Queries & Comments

014

What to Call It Is Not So Easy

To the Editor:

The letter titled “Old Testament and Tanakh” written by Dov Ben-Khayyim and appearing in Queries & Comments, BAR 12:03, raises a valid objection, not only for the Jewish people, but for Christians with a reverence for the Bible text.

What has always amazed me is that the terms “Old Testament” and “New Testament” continue to persist in almost all Bible translations, even though there is no Biblical or theological basis for them whatsoever. Apparently they were adopted from the several times the Greek word diatheke was mistranslated by the King James translators as “testament” instead of “covenant.”

BAR suggests “Hebrew Bible” as a better designation for the “Old Testament.” However, since the Greek equivalent of the word “Bible” does not appear in the Bible as an overall designation of the Holy Scriptures, you might consider the designation “Hebrew Scriptures” for the “Old Testament” and “Christian Greek Scriptures” for the “New Testament.” (The term “Christian” being used in the latter designation to differentiate these books from the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.) These designations have been used for a number of years by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in the New World translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Not only are these designations Biblically correct, but they should not offend readers of any religious persuasion. You cannot easily find that combination these days!

To the Editor:

In regard to the various letters and articles dealing with what to call those books referred to as the “Tanakh,” the “Old Testament,” “Hebrew Scriptures,” “Jewish Scriptures,” etc., I offer the following comments.

First, there is no one title that is (probably) acceptable. The title “Tanakh,” the traditional title of the Sacred Scriptures of Judaism, assumes a three-part division of these books; while Christianity, and other religions, see a four-part division of the books—Torah, Prophets, Wisdom (Writings) and Historical books.

The problem with the title Hebrew Scriptures or Jewish Scriptures is that both suggest a strong division between them and the “Greek Scriptures” of the “New Testament.” This is foreign to the Christian community and its commitment to the continuity of all the books that make up the Bible in Christianity.

Furthermore, within Christianity there is no agreement as to just what books make up what goes under the title “Old Testament.” Protestant Christianity accepts only those books in the Tanakh. Catholic and Orthodox Christianity include all the books of the Tanakh plus other books in their Old Testament canon—which are neither written in Hebrew nor are they Jewish Scripture. And when a Catholic or Orthodox scholar studies her/his Old Testament, she/he necessarily studies the books not part of the Protestant canon (Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, etc.)

Finally, the term “Old Testament” is unacceptable to Judaism for it presumes a “New Testament” and therefore that the covenant with God through the Tanakh is somehow lacking. Given the long history of anti-Semitism in Western (Christian) civilization there is good reason for fear of the word “old” in the “Old Testament.” The Jewish people have been labeled rejected by God and without a place or right in the Kingdom of God which now belongs to the Gentiles. Fortunately Christianity has reevaluated and has now come to cherish its Jewish roots. The most striking example of this is in the documents of Vatican II where the Catholic faithful are instructed that anti-Semitism is ruled out for any Christian who places her/his faith in Jesus since He Himself was a Jew, His mother was a Jew, and all of His immediate followers were Jews, in short, the whole summation of His life is rooted in Jewish thought. For the Christian the books of the “Old Testament” are only old in the wonderful sense of a parent to the new, young faith in Christ.

Therefore, Christianity sees no disruption between the books of the Tanakh-Old Testament and the books of the Christian New Testament. For the believing Christian they are all part of a living covenant begun in the Tanakh-Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament. The Christian necessarily believes that God has spoken through Christ a new, a fuller word than the Tanakh-Old Testament alone contains. Obviously, Judaism rejects this claim.

When a Jewish scholar examines the Tanakh, he is studying HIS Sacred Scriptures. For the Protestant scholar, the studies include the same books, albeit from a different perspective, and these books make up what are referred to as HIS Old Testament. When the Catholic or Orthodox scholar conducts HIS 016inquiries into HIS Old Testament, that investigation involves a larger canon.

Even the secular scholar is left with choosing a title that cannot meet the criteria of any of the four groups.

My only suggestion, and probably not an acceptable one, is to refer to these books as the Tanakh-Old Testament. This title, though long, recognizes the title by which both the Jewish and Christian traditions call these books, it recognizes the priority of the Tanakh, and it recognizes the difference within Christianity over the Old Testament canon.

