|
Just a note to Gary Salyer's posting:
Sanders' article on First/Second Testament, or at
least a similar article by him, is available online. I had it and lost
it.
In any case, Sanders, like Gary, explains why he
thinks the common terms are inadequate and may even insult those of
different religious communities. The spirit of the article was much the same as
Gary's posting.
I'd appreciate it if someone could redirect me to
it, as I may be in need of it for teaching this year.
Sincerely,
--------------
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of
Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
Beit Berl Post Office
44905
Israel
"sha'alu shelom yerushalayim yishlayu kol
'ohavayikh"
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 9:32
PM
Subject: Re: b-hebrew digest: August 25,
2002
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software is obsolete the day one opens the package (as in the case of stuff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
--- You
are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il] To
unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub') To subscribe, send an email to
join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
|
