Last week a reader suggested the newspaper replace the name Old Testament with “Hebrew Bible” or another term such as “First Testament” or “Early Scriptures.” Readers were quick to add their opinions on language issues and pet peeves.
Laura Anschicks, for instance, wrote that even though she knows it is a Jewish text, she is surprised that it rankles her to think about the Old Testament in other than Christian terms. The issue also prompted Bruce Wilson, a librarian in West Virginia, to come up with one more name: “The Jewish Testament.”
But the most helpful explanation, I thought, came from a teacher at the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools:
“I teach my students the differences between the two books in the context of teaching them about the evolution of monotheism. The Hebrew Bible refers not to the language, but the Hebrew people, for whom the book is the essential source of law and teaching. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to describe it as the Hebrew Bible. ‘Tanakh’ might be more accurate, but is not likely to make it into the vernacular.
“The Christian Bible is made up of two testaments: the Old Testament is the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible; the New Testament is the work of Christian revelation. They are consecutive, comprehensive and must be understood as a coherent whole for Christian theology. … What you use should depend upon the context in which you are using it.”
Susan Shapiro, Chicago
Language involving the abortion issue also is sure to raise hackles. Some writers combined their thoughts on that with questions about the various ways newspaper reporters describe terrorism.
“First, I disagree with the paragraph about ‘partial-birth abortions.’ I cringe every time your paper or another discusses this issue without saying front and center that this is a made-up term with no medical definition. It was created whole-cloth by a pamphleteer. … to come up with a phrase for this procedure that would capture the public’s attention. I’ve also never liked a phrase you used in passing, ‘claimed responsibility for …’ in terms of terrorist acts. These are, by definition, not responsible behaviors. Wouldn’t ‘taken the blame for,’ or ‘claimed blame for’ be better?”
Bob Purse, Arlington Heights
“The Tribune may not print pro-life as a matter of stylebook etiquette, but apparently it has no such restraint on pro-choice, which promotes the mother’s ‘rights’ over the unborn.
“Also we will never see homicide bomber versus suicide bomber in print even though the point of the act is not to commit suicide but to murder as many innocents as possible.
Robert Miller, Chicago
I did a spot-check since the beginning of this year and found an equal number of references (about 1,600 each) to pro-life and pro-choice in the newspaper, but every time the words were part of a quote, an advocacy group’s legal name, inside an article on the Commentary page, or in a letter to the editor.
Reporters did not use those self-serving labels in their news stories.
Homicide bomber is one of those terms attached to a political agenda instead of common-sense language. The term tells you less instead of more about the action and the perpetrator. The Bush administration promoted homicide bomber for a while, but after nobody else bought it, even Fox News gave up using it.
“I suspect you also opened up a rather large can of worms, as readers will now feel justified in writing to inform you of their own usage pet peeves.
“… One is the use of the word ‘scandal’ in certain situations … A scandal, in my opinion, is a story that involves somebody doing something naughty and then getting caught. … A scandal is a public embarrassment of a relatively minor nature. What happens all too often, however, is that the word is applied to situations that are so much more than scandal.
“… As for the word ‘alleged,’ I think we use this word far too often … [I]t is perfectly correct to say that the police officer seen beating a female bartender on videotape is the ‘alleged assailant.’ But when the incident is called an ‘alleged beating,’ it calls into question whether or not the crime occurred …”
Victoria Adams, Plainfield
More Top Picks Best Baby Carriers For Newborns
And thanks to one more reader for keeping our feet to the fire.
“On behalf of English, may I correct a misusage that appeared in the Tribune … where the present participle ‘lingering’ is used to qualify the noun ‘war.’ To quote: ‘… Bush appeared frustrated, combative and tired in answering questions about a lingering war…’
Now, I understand the meaning of the sentence, yet my ear recoils from the sour note. To paraphrase Mark Twain, I know what the writer wants to say, but I also know that he’s not saying it. The appropriate adjective for a war that drags on would be not ‘lingering’ but ‘protracted.’
“
Michael W. Drwiega, Wilmette
———-
Timothy J. McNulty is the Tribune’s public editor. E-mail: [email protected]. The views expressed are his own