Old Testament
From Open Encyclopedia
| Old Testament |
Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox
|
| Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox |
| Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox |
| Russian and Oriental Orthodox |
| Oriental Orthodox |
- Note: Judaism commonly uses the term Tanakh, but not Old Testament, because it does not recognize the concept of a New Testament. In academic circles, terms such as Hebrew Bible are commonly used.
The Old Testament or the Hebrew Scriptures (also called the Hebrew Bible) constitutes the first major part of the Bible according to Christianity. It is usually divided into the categories of law, history, poetry (or wisdom books) and prophecy. All of these books were written before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth who is the subject of the subsequent Christian New Testament. The Bible of Jesus is the Old Testament, specifically according to the Gospel of Luke 24:44-45 "written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms ... the scriptures" (KJV).
Contents |
Canon of the Old Testament
- Main article: Biblical canon
Following Jerome's Veritas Hebraica, the Protestant Old Testament consists of the same books as the Tanakh, but the order and numbering of the books are different. Protestants number the Old Testament books at 39, while the Jews number the same books as 24. This is because the Jews consider Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles to form one book each, group the 12 minor prophets into one book, and also consider Ezra and Nehemiah a single book. The Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox include books removed by Martin Luther, called the deuterocanonical books, which Protestants exclude as apocryphal. The basis for these books is found in the early Koine Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible. This translation was widely used by the early Christians and is the one most often quoted (300 of 350 quotations including many of Jesus' own words) in the New Testament when it quotes the Old Testament.
See also: Books of the Bible, for a side-by-side comparison of the various canons of the Hebrew Bible.
Historicity of the Old Testament
The historicity of the Old Testament has been a matter of debate, particularly since the 19th century when Julius Wellhausen using source criticism claimed to have isolated four strands of tradition behind the Pentateuch (JEDP)(see the documentary hypothesis). The Wellhausen School assigned dates for these strands (and their later editing) from the 10th-5th centuries BCE. Because the composition of the Pentateuch according to Wellhausen was so much later than the events it described, some who accept Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis tend to regard the narratives of the Pentateuch as largely fictional, while others see the stories as part of a long oral tradition. Some conservative biblical scholarship, on the other hand, generally rejected Wellhausen's Documenatary Hypothesis and believes more in the Old Testament: Timeline.
In the 20th century, with the dawn of modern archaeology and a comparative ancient Near Eastern approach led by biblical archaeologist William F. Albright, the general historicity of the biblical narratives became increasingly accepted by critical scholarship until about 1970, though not completely. Since the 1970s new objections were raised by John van Seters and Thomas L. Thompson concerning the Albright School's comparative analysis (interestingly these scholars do not have strong training in the comparative fields (archaeology, Assyriology, Egyptology, and comparative Semitics) and so their criticisms lack significant interaction with the primary data), arguing instead for a less historical understanding of these narratives and in many cases extreme views that the Old Testament was composed during the exile and later. The bastion institutions of studying the Hebrew Bible in its ancient Near Eastern context (U. Chicago, Harvard, University of Pennsylvania, and Johns Hopkins) have generally not taken many of their criticisms seriously. But nevertheless, the confidence in Old Testament narratives is less established than it once was.
Current debate concerning the historicity of the Old Testament can be divided into several camps. One group has been labeled by its critics "biblical minimalists." Minimalists (e.g. Philip Davies, Thompson, Seters) see very little reliable history in any of the Old Testament. Conservative Old Testament scholars "biblical maximalists" generally accept the historicity of all Old Testament narratives (save the accounts in Genesis 1-11) on confessional grounds, though they argue that such a belief is not incompatible with the external evidience (e.g. Kenneth Kitchen). While other scholars (e.g. William Dever) are somewhere in between: they see clear signs of evidence for the monarchy and much of Israel's later history though they doubt the Exodus and Conquest. The vast majority of scholars at American universities are somewhere between biblical minimalism and maximalism; there are still many maximalists at conservative/evangelical seminaries while there are very few biblical minimalists.
