Judaism commonly uses the term Tanakh. Many Jews consider the term "Old Testament" biased or derogatory, as it implies that the Tanakh has been supplanted by a "New" testament. "Original Testament" is a less-derogatory alternative. In academic circles, terms such as Hebrew Bible are commonly used to refer to Tanakh, but among academics Old Testament bears a much wider connotation.
The term The Old Testament refers to all versions and translations of the Hebrew Bible and is the first major part of the Bible used by Christians. It is usually divided by Judaism into the categories of law: Torah; prophecy: Neviim; and writings: Kethuvim (history, poetry, wisdom books); as denoted by the acronym Tanakh.
The Protestant Old Testament is, for the most part, identical with the Jewish Tanakh. The differences between the Tanakh and the Protestant Old Testament are minor, dealing only with the arrangement and number of the books. For example, while the Tanakh considers Kings to be a unified text, the Protestant Old Testament divides it into two books. Similarly Ezra and Nehemiah are considered to be one book by the Tanakh.
The differences between the Tanakh and other versions of the Old Testament such as the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac, Latin, Greek and other works, are greater as some include books not in the Tanakh and even in the books included, some have sections that the others do not. For a full discussion of these differences see Books of the Bible. An important difference, as well, can lie in the language interpretations of various words. Reading directly from Hebrew will provide the most accuracy.
All of these books were written before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, whose teaching and immediate disciples' deeds and teachings are the subject of the subsequent writings of Christian New Testament. The scriptures used by Jesus were according to Luke 24:44–49: "the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms ... the scriptures". According to most Bible scholars, the Old Testament was composed between the 5th century BC and the 2nd century BC, though parts of it, such as parts of the Torah, and the Song of Deborah (Judges 5), probably date back much earlier.
[edit] 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 says the same things as in the Old Testament.
See also: Books of the Bible, for a side-by-side comparison of the various canons of the Hebrew Bible.
[edit] Historicity of the Old Testament
See also: Biblical archaeology and The Bible and history
Current debate concerning the historicity of the Old Testament can be divided into several camps. One group has been labeled "biblical minimalists" by its critics. 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 most Old Testament narratives (save the accounts in Gen 1–11) on confessional grounds, and noted Egyptologists (e.g., Kenneth Kitchen) argue that such a belief is not incompatible with the external evidence. 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 at any American universities. Interestingly, both Kitchen and archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University are not the only scholars from the maximalist and minimalist camps who are sufficiently trained to address these questions with the necessary sophistication but both are experts in their fields — and both come to different conclusions.
Some contemporary Israeli archaeologists have now rejected much of the Deuteronomistic history of the Old Testament. Notably, Finkelstein and Neal Asher Silberman have written popular books detailing their view that many of the best-known Biblical stories are incompatible with the archaeology of the region. Conversely, in 2003 Kenneth A. Kitchen published the 662 page book On the Reliability of the Old Testament, which defended the Bible's reliability throughout. Although some archeologists have argued that many Biblical accounts should be rejected due to a lack of corroborating archaeological evidence, opponents point out that this is a return to the 19th century idea that anything not confirmed by current archaeology should be dismissed, a methodology that had once led some to question the existence of major empires such as Assyria.
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 BC.
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 argue that Wellhausen's method is not valid given that so many of our surviving copies of historical documents date from a much later time period: e.g., the earliest extant copies of Julius Caesar's famous "Commentaries on the Gallic War" are medieval copies dating from the 9th century, nearly a thousand years after Caesar wrote the original.
The most important issue would seem to be the length of the period between the actual events and the setting of them down in writing. Internal evidence in the books themselves suggests that events of the Hebrew monarchies period were set down by royal scribes soon after they happened, and the writer(s) of the Book of Kings had direct access to these wrtings and quoted extensively from them — whereas earlier events, such as the Exodus and the Conquest, might have spent centuries as oral traditions before a written account of them was set down, which might make the written account considerably different from any actual events that gave the original basis to the tradition.
