What’s in a Name? — Reflections on the term “Hebrew Bible” as a substitute for the term “Old Testament”

In Academic Circles, “Hebrew Bible” is the term most commonly used to refer to the “Old Testament” for scholastic purposes. This term gained widespread use in Academic Circles after the Holocaust, to address the perceived anti-Jewish tone of the term “Old Testament”.

Why is the term “Old Testament” deemed anti-Jewish?

The term “”Old Testament”” is a Christian term that contrasts the Canon with the New Testament. The term first found usage with Bishop Melito of Sardis (190 CE) in his reference to “Books of the Old Covenant”, drawing a contrast with the New Testament and the New Covenant found in Christ. The Anti-Jewish tone arises from the fact that the terms “Old” and “New Testament” imply supersession i.e. that the Sacred Scripture of Judaism is obsolete. The term “New” in this context is not just temporal but also evaluative. For example, if applied by Christians in strict accord- ance with the Book of Hebrews, it is clearly evaluative: (Hebrews 10:9 “He (God) abolishes the first in order to establish the second” and Hebrews 8:13 “in speaking of the New Testament He (God) has made the old obsolete”. A position taught by Marcion in the 2nd Century CE, for which he was branded a heretic by the early Christian Church, which to a greater or lesser extent through to modern times con- tinues to embrace the “Old Testament” Canon as Sacred Scripture.

How accurate is the term “Hebrew Bible” when used as a replacement for “Old Test- ament” in Academic Study?

It is not surprising, that in order not to offend, a more sensitive term should be sought by the Academic community: Hence the adoption of the term “Hebrew Bible”. Whilst less offensive, there are a number of issues pertaining to the term

1

“Hebrew Bible”, that render it less than accurate if one attempts to use it as a re- placement for the term “Old Testament”.

The “Hebrew Bible”, is in its own right is the Canon regarded as forming the Sacred Scriptures of Judaism and written in Hebrew. The official Rabbinic version is based upon the Masoretic Text (the “MT”) established by the Ben Asher family in Tiberias, Galillee and found in the Aleppo CODEX in the early 10th Century CE. The Christian “Old Testament”, by contrast, is based upon the Greek (Septuagint/ LXX) and Latin (Vulgate) translations of source material, which while generally con- sistent with the MT show certain differences in terms of:

• - the order of those Books common to each;
• - the length of certain Books common to each;
• - the inclusion of additional Books in the Greek and Latin versions, not in-
• cluded in the MT.
• Language
• If one is using the term “Hebrew” as a denominator of Language rather than of Na- tionality, the inaccuracy arises from the fact that not all of the “Hebrew Bible” is written in Hebrew. Sections of Daniel and all of Ezra are written in Aramaic. Whilst Aramaic may use the same script as Hebrew, there is considerable evidence to show that they were distinct Semitic languages in their own right. Purely from a lan- guage perspective, therefore, the “Hebrew Bible” would more accurately be called the Hebrew & Aramaic Bible.
• Canonical Constitution
• The order of the Books differs between the MT and the “Old Testament”. The Latter Prophets of the MT are moved to the end of the “Old Testament” Canon and im-

2

portantly, include the Apocalyptic Book of Daniel, so as to point towards the New Testament.

Whilst differing in order, apart from re-grouping and splitting a number of books into two (i.e. 1 and 2 Kings), the content of the Protestant “Old Testament” is generally consistent with the MT.

However, as one considers the other branches of Christianity, the differences widen. The Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Eastern Christian and Ethiopian Can- ons to differing degrees, not only include Books that are not included in the MT but also additional passages in certain Books. The additional Books making up the largest of the Canons, the Ethiopian Canon, are referred to as the “Apocrypha” in the Protestant Church and to the extent not included in the Roman Catholic Canon, as “Deuterocanonical” in the Roman Catholic Church.

The interchangeability of the Terms “Old Testament” and “Hebrew Bible” be- comes more problematic, when one considers that certain additional Books that form part of Christian “Old Testament”, may have never existed in Hebrew or Ara- maic at all. Indeed, it is generally accepted that the Wisdom of Solomon never exis- ted in Hebrew, but was written in Greek in its original form.

Consequently, scholars are not only interested in the MT, but are equally inter- ested in the Greek (Septuagint/LXX) and Latin (Vulgate) translations. Indeed, the majority of the work undertaken by scholars is on the Greek and Latin translations.

So which is authoritative — The MT or the Greek Bible?

From an Academic perspective source authority generally follows the “earliest is best” principle. It had long been held that the official Hebrew version was de facto the oldest. This does not take into account, however, the fact that there were many versions of the Hebrew text in circulation in the 3rd, 2nd and 1st C BCE and that the text adopted as the “Hebrew Bible” by the Rabbinic authorities, may not be the oldest. A theory that parts of the Greek Translation (Septuagint / LXX) might actu-

3

ally be based on an older Hebrew Text gained credence in 1947 with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, portions of which were found to be more closely aligned to the LXX than the official “Hebrew Bible”. For example, Jeremiah, Job and the Story of David and Goliath are shorter in the LXX than in the official Hebrew Text.

Given that one cannot be certain as to which of the Hebrew source texts are the oldest, for the purposes of Academic Study the Biblical Scholar needs to con- sider the Hebrew, Greek and Latin versions, as each may point to older traditions than the official Hebrew Text endorsed as Sacred Scripture in Judaism. There is no doubt that archeological discoveries will continue to add to our awareness of con- temporary or earlier source materials, as has been illustrated by the discovery of large parts of Tobit or Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), hitherto thought to have either been lost or non-existent in Hebrew.

Conclusion

Although perhaps misleading from a linguistic perspective, the term “Hebrew Bible” is significant in that it acknowledges that texts written in this ancient Semitic Language existed in their own right, before becoming part of the Sacred Scriptures of the Christian Church.

The Term “Early Christian Writings” is certainly less controversial than “Old Test- ament”, but doesn’t convey the significance of a fixed Canon.

The Terms “First” and “Second Testament” are perhaps less blatantly superses- sionist than “Old” and “New” but don’t really make sense if one is abandoning the concept of Covenant.

Similarly, collectively referring to the Old and New Testaments as simply “the Bible”, fails to acknowledge the significance of Christ and the New Covenant that he embodied.

On balance, and whilst it may be of far greater significance for Christian Churches than Academic Circles, the term “Hebrew Bible” would seem to be more

appropriate than other alternatives, particularly if one interprets the word Hebrew to refer to a Nation of people rather than a language.

SLCS
References:
Barton, John: The Hebrew Bible a Critical Companion Collins, John J.: Introduction to the Hebrew Bible