Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: The OT?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Bill Ross" <BillRoss AT norisksoftware.com>
  • To: "'Shoshanna Walker'" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>, "'Biblical Hebrew'" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: The OT?
  • Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:10:26 -0500


<Shoshanna>
>>How about Jewish Bible and Christian Bible? Isn't that the most
correct?

<Bill>
The problem is that christians recognize both libraries, so Genesis is
in both the Jewish and christian bibles.

>>See? According to Jesus, the treasure is not found in one part, but
both.

<Shoshanna>
>>But Jesus is not our authority

<Bill>
For those who claim that Jesus is their authority, the OT/NT designation
would be appropriate, while the term "old testament" is just a 1611-type
tradition that should be shed.

It seems to me that the term "old things" if taken from a context of
being recognized as an abiding treasure, is not an intrinsically
offensive, at least crassly offensive designation.

In other words, if I say that some of my wine is old and some is new, it
doesn't insult the older wine, while it distinguishes it.

Now I am not saying that the christian position of a *superior* covenant
is thereby taken away, but the documents are put in a perspective that
is consistent with the christian scriptures themselves.

Bottom line: call them what you want, but the term "testament" is an
inapropriate one by any measure. [Or is the Tanach a "testament?!"]

Bill Ross






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page