[edit] 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, 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, 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 [2], 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 2 Corinthians 3 [3]:
(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 New Revised Standard Version 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 Îιαθηκη, hÄ Palaia DiathÄkÄ, 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 (Heb 8:9; Jer 31:32), see also Expounding of the Law#Antithesis of the Law. 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 — literally, "by the bag," a foreswearing of faithful trust — which can be read as either testament 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.
Most Jews accept 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 an attempt at 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, Nevi'im, and Ketubim, or Law, Prophets and Writings, the three major divisions of the Hebrew Bible.
Twenty-first-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.[citation needed] 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 [4].
[edit] Christian view of the Law
Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant (see Hebrews 8:6). His famous sermon from a hill representing Mount Zion is considered by many Christian scholars to be the antitype[1] of the proclamation of the Old Covenant by Moses from Mount Sinai.
The Ten Commandments on a monument on the grounds of the Texas State CapitolPart of a series of articles on
Christianity
Foundations
Jesus Christ
Church · Christian Theology
New Covenant · Supersessionism
Dispensationalism
Apostles · Kingdom · Gospel
History of Christianity · Timeline
Bible
Old Testament · New Testament
Books · Canon · Apocrypha
Septuagint · Decalogue
Birth · Resurrection
Sermon on the Mount
Great Commission
Translations · English
Inspiration · Hermeneutics
Christian Theology
Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
History of · Theology · Apologetics
Creation · Fall of Man · Covenant · Law
Grace · Faith · Justification · Salvation
Sanctification · Theosis · Worship
Church · Sacraments · Eschatology
History and Traditions
Early · Councils
Creeds · Missions
Great Schism · Crusades · Reformation
Great Awakenings · Great Apostasy
Restorationism · Nontrinitarianism
Thomism · Arminianism
Congregationalism
Eastern Christianity
Eastern Orthodox · Oriental Orthodox
Syriac Christianity · Eastern Catholic
Western Christianity
Western Catholicism · Protestantism
Anabaptism · Lutheranism · Calvinism
Anglicanism · Baptist · Methodism
Evangelicalism · Fundamentalism
Unitarianism . Liberalism
Adventism · Pentecostalism
Latter Day Saints · Christian Science
Jehovah's Witnesses · Unity Church
Topics in Christianity
Movements · Denominations
Ecumenism · Preaching · Prayer
Music · Liturgy · Calendar
Symbols · Art · Criticism
Important Figures
Apostle Paul · Church Fathers
Constantine · Athanasius · Augustine
Anselm · Aquinas · Palamas · Wycliffe
Tyndale · Luther · Calvin · Wesley
Arius · Marcion of Sinope
Pope · Archbishop of Canterbury
Christianity Portal
This box: view • talk • edit
See also: Sermon on the Mount#Interpretation and Law and Gospel
Traditional Christianity affirms that the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament is fully inspired by God. However, much of Christian tradition has historically denied that all of the laws of the Pentateuch apply directly to Christians. There are several different explanations within Christianity that endeavor to explain if and how the laws given by God through Moses apply to Christians.
The New Testament indicates that Jesus Christ established a new covenant relationship between God and his people (Jeremiah 31:31–31:34; Luke 22:20; 2Cor 2-3; Heb 8-9). Christianity, almost without exception, understands this new covenant to be the instrument through which God offers mercy and atonement to mankind. However, the various views of the Old Testament Law in Christianity result from very different interpretations of what exactly this new covenant is and how it affects the validity of the Mosaic Law. These differences mainly result from attempts to harmonize Biblical statements that say that the Law is eternal with New Testament statements that suggest that it does not now apply at all, or at least does not fully apply. Most Biblical scholars admit the issue of the Law can be confusing and the topic of Paul and the Law is still frequently debated among New Testament scholars[2] (for example, see New Perspective on Paul, Pauline Christianity); hence the various views.
Some conclude that none is applicable, some conclude that only parts are applicable, and some conclude that all is still applicable to believers in Jesus.
[edit] The Catholic view
Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, explained that there is a three-fold division in the Law: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. God’s commands were “ordained for a double purpose; the worship of God, and the foreshadowing of Christ.” Upon the advent of Christ, the purpose of all the ceremonial and judicial commands, which was to pre-figure Christ, was fulfilled, causing them to be “annulled” and “dead.”[3] The moral commands remain for the worship of God, summed up in the Ten Commandments. The Catechism of the Catholic Church: Part 3, Life in Christ: Section 2, The Ten Commandments: "Teacher, what must I do . . .?" states:
"2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: 'The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.'"