Adam Zertal Replies to Anson Rainey

To the Editor:

As a student of Professor Rainey’s for five years in the field of Semitic languages (since he is not an archaeologist), I was taught that:

1. Before criticizing a find, a scholar should visit the site, if possible;

2. He should study the scientific material;

3. He should speak to the excavator, if possible.

Rainey did none of the above. He has never been to Mt. Ebal; he has not seen the scientific material; and he has not discussed it with me. It seems, moreover, that he did not read the articles (Kempinski’s and mine). [“Has Joshua’s Altar Been Found on Mt. Ebal?” BAR 11:01; “Joshua’s Altar—An Iron Age I Watchtower,” BAR 12:01; and “How Can Kempinski Be So Wrong!” BAR 12:01.]

Since the scientific report is to be published soon, hopefully in 1987, there is no value in continuing this kind of debate. Every serious scientist is invited to visit the site and to discuss the discovery with me.

BAR’s Advertising Policy

To the Editor:

Your excellent journals, BAR and the newer Bible Review, present the work of Biblical scholars/archaeologists in laymen’s language without ducking tough questions or conclusions. You share the research results with the larger audience outside the scholarly community with no condescension or editorial bias.

A few of your advertisers do not share your philosophy. Specifically the Great Lakes Bible School of Research and the Eschatology Foundation are embarrassing and offensive to me, a Presbyterian layman. I pass my copies around to neighbors, including three Jewish friends, who share my Biblical interests. Often I am obliged to say, “Don’t judge this issue by some of the ads. Please overlook them.”

I have not recommended your journals to our church library where they should be on the reading desk, because of the ads.

These advertisers, taking advantage of your “Open-minded” policy, trap the gullible and religiously naive between the jaws of pseudo-scholarship and discredited 19th-century theology.

Are you not lowering editorial policy when you accept these ads? Does the AMA Journal accept ads for snake oil? Do you accept ads for horoscopes?

This is a plea to stop contaminating honest scholarship. Don’t be so open-minded that you let your brains fall out.

In any event, thanks for your wonderful journals.

To the Editor:

In order to better understand the position of the Great Lakes Bible School of Research, I wrote them for more information and have received two mailings so far.

070

Their flier speaks directly about your “Letters to the Editor” column referring to “gripes about advertisers” that criticize their ads.

You will be interested to read that “ … when the critical letter was published there was an immediate drop in new requests, making it obvious that BAR readers take such comments seriously … ”

Apparently this advertiser is not so appreciative of “your open-minded policy” when you publish letters unfavorable to their purposes.

One of the irritating aspects of such ads is that they do not state their position clearly. They write as if they were earnestly engaged in unfettered research while they are actually scraping up “evidence” and bending Scripture to support their fixed positions.

Respected journals of research should not accept ads of this kind.

Thanks anyway for your great magazine.

To the Editor:

Academic Dean Will Varner wants BAR to refuse ads from “cultic groups whose works have no scholarly basis or from groups intent on destroying another’s faith traditions” (Queries & Comments, BAR 12:04). Since Mr. Varner has never requested our material, we find it incredible that he can pontificate such uninformed conclusions.

Our ads have consisted of questions primarily to encourage further research in the Bible, even if the reader did not write for any of our material. Such study should enhance the faith of those seeking a mature relationship with God. Hardly an ideal formula for a “cultic group”!

There is no doubt that die-hard traditionalists would love to silence the questions raised by BAR and Great Lakes Society for Biblical Research, all of which seem to trouble their rigid minds. It seems that any new paradigm will be ridiculed as a threat to their academic security.

The only “clean up” we plan is to publish our ads in color! Thanks, BAR, once again for promoting research without censorship!

To the Editor:

I was just reading the May/June BAR. You published an ad for tapes to help people learn Spanish. Don’t you know someone might use the Spanish lessons you are selling to (gasp) say something I disagree with? You better start censoring your ads better, I can tell you that, fellow!