Naming of the Old Testament
Tertullian, in the 2nd century, was the first to use the terms novum testamentum/new testament and vetus testamentum/old testament, for example, in Against Marcion book 3 [1], chapter 14, he wrote:
- This may be understood to be the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the two testaments of the law and the gospel
and in book 4 [2], chapter 6, he wrote:
- For it is certain that the whole aim at which he has strenuously laboured even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centres in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as belonging to this rival god, and as alien from the law and the prophets.
Lactantius, in the 3rd century, in his Divine Institutes, book 4, chapter 20 [3], wrote:
- But all Scripture is divided into two Testaments. That which preceded the advent and passion of Christ - that is, the law and the prophets - is called the Old; but those things which were written after His resurrection are named the New Testament. The Jews make use of the Old, we of the New: but yet they are not discordant, for the New is the fulfilling of the Old, and in both there is the same testator, even Christ, who, having suffered death for us, made us heirs of His everlasting kingdom, the people of the Jews being deprived and disinherited. As the prophet Jeremiah testifies when he speaks such things: [Jer. 31:31-32] "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new testament to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they continued not in my testament, and I disregarded them, saith the Lord." ... For that which He said above, that He would make a new testament to the house of Judah, shows that the old testament which was given by Moses was not perfect; but that that which was to be given by Christ would be complete.
The Vulgate translation, in the 5th century, used testamentum in 2nd Corinthians 3 [4]:
- (6)Who also hath made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter but in the spirit. For the letter killeth: but the spirit quickeneth. (Douay-Rheims)
- (14)But their senses were made dull. For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the old testament, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made void). (Douay-Rheims)
However, the more modern NRSV translates these verses from the Koine Greek as such:
- (6)who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
- (14)But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside.
The term "Old Testament" is a translation of the Latin Vetus Testamentum, which translates the Greek Η Παλαια Διαθηκη, I Palea Diathiki, meaning "The Old Covenant (or Testament)". Some believe Christians came to call this group of books the Old Testament because of a belief taught in the Epistle to the Hebrews and based on Jeremiah 31:31-34 that Jesus of Nazareth established a New Covenant or testament between God and mankind. This new covenant is said to be in contrast with the covenant made through Moses during the exodus (Hebrews 8:9; Jeremiah 31:32). Books written after Jesus established this new covenant or testament are thus called the books of the new covenant/testament, or simply the New Testament. The earlier books are then called the books of the Old Testament in contrast. This is due to a level of ambiguity concerning the translation of diatheke - which can be read as either testmant or covenant. Also, though not a commonly held view, not all Christians believe there is a contrast, first proposed by Marcion of Sinope, between the Old and New Testaments.
Judaism accepts as Scripture the same books as those found in the Protestant Old Testament, though the ordering of the books in the Jewish Bible differs from that of the Protestant English Old Testament. However, because Judaism does not accept the books of the New Testament as Scripture, they do not label their Bible "the Old Testament." For Jews the books of the Protestant Old Testament are simply "the Bible." Since the books of the Jewish Bible were written primarily in Hebrew (with some Aramaic), the Bible of Judaism is also called "the Hebrew Bible." The term Hebrew Bible is a theologically neutral term as compared with "the Old Testament" which is distinctively Christian. Another Jewish term for the Jewish Bible/Old Testament is Tanakh, which is short for Torah, Nebi'im, and Ketubim, or Law, Prophets and Writings, the three major divisions of the Hebrew Bible.
21st century Christian theologian Marva Dawn has advocated calling the Old Testament the First Testament, freeing the writings from any trace of irrelevancy associated with aging in western culture. However, Dawn's label has not yet gained much popularity, although teachers of Religious Education in the United Kingdom have been advised to avoid using "Old Testament" because of the same reasons [5].
