tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8935942607987614770.post544068696221135811..comments2023-08-06T10:20:26.565-04:00Comments on Retired Pastor Ruminates: What to call the first half of the Christian canon? How about The Old Testament!Richard L. Floydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12113908222186199761noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8935942607987614770.post-87397685396739856012010-03-22T21:03:06.463-04:002010-03-22T21:03:06.463-04:00Thank goodness for a sensible statement on this. ...Thank goodness for a sensible statement on this. Too often the academic approach to things impinges on the 'real' world of the 'ordinary' church. It's visible in changing BC and AD to some other thing like Common Era or somesuch, and to that other peculiarity "G-d"? What the heck is that supposed to be? I was told that using the word 'God' was offensive to the Jews. Can't for the life of me see how, since it isn't the word they use anyway! (And how on earth do you say 'G-d' in ordinary speech. Methinks some people protest too much!Mike Crowlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02823415769823932104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8935942607987614770.post-11027150722085978502010-03-18T20:25:31.967-04:002010-03-18T20:25:31.967-04:00Ah yes, so well explained! Helpful.
Perhaps for m...Ah yes, so well explained! Helpful.<br /><br />Perhaps for me the answer is to use OT with Christians, and Hebrew or Tanakh with Jews or others; when Hebrew, Judiasm, Torah are the topic.<br /><br />You've not doubt noticed that "OT" doesn't mean much to a Jew, especially an Orthodox Jew.<br /><br />My agenda has been for Christians to realize the ancient roots of our Bible, to understand "we" didn't write it all, and the Jews have so very much to do with our faith. I for one enjoy my chumash, both Hertz and Stone Scroll eds, lol. I want to know the Bible Jesus used. However, your comments remind me this isn't the true agenda, and can be distancing...my inner Pharisee rears its ugly head.<br /><br />As for canon, isn't that a man-made thing, like chapter breaks and heading titles? (Not that man isn't inspired!) I've printed various books and sections of Scripture with no verse, chapter or heading breaks, and also one of only the red letters of John. Makes reading the Bible a different experience; however for study of course the editing is wonderful.<br /><br />Thanks for the heads up!<br /><br />(p.s. another of my personal agendas is Christians who think faith and religion is only about the West, and modern-day believers...another topic entirely and my ego again roars ;))Studentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8935942607987614770.post-13822387584272494562010-03-18T15:32:07.818-04:002010-03-18T15:32:07.818-04:00Thank you for your thoughtful comments. My first ...Thank you for your thoughtful comments. My first Old Testament teacher, Phyllis Trible, always referred to the Hebrew canon as TaNaKh, which as you know stands for the three Hebrew words for the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. <br /><br />That, as you also know, is not how our Christian OT canon is organized. I think it was acceptable for her to do so in an academic setting, as I said. But I think it would be as just as wrong to call the first reading a reading from TaNaKh as it is to call it from the “Hebrew Bible,” since it is not our canon but the Hebrew canon.<br /> <br />Why do we need do start making up new names for this part of our Bible after all these centuries? It is just another one of the many things the mainline church does for reasons that baffle me, and frankly alienate me, and distract me from worship.<br /><br />And these little tweaks see, to be akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. There are much larger issues at stake in our churches.<br /><br />These “innovations” also distance us from our separated brothers and sisters in Christ, who outnumber us, and they make us appear to be a sect of some kind. And I do think we make sectarian moves that are without adequate ecumenical conversation or theological foundation. This is just one of them.<br /><br />Rick.Richard L. Floydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12113908222186199761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8935942607987614770.post-24677808667310517872010-03-18T12:34:07.597-04:002010-03-18T12:34:07.597-04:00To my mind "Old Testament" is an add-on ...To my mind "Old Testament" is an add-on name for Tanakh, Hebrew Scripture, or Jewish Bible. I've talked to Jews about this, and of course looked it up. But I actually formed my opinion before doing all that.<br /><br />However, when one reads from the "Hebrew Scriptures" in a Christian church or setting, I'd guess most of the audience won't know all this.<br /><br />I know the Tanakh organizes things in a different order, and varies on the Apocrypha (as does the Christian Bible) and that most Christians read through Christological lens.<br /><br />Jesus was a Jew, and it behooves even a Christian to benefit from reading the same Bible he did, through his eyes. When He taught, he indeed referenced the Torah, the Hebrew Scriptures, the law and the prophets. Christianity hadn't been invented yet.<br /><br />Yes I know you know all this and have formed your opinion rightfully so, I'm simply chatting with you. I've wondered what's best to say in reference to "Old Testament" readings. Use of that term has long bugged me, even before I became an official theology student; I'm often the exception in a church for having read, memorized and studied in depth much of scripture, w/o said formal education.<br /><br />Thanks for this writing, you remind me I need to be more clear in word and deed on my own position on the matter.<br /><br />"Old Testament" has so many theological and psychological meanings. Loaded with meaning.Studentnoreply@blogger.com