The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1134 Thursday, 23 June 2005
[1] From: Bob Lapides <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 22 Jun 2005 10:18:25 EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1128 Designations
[2] From: Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 23 Jun 2005 09:20:44 +0100
Subj: SHK 16.1128 Designations
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Lapides <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Wednesday, 22 Jun 2005 10:18:25 EDT
Subject: 16.1128 Designations
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1128 Designations
Matthew Baynham writes,
>I feel comfortable using the term Old Testament because these
>scriptures are an essential and deeply valued part of my Christian
>tradition, first reverenced by the Jew Jesus of Nazareth himself and
>then by his first Jewish followers in respect of him....
This certainly is a choice you're entitled to, but you also have to
realize that the term "Old Testament" is inherently insulting to Jews.
You may not care that this is so, but this is the case. In mixed
company, which the modern world so often is, it's a good idea to show
respect for other culture's perspectives, even when we privately think
they're silly.
E.g., I think the last part of the sentence of yours I've quoted
above-i.e., "first reverenced by the Jew Jesus"-is, given the historical
facts, a silly way of noting how a rabbi thought of the Hebrew
Scriptures. But ordinarily I'd let it pass, because this point obviously
means a lot to you as a Christian.
Bob Lapides
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 23 Jun 2005 09:20:44 +0100
Subject: Designations
Comment: SHK 16.1128 Designations
Sure, I understand what is commonly meant by "christology" - and my
understanding of the subject is mostly governed by my reading of
Hooker's Laws V:liv (Keble ed. II:231-238; Folger ed. III:220-227).
None of which really explains these uses of the term:
'the translation processes which spanned nearly 1,400 up till the KJV is
extremely complex, although well documented in *Christology."' (SHK
16.1023 Friday, 27 May 2005)
'Cheryl Newton writes, "The KJV translation is rife with
mistranslations, some for lack of scholarship, some in the OT deliberate
to 'predict' the events of the NT."
Indeed? No, not really. You can go to any large library and find a
wall of books on *Christology* which cover the thesis you state...' (SHK
16.0958 Friday, 20 May 2005)
It was useful, I think, to get some good definitions cited on Shaksper.
m
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
