I don't find
First Testament any different from Old Testament.
There is no
First, without a Second.
At least with
Old Testament, everyone knows what is being referred to.
Liz
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.
--- You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as:
[lizfried AT umich.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub') To subscribe, send an email to
join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
|