:00 +0000

I think you’ve pretty much got it, Patrick.

Sure, the LXX was written by Jews, but then again most of the NT was as well. The sect of Judaism that came out on top after the cataclysms of 70 and 135 CE affirmed what was Scripture for the Jewish community. Whether part of the rejection of certain books was due to their acceptance by Christian communities is a debate that will probably go on till the end of time.

Now, if some other Jewish sect had won, their canon might have looked different; but they didn’t so the Jewish Bible is the Tanakh. Canon is a fluid idea, no?

BTW: my thought on “majority rule” would be in reference to an individual religion, not more generally — thanks for pinning me down on that.

By: Patrick George McCullough

Patrick George McCullough — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:53:00 +0000

That’s a good point, Rebecca. If I could put words in Jim’s mouth, I think the concern would be more “what constitutes the ‘Old Testament’ for Christians” and less “to whom belongs the LXX.” I think that was his point, at least, and perhaps saying that the LXX is “a document of the church” was an unfortunate slip of the keyboard. I think he meant that this is what the church appropriated as Scripture (as opposed to Hebrew and Aramaic versions of the texts) on the whole. If Jim happens to come back and check, then perhaps he can correct me there.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:56:00 +0000

I don’t quite understand Jim Getz’s definition of OT. The LXX, including the apocrypha, were written by Jews, not Christians – albeit they were preserved by Christians, not Jews. The church interprets these texts, but they weren’t written by members of the church – so how can he say it’s “a document of the church”?

By: Patrick George McCullough

Patrick George McCullough — Thu, 31 May 2007 21:09:00 +0000

Thanks, Jim. I appreciate the response. One thought: One of the elements of this debate is so that we do not overlook the way that one group of people read a particular text, even if they are a minority. Jews are a very small minority of those who actually view their Scriptures as Scripture. Though it is a difficult question to answer, there are perhaps around 13-14 million Jews in the world. We would certainly not use the "majority rules" argument for them.

That's not obviously not fair. Jewish people certainly have a unique claim to be heard in how they view their own text, whatever their population stats are.

I still have a problem with the majority argument, though. Many Protestants act like they are the dominant form of Christianity in the world and, thus, they do need to be reminded that they are the minority, but I don't think that gives us the right to ignore their point of view.

But in the end, you were just stating how you view things personally and not making an argument, so my assessment of it is perhaps moot.

By: Jim Getz

Jim Getz — Thu, 31 May 2007 19:14:00 +0000

I think my statement works both historically and currently as well.

While "all" Jews wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable with rabbinic interpretation alone, the majority would and do rely on it to a great extent, especially when the Tanakh is used in a worship setting.

The same would also hold true for Christians, since the majority (85% by the last estimates I've heard --- though I could be wrong) aren't Protestant, but are RCC, EO or somewhere in between (e.g. Western Rite Orthodox, etc.). I'm not about to cross the Tiber, but you got to admit that Protestants are in the extreme minority of the world wide communion of the saints (i.e. the Church).

As a side note: at Brandeis, there is a tendency among Christians, Jews and others to simply refer to the OT/HB/TNK/whatever as "the Bible." But hey, Brandeis is a different place.