"2076 By his life and by his preaching Jesus attested to the permanent validity of the Decalogue."[4]
While upholding the Ten Commandments, the Catholic Church teaches that the Apostles [5],[6] instituted the observance of Sunday instead of the Sabbath, and applies the Third Commandment to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day. It also numbers the commandments according to the numbering preferred by St. Augustine, which is different from the traditional Protestant numbering, derived from Origen. The Commandments are often abbreviated for easy catechetical use. [5]
According to Aquinas, not only do the ceremonial portions of the Law not apply now, but it is actually a “mortal sin” to keep these observances after the events of Christ’s Passion. Ceremonial laws, in this view, include the regulations pertaining to ceremonial cleanliness, festivals, diet, and the Levitical priesthood.
Those in disagreement with the Catholic view point out that nowhere is a division of the Law mentioned in the Bible, but rather there is evidence that it is indivisible, and it would be practically impossible to sort commands by these types. Others in disagreement point out that the Law is described in various places as “everlasting” and none of it can terminate or expire; nor could anything that an unchanging God called “righteous” and “good” now have become “sin.”
[edit] The Reformed/Covenant Theology view
The Reformed, or Covenant Theology view is similar to the Catholic view. It holds that under the new covenant, the Mosaic Law fundamentally continues, but that parts of it have "expired" and are no longer applicable.[7] The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) divides the Mosaic laws into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. In the view of the Westminster divines, only the moral laws of the Mosaic Law, which include the Ten Commandments and the commands repeated in the New Testament, directly apply to Christians today.[8] Ceremonial laws, in this view, include the regulations pertaining to ceremonial cleanliness, festivals, diet, and the Levitical priesthood.
While the view affirms the Sabbath like the Catholic view, some advocates hold that the Commandment concerning the Sabbath was redefined by Jesus (Matthew 12:1–13, Luke 13:10–17).[9]
In a revival of ideas established in the Puritan period, starting in the 1970s and 1980s, a branch of Reformed theology known as Christian Reconstructionism argued that the civil laws as well as the moral laws should be applied in today's society (a position called Theonomy) as part of establishing a modern theonomic state.[10]
Advocates of this Reformed view hold that, while not always easy to do and overlap between categories does occur, the divisions they make are possible and supported based on information contained in the commands themselves; specifically to whom they are addressed, whom or what they speak about, and their content. For example, a ceremonial law might be addressed to the Levites, speak of purification or holiness and have content which could be considered as a foreshadowing of some aspect of Christ's life or ministry. In keeping with this, most advocates also hold that when the Law is spoken of as everlasting, it is in reference to certain divisions of the Law. Some advocates, usually Theonomists, go further and embrace that idea that the whole Law continues to function, contending that the way in which Christians observe some commands has changed but not the content or meaning of the commands. (For example, they would say that the commands regarding Passover were looking forward to Christ's sacrifical death and the Communion mandate is looking back on it, the former is given to the Levitical priesthood and the latter is given to the priesthood of all believers, but both have the same content and meaning.)[11] [12] [13] [14]
Those in disagreement with this view claim that nowhere is a division of the Law mentioned in the Bible, but rather there is evidence that it is indivisible, and it would be practically impossible to sort commands by these types. Others in disagreement claim that the Law is described in various places as "everlasting" and none of it can terminate or expire.
[edit] The Dispensational view
The Dispensational view holds that under the new covenant, the Mosaic Law has fundamentally been terminated, or abolished, because, in this view, Scripture never describes the Law as divisible — it is one unit (James 2:10–11). Therefore, because portions of New Testament Scripture (such as Heb. 8:13) are understood in this view to annul at least parts of the Law, then the whole Law must be terminated.[15]
Furthermore, this view holds that the Mosaic laws and the penalties attached to the laws were limited to the particular historical and theological setting of the Old Testament, described in this view as a different “dispensation;” a stage of time in which God dealt with humanity in a fundamentally different way than he does now. We are now living in the “dispensation” of the church/grace, which is a “parenthesis” or “intercalation” in history that is outside of God’s over-arching plan for Israel, and thus the Law given to Israel doesn’t now apply.