I’ve snickered through the “letters” section and I’m charmed by the diversity of bigotry; everyone censoring what they don’t agree with, or more often, what they are frightened of. I admire your tolerance both in publishing bunk letters and bunk ads.

To the Editor:

I am amazed at the editorial letters directed against some of the advertisements in BAR I have been subscribing to BAR for a few years 072now and will continue to do so for as long as I can afford it. I admit some of the advertisements are not what I consider to my taste; however, they are not obscene or degrading, and since I have free will I don’t have to patronize them in any way, shape or form.

So far I have had only good service for the items I purchased through BAR and so cannot complain.

One man’s orthodoxy may be someone else’s heresy.

All I can say is I enjoy BAR and when I taught seminary I often referred to it to update myself. BAR, keep up the good work.

To the Editor:

I like BAR. If advertisements of whatever source or merit allow me to continue my subscription at rates I can afford, then I have no criticism of them. On the contrary, I am grateful that this interesting, scholarly publication is in part made available through such advertisements.

Perhaps some of those who most complain of advertisements may also wish to circumscribe the dissemination and accessibility of some archaeological research, a not unknown phenomenon in scholastic literature. Snobbishness does not necessarily contribute to scholastic excellence.

Views on BAR

To the Editor:

BAR’s editors must decide their purpose in publishing BAR: Are you pursuing ideas and knowledge—the currency of democracy? Or are you providing supporting dogma to entrenched interests?

To the Editor:

I am an Orthodox Jew and your magazine gives additional insight into understanding of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible). Thank you.

To the Editor:

I am very disturbed by an article in the March/April 1986 issue of BAR entitled “The Religious Message of the Bible,” BAR 12:02. This interview with Père Benoit presents a view of Biblical inspiration that is in conflict with orthodox 074Christian theology and with what the Bible says about itself. Père Benoit maintains that faith is not based on the details of history, and that though the human authors of Scripture were “inspired” of God, still they wrote with geographical, historical and scientific errors. It is both logically and theologically absurd to maintain that God “accorded theological truth to the Bible” while the same Bible cannot be trusted in matters of history or science. Theology is based on history. The power of the resurrection is not available apart from the historical fact of the resurrection, for example.

The Word of God is either inspired or errant, but not both. Our God does not do shoddy work.

To the Editor:

I have been sufficiently encouraged by reading your magazine to try my own excavation. While it will take several more seasons to verify this, I have reached the tentative conclusion that the top of my desk is flat! Significant finds include unmailed letters and checks that should have been deposited to my account months ago.

Seriously, I have been reading BAR for a 075little over two years now and appreciate it very much. Thanks for making such a fine magazine available.

Authors Correction

To the Editor:

An alert reader, T. M. Simms of Houlton, Maine, noticed a mistake in my article, “Why the Moabite Stone Was Blown to Pieces,” BAR 12:03. The article says that for the time of King Ahab of Israel the Assyrian sources (of Shalmaneser III) give us some figures about the size of Israel’s army, which, besides 10,000 foot soldiers, consisted of 1,000 chariots. Actually, the number of chariots that Ahab was able to hurl against the Assyrians was 2,000. I regret the mistake I made, but thank T. M. Simms for bringing this error to my attention.

The First Testament

To the Editor:

In Queries & Comments, BAR 12:04, Dov Ben Khayyim of Berkeley, California, objected to the appellation “The Old Testament”. He proposed “Tanakh” and the editor proposed “The Hebrew Bible.”

The “Hebrew Bible” or “The Hebrew Scriptures” brings up another problem. Those terms have an inherent contrast with “The Greek Bible or Scriptures.” This leaves out the Deuterocanonical books, of course. The Deuterocanonical books are seven books preserved in Greek and accepted as being part of the canon by some Christians. These Deuterocanonical books are: Judith, Tobit, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach, originally written in Hebrew), and the Wisdom of Solomon.

Lawrence Boadt’s fine introductory textbook, Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction (569 pp. at $6.95!) struggles with his calling it “Old” on pp. 19–20. He makes some good points.

I had a wonderful student once who suggested that the book be called “The First Testament.”

In this age of inclusive language, maybe this could catch on like “Ms.”