Christian use of the Old Testament
The relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament is not fully agreed upon among Christians. There is some debate among scholars over the issue of whether the New Testament applies to Jewish people, but there is very little debate over its applicability to Gentiles. Similarly, the degree to which the Old Testament and its laws applies to Christians is disputed. Very few Christians, for example, follow the dietary laws within the Old Testament, whereas most Christians believe that the Ten Commandments are applicable, with the possible exception of the Sabbath. The question of which Old Testament laws are applicable affects debates on a variety of issues, including homosexuality and the ordination of women to the priesthood. Either way - the vast majority of Christians agree that understanding the Old Testament is essential to understanding the New Testament, and that the contents of both are inspired by God.
Some historical groups such as Gnostics have gone so far as to assert that the God of the Old Testament is a different being from the God of the New Testament, often calling the Old Testament God the demiurge; of these, some like Marcion of Sinope, though technically not a gnostic, went further to say that the Old Testament should not be retained as part of the Christian Bible. Most Christian groups believe that this view is heresy.
Today, many scholars prefer Hebrew Bible as a term that covers the commonality of the Tanakh and the Old Testament while avoiding sectarian bias, although this commonality only includes the Protestant Old Testament.
The New Testament contains many references to, and quotes from, the Old Testament, especially in relation to the fulfillment of prophecies (see Bible prophecy) concerning the promised messiah (Greek: Christ), whom Christians believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. In Christian theological views, this expectation, present fulfillment and eschatological fulfillment of the divine, eternal kingdom under the headship of Jesus of Nazareth are the thread running through both Testaments.
Supersessionists adhere to a doctrine that claims the replacement of the nation of Israel with the Christian Church since Christ. This is based upon a number of New Testament verses, one of which is Galatians 3:29, which says And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, (and) heirs according to the promise (English Standard Version). In practice, this means that while the Old Testament ceremonial and dietary laws are no longer applicable, the ethical and moral laws remain. Moreover, those who believe in Supersessionism also hold to the belief that specific Old Testament prophecies about Israel are fulfilled in both the person of Jesus of Nazareth and the church as God's people. Proponents of Dispensationalism and others disagree with this thesis. For example, it is not compatible with Orthodox Christianity or Roman Catholicism.
Another take on the matter is proposed by Covenant Theologians, who believe that the various covenants of the Bible are supersessive, and culminate in the covenant made in the blood of Jesus of Nazareth, but who claim that Israel has always served as a type (or symbol) of the national church, and who assume a pattern of continuity between the covenants unless a discontinuity is specifically introduced by the covenant-maker (such as the discontinuity between dietary and social proscriptions).
It is useful to note that Dispensationalism, Supersessionalism and Covenant Theology find their roots in the Evangelical wing of the Church: but that they have now become widely accepted by many Reformed traditions.
Christian view of the Law
Traditional Christianity affirms that the laws or Torah of the Old Testament is the word of God, though many Christians deny that all of the laws of the Pentateuch apply directly to themselves as Christians. The New Testament indicates that Jesus Christ established a new covenent relationship between God and his people (Hebrews 8; Jeremiah 31:31-34) and this makes the Mosaic covenant in some senses obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). A change of covenant can imply a change of law. Many have interpreted Mark's statement, "thus he declared all foods clean" (Mark 7:19) to mean that Jesus taught that the pentateuchal food laws were no longer applicable to His followers. The writer of Hebrews indicates that the sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood foreshadowed Jesus Christ's offering of himself as the sacrifice for sin on the Cross and many have interpreted this to mean that once the reality of Christ has come, the shadows of the ritual laws cease to be obligatory (Heb 8:5; 9:23-26; 10:1). On the other hand, the New Testament repeats and applies to Christians a number of Old Testament laws, including "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18; compare the Golden Rule), "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul and strength" (Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema) as well as every commandment of the Decalogue or Ten Commandments (Exod 20:1-17). In fact, in Matthew 5:17, Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the Law.
