Thu Nov 30 10:33:19 1995

From majordom  Thu Nov 30 10:33:19 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA29407; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 10:33:19 +0500
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 95 07:53 +0200
From: fed@maties.sun.ac.za
To: "James R. Adair" 
Message-Id: <8890161820570931@maties.sun.ac.za>
Subject: RE: OT, Hebrew Bible, or ...?
X-Mailer: Netmail V3.17
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1238
Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 10:32:48 -0500 (EST)
Resent-From: "James R. Adair" 
Resent-To: TC List 
Resent-Message-Id: 
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk

Dear James,
Even though my primer in textual criticism is called WITNESSES TO THE OLD 
TESTAMENT I have come to use the  term "First Testament" throughout 
nowadays:
1. It shows respect for the Jewish faith;
2. It is historically correct: what we find in these books is what came
first;
3. For Christian theology it is a reminder that these texts form PART of the 
Christian BIBLE, and are not te be discarded or underevaluated as "old", 
which suggests pass‚.
4. It avoids the problem of "Hebrew Bible", which is, as you have pointed 
out, too narrow. The First Testament may not or may contain many more books 
than the Hebrew Bible and may refer to the Septuagint, the Peshitta, the 
Targum, etc. 
5. I have no problem with the term Second Testament, even though I know that
New Testament scholars do not really use the term - although the "New 
Testament" may also be too narrow a term to include Apocrypha. But even so, 
should this bother people working with the texts of the First Testament? WE
 have the problem of terminology and solve it the best we can. Is it really
unacceptable to use First Testament AND speak of the New Testament?

Best wishes from the other side of the globe,
Ferdinand Deist
University of Stellenbosch 

Back