Replacing the Mosaic Law is the “Law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21), which holds definite similarities with the Mosaic Law in moral concerns, but is new and different, replacing the first Law. Despite this difference, Dispensationalists may seek to find moral and religious principles applicable for today in all parts of the Mosaic Law.
Those in disagreement with the Dispensational view point out that nowhere does the Bible define a series of “dispensations” that this theology propones, and point out that God said that he does not change. Furthermore, opponents point out that the Mosaic Law is described in various places as “everlasting” and must fundamentally continue in some form. Others hold that, for this same reason, none at all can terminate or expire.
[edit] The Torah-submissive view
The Torah-submissive view, (a view held and proponed by both Jews and non-Jews[16]), holds that the Torah — including the Mosaic Law — is an indivisible whole and fundamentally continues to apply to all followers of God under the new covenant. Proponents emphasize the fact that the Bible repeatedly describes God’s commands, including the Mosaic Law, as both “everlasting” [17] and “good”. [18] In addition, this view holds that, rather than negating the Torah, part of the new covenant is to have this same Torah written upon the hearts of believers by the Holy Spirit.[19] In this view, Jesus, as the sinless son of God and Messiah, could not possibly have transgressed or taught anyone to transgress this God-given Law, but rather Jesus and the New Testament writers reaffirmed all the commands of the Law as a whole (interpreting Matthew 5:17–20, Matthew 23:1–3, Matthew 23:23, Matthew 28:19–20, etc. to support this stance). This view holds different interpretations of the New Testament passages that have traditionally been understood to invalidate parts of the Law, based on literary and historical context and examination of the original languages.[20][21]
Because of this belief, commands such as dietary laws (not necessarily "kashrut" standards), seventh day Sabbath, and Biblical festival days such as Passover are honored in some way within such segments of Christianity. Not only are they seen as valid commands, but also as valuable teaching tools about Jesus himself and God’s prophetic plan. As with Orthodox Judaism, capital punishment and sacrifice are not practiced because there are strict Biblical conditions on how these are to be properly practiced that are not in place today (although they are supported in principle).
This view affirms that spiritual salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus. It does not hold that any works are a way to achieve justification and hence salvation, but are rather a way of more fully obeying and imitating God as He intended; the same reason for obeying other, traditionally accepted, commands.
Those in disagreement with this view point out the various New Testament scripture passages that seem to negate some or all of the Mosaic Law, suggesting that its “everlasting” nature is subject to modification in some way under the new covenant and that portions of the Mosaic Law were only applicable in a given time and place, for a specific people, or for a limited purpose.
[edit] Other views
As far as the Ten Commandments, some believe Jesus rejected four of the Ten Commandments and endorsed only Six [6], citing Mark 10:17–22 and the parallels Matthew 19:16–22 and Luke 18:18–23. (cf. Cafeteria Christianity)
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, hyperdispensationalism, Christian anarchism), this is not the usual viewpoint of Christians.
[edit] Law-related passages with disputed interpretation
The Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament describes a conflict among the first Christians as to the necessity of following all the laws of the Torah to the letter, see Council of Jerusalem.
Some have interpreted Mark's statement: "Thus he declared all foods clean" (Mark 7:19 NRSV) to mean that Jesus taught that the pentateuchal food laws were no longer applicable to his followers, see also Antinomianism in the New Testament. However, the statement is not found in the Matthean parallel Matthew 15:15–20 and is also a disputed translation: the Scholars Version[22] has: "This is how everything we eat is purified", Gaus' Unvarnished NT[23] has: "purging all that is eaten." See also Strong's G2511.
Others note that Peter had never eaten anything that was not kosher many years after Acts 2 (Pentecost). To the heavenly vision he announced: "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean." (Acts 10:14) Therefore, Peter was unaware that Jesus had changed the Mosaic food laws. In Mark 7, Jesus may have been just referring to a tradition of the Pharisees about eating with unwashed hands. For example, the insