One of the current struggles in Academia and in the Church is naming things and times in ways that don't upset anyone. In some circles people use BC (before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini that is year of our Lord) to talk about the time before the coming of Jesus and the time after the coming of Jesus. This may make sense in Church circles. After all in the Church we see Jesus as the center of the Biblical story and also as the center of history.
Our big struggle is not in the Church but in society and particularly in academic conversation. Scholars have come to recognize that insisting that everyone divide history according to the Christian calendar denies religious or other narratives of humans.
We can't really expect Jews, Muslims, etc to divide history according to the Christian narrative. In fact both Jews and Muslims when within their own communities measure history by other methods; Jews since the creation of the universe and Muslims from the time of Mohammed.
So in the scholarly world and in some other circles time is measured by the abbreviations BCE (before the Common Era) and CE (the Common Era). All seem to accept that BCE and BC still refer to the Christian measure of time but have agreed to ignore that and use terms that do not directly refer to Christian measurement of time. There are curmudgeons that insist we retain BC and AD but BCE and CE are accepted in the majority of the scholarly community. And I think outside the Church we should use the newer terms. We can't expect the whole world to name time according to our beliefs.
Of more controversy is what to name the first and the second parts of the Bible. Christian tradition has used a couple of curious titles: Old Testament and New Testament. These titles are rejected by more and more scholars and curiously by more and more pastors and other Christian leaders. The most popular replacements at this point seem to be "Hebrew Scriptures" and "Christian Scriptures." As I have thought about this recently I have come to the conclusion that neither the old method nor the new method is acceptable.
I find the old names to be unacceptable mainly from a Calvinist perspective. The following definitions of "testament" come from the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
1
a archaic: a covenant between God and the human race
b capitalized: either of two main divisions of the Bible
2
a: a tangible proof or tribute
b: an expression of conviction: creed
3
I think we can eliminate 2 and 3 for the purpose of this essay. We are left with 1 a and b. B simply describes the names. A, I think, is the proper definition and is the core of the problem. Calvinists have believed since there were Calvinists that there is one covenant between God and humanity. Some will say that there are two covenants, the one between God and Adam and Eve (a covenant of works) and the covenant that follows the sin of Adam and Eve (a covenant of grace). Putting that theological disagreement aside I think Calvinists can agree that at least since the sin of Adam and Eve there is only one covenant.
There is of course the not so small problem of the series of covenants in the Old Testament (hold on, we haven't gotten to my suggestion for a better way to name the two parts of the Bible). There are covenants between God and Noah, Abraham, the Israelites at Mount Sinai and David. We also see references to a new covenant between God and Israel in Jeremiah 31. There is also the clear statement in the New Testament that Jesus brings and makes a new covenant between God and the people of Israel but also all who put their faith in God through Jesus. There are references to the new covenant not only in the passages about the Lord's Supper but also in other places (particularly in Hebrews) that make a distinction between the old covenant and the new covenant suggesting that the new covenant is better than the old covenant. The question at hand is does the new covenant replace the old covenant?
Calvinists have said throughout history that all the covenants from Noah down through Jesus are part of God's covenant of grace. Thus the new covenant in Jesus is an extension – and a very important extension – of the covenant of grace that is the story of God's loving pursuit of sinful humanity. To speak of a new covenant smacks of supersessionism, that God's covenant with Christians through Jesus replaces God's covenant with Israel.
There is a further problem with the titles Old Testament (or covenant) and New Testament (or covenant). The very titles suggest a radical division between the Scripture from Genesis to Malachi and Matthew to Revelation. If there is a new covenant does that covenant replace the old covenant? If there is a new covenant does that make the Scripture of the old covenant no longer relevant? NO! The Scripture of what is called the New Testament builds on that of the New Testament. There can be no real separation between the Scripture in this sense. We do not reject the earlier Scripture because of the coming of Jesus.
The most common new way of naming the two parts of the Bible has this same problem and others. The new names are Hebrew Scriptures and Christian Scriptures. One is picky but then I am a picky person. Parts of Scripture in the section from Genesis to Malachi are not in Hebrew. They are in Aramaic. So while it is mostly Hebrew calling it Hebrew Scripture is not exactly accurate.
Further if the term "Hebrew Scripture is meant to refer to the Scripture of the Hebrew people as over against the Scripture of Christians we have the same problem we have with Old Testament and New Testament. The section of Scripture from Matthew to Revelation is not the full content of Christian Scripture. Christians believe that the section from Genesis to Malachi is also Scripture and fought for centuries against those who would exclude that section of Scripture for a variety of reasons.
The main group that rejected the first section of Scripture was the Gnostics, or at least some of them. "Gnostics" is a complicated term that refers to a lot of different groups. Most of them rejected the first section of Scripture insisting that the God of that first section of Scripture is a different God than that of the second section of Scripture – or at least those parts of that second section they accepted along with other documents. They considered the God of the first section of Scripture to be evil and the God of the parts of the second section and the other documents they accepted as Scripture to be the greater and good God.
So we cannot make a division between the first and second second sections of Scripture. To do so is to commit not only an error but a form of heresy. While we can say there is a distinction between them there can be no separation between the two sections of Scripture.
Nevertheless for the sake of our Jewish brothers and sisters (and for Christian reasons as well) we need to make a distinction between the first section of Scripture that they accept as Scripture and the second section of Scripture that Christians accept along with the first section. I therefore suggest different terms altogether. Jews call what they would call the three parts of their Scripture, (Torah or Law, Nevi’im or Prophets and Kethuvim or Writings), the Tanach which translated actually means Bible. Thus we can call the first section the Tanach – the Hebrew word for Bible and the second section Additional Christian Scriptures. This would allow us to recognize that Jews believe only the first section of what Christians claim is Scripture as Scripture and that Christians recognize both the first section (from a Christian perspective) as Christian Scripture and the Additional Christian Scriptures as also a part of Scripture.
Of course there is also the text of the Moslem Scripture – the Quran. Muslims believe that the Tanach and the Additional Christian Scriptures are corrupted. And there are also the various Scriptures (although I am not certain that Scripture is the correct word) of various other religions like the various types of Hinduism and Buddhism but since Christians have used "Old Testament" and "New Testament" and scholars and some Christians have changed that to Hebrew and Christian Scriptures I think we can limit the new titles I have given to refer to the Tanach and the Additional Christian Scripture.
Of course I recognize that neither those who use the old terms nor those who use the new terms are going to listen to me. This is merely a suggestion that from both Jewish and Christian perspectives there is better way to name the two sections of what Christians would accept as Scripture.
Have at me all who like or dislike my suggested titles!
2 comments:
I concur that Old and New Testament doesn't work. "Hebrew Scriptures" and "Christian Scriptures flails too, primarily for the reasons you note. I tend to use the "Tanakh, Gospels and Epistles" myself.
Good answer!
Post a Comment