I am resending this; it ran into a road block.

I always shuddered a bit when I used Law--Biblical teaching, especially
when it applied to "law" in the Old Testament here.
"Nomos" is the usual translation of "torah" in the Old Testament in Greek;
however,Torah also has a sense of teaching and custom, not "law" in our
Western sense nor in the sense as it is interpreted by some Protestant
I would now urge you all to read the article in current Journal of Biblical
Literature, vol. 135, no.2 by Joshua Berman.  He makes the case that law in
the Old Testament does not have the meaning of codified laws or
legislation, but its sense is common law; the various laws in the Old
Testament, no matter what book they are in is an interpretation of a
previous law, an interpretation does not supplement the previous law--it
complements it.  Given that, we should reconsider our use of Law-Biblical
teaching.  And we should be very careful of using Class K for the
descriptions of what is allowed as revealed in Mishnah or the Talmud.  Even
in the Talmud, we do not a sense of legislation, but clarifying statements
about what a previous rabbi meant.

I would recommend this article by all parties involved, SACO, NACO, Library
of Congress's construction committee when it comes of class K.

Perhaps we could have Biblical law--Interpretation and construction (using
the pattern heading of legislation in SHM)

Anyway article is quite good lends some literary warrant for how we treat
"Biblical" law and I would suggest for legal matters that were discussed
and implemented in post-return from exile times.
Click here to Reply, Reply to all, or Forward
Using 0.58 GB
Manage <>
Program Policies
Powered by
Last account activity: 31 minutes ago