While some Christians from time to time have deduced from statements about the law in the writings of the apostle Paul that Christians are under grace to the exclusion of all law (see antinomianism), this is not the usual viewpoint of Christians.An example of one more common approach is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) which divides the Mosaic laws into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. In the view of the Westminster divines, only the moral law such as most of the Ten Commandments directly applies to Christians today. Others limit the application of the Mosaic laws to those commands repeated in the New Testament. In the 1970s and 1980s a movement known as Christian Reconstructionism (Theonomy) argued that the civil laws as well as the moral laws should be applied in today's society as part of establishing a modern, theocratic state. Others are content to grant that none of the Mosaic laws apply as such and that the penalties attached to the laws were limited to the particular historical and theological setting of the Old Testament, and yet still seek to find moral and religious principles applicable for today in all parts of the law. The topic of Paul and the law is still frequently debated among New Testament scholars.
In the late 20th century some Christian groups, primarily those found in or influenced by Messianic Judaism, have asserted that Torah laws should be followed by Christians. Due to a different understanding of Biblical passages such as those referenced above, dietary laws, seventh day Sabbath, and Biblical festival days are observed in some way within such segments of Christianity. As with Orthodox Judaism, capital punishment and sacrifice are not practiced because there are strict Biblical conditions on how these are to be practiced. Christians who attempt to follow Torah law do not do such works in order to achieve salvation, but rather because they believe is it a way of more fully obeying God (see Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 5:17). See sources below (Lancaster and Berkowitz).
See also
- Biblical canon
- Books of the Bible
- Biblical figures
- Bible
- Septuagint
- Quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament
- Tanakh
- Hebrew Bible
Further reading
- Berkowitz, Ariel and D'vorah. Torah Rediscovered. 4th ed. Shoreshim Publishing, 2004. ISBN 0975291408
- Anderson, Bernhard. Understanding the Old Testament. (ISBN 0139483993)
- Dever, William G. Who Were the Early Israelites? William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 2003. ISBN 0802809758
- Hill, Andrew and John Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. ISBN 0310229030.
- Lancaster, D. Thomas. Restoration. Littleton: First Fruits of Zion, 2005.
- Silberman, Neil A., et al. The Bible Unearthed. Simon and Schuster, New York, 2003. ISBN 0684869136 (paperback) and ISBN 0684869128 (hardback)
- Sprinkle, Joe M. Biblical Law and Its Relevance: A Christian Understanding and Ethical Application for Today of the Mosaic Regulation. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2006. ISBN 0761833714 (clothbound) and ISBN 0761833722 (paperback)
- Bahnsen, Greg, et al, Five Views on Law and Gospel. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993).
External links
- Barry L. Bandstra, "Reading the Old Testament : An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible"
- Full text of the Old (and New) Testaments in 42 different languages.
- Catholic Encyclopedia: Old Testament
- Judaica Press Translation - Online Jewish translation of the Old Testament. The Tanakh and Rashi's entire commentary.zh-min-nan:Kū-iok Sèng-keng
ca:Antic Testament cs:Starý zákon da:Det gamle testamente de:Altes Testament et:Vana Testament el:Παλαιά Διαθήκη es:Antiguo Testamento eo:Malnova Testamento fr:Ancien Testament ko:구약성서 hr:Stari zavjet id:Perjanjian Lama ia:Vetule Testamento it:Antico Testamento he:הברית הישנה ht:Ansyen Testaman nl:Oude Testament ja:旧約聖書 lt:Senasis Testamentas mi:Kawenata Tawhito ml:പഴയ നിയമം my:ဓမ္မဟောင္းက္ယမ္း no:Det gamle testamente nn:Det gamle testamentet pl:Stary Testament pt:Antigo Testamento ru:Ветхий Завет sk:Starý zákon sr:Стари завет fi:Vanha testamentti sv:Gamla Testamentet th:คัมภีร์ของศาสนาคริสต์ vi:Cựu Ước tr:Eski Antlaşma zh:旧约圣经
