Biblical Hebrew Forum

[gds AT dor.kaiser.org]

Subject: Re: The OT?
From: Gary D. Salyer <gds AT dor.kaiser.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 27
X-Message-Number: 1

It has been interesting to read the various takes and offences taken over the use of the terms OT/Tanach/HB.  Has anyone ever considered James Sanders' suggestion that we use the terms First Testament and Second Testament as a way to refer to the OT/NT?  He suggested this idea 15 years ago.  See: "First Testament/Second Testament", Biblical Theology Bulletin 37 (1988), pp. 47-49.  I use his idea in my lectures all the time, and even, did so in my book (Vain Rhetoric).  Although I had to insist to my editors that I wanted to refer to the OT this way, they allowed it if I had a footnote to explain my terminology.  

I think this is a good suggestion, because it gets rid of some offensive terms and substitutes a few that are neutral yet descriptive.  As Sanders point out, Hebrew Bible doesn't cut it because the language of the text is both Hebrew and Aramaic, and the term seems to suggest that the books are the property of one ethnic group, which it is not.  On the other hand, Old Testament suggests supercessionism, which is insulting to Jewish folk.  I liked his suggestion, and therefore refer to these as First Testament/Second Testament.  I also like First/Second because let's face it, after 2000 years, what we have is an Old and Older Testament in these two.  The fact of the matter is, that the NT is now 4 times as old as the OT was when the NT was written!  Rhetorically, I don't think "OLD" gets us anywhere with the general public, in an age when software is obsolete the day one opens the package (as in the case of stuff like McAfee!)  

I also think, we need to allow both religious communities to refer to their scriptures the way they wish and rejoice in their designations, while rejoicing in our own as well.  One sad fact is that although we share the same text in many ways, the reading codes each community employs in essence, turns each collection of books into different texts pragmatically and religiously.  Perhaps that is too structuralist for some palates, but in practice, it remains a very true statement.  I've had the privilege of being trained by both Rabbis, priests and clergypersons.  I've learned a lot from both, but what a Rabbi does with a text and what I do with a text, in many (not all ways), are two very different things.  I learned a lot from Jacob Milgrom when I studied at Cal, and I think he was one of the most godly people I have ever met of any faith persuasion, but I also learned, we don't 'absorb' the text religiously the same way.  Academically, that is another matter, but when it comes to praxis of one's faith - we had two different texts, and I have seen it countless times in my encounters with other faiths.  I could also say the same for Eastern Orthodox as well.  My point?  The issue can be solved by some new terminology, as Sanders suggests.  But the designations point to a deeper issue we cannot get around.  That being, the 'text' we share in these books is very different for each community in terms of reading conventions and what those faith codes make of the linguistic markers supplied by the ancient writers.  Christians make of Isaiah something I am sure, he did not understand at the time.  And, I am equally sure, the Rabbis who debated issues in the Talmud did the same for many texts as well.  Both communities apply later reading grids to the ancient text we have preserved in the Massoretic Text, and now, the supplemental scrolls from Qumran.  The different designations HB, Tanach, and OT reflect, I think, the reality of those reading codes, and adequately describe the ancient text as-it-is-currently-being-run-through-the-faith-community's-reading-codes.  These designations are perfect for what they do; they designate each text as a product of reading codes.  Thus the Massoretic Collection becomes the Old Testament due to the Christological reading code of the Christian faith.  On the other hand, Tanach or Hebrew Bible reflects the Jewish or Academic commitment to a non Christological reading code.  These differing codes are really ways to say to one's audience, this is the reading code I am applying to this text.  And, that is good, because it is the codes that determine the meaning each interpreter gains from the text anyway, so why not be upfront about it?  There is no one text out there, pragmatically speaking.  What we have are 2 or 3 'texts', which share a common textual tradition, but not much else in terms of the deeper dynamics of religious faith.  Personally, I can live with that, and so, I am not offended when somebody expresses their faith.  I just think, when we do so unconsciously, it sometimes behooves us to make sure we are allowing others the same right.  For myself, I use First Testament, and have spent the last 10 years explaining myself in academic circles.  If I speak to Jewish folk, I use either First Testament or Tanach.  In speaking to layfolk of the Christian persuasion, I'll use OT and NT, but try to bootleg First and Second into the discussion at a later time.  I just hope we can all get over the offence being taken, and realize, these terms are deeply rooted in two opposing reading communities and their reading codes.  We should just accept the terms for what they are; designations of two separate sets of faith codes being run on a single text, which in essence, makes for two differing texts.  It really is just that, and that alone, it seems to me.

Sincerely,

Gary D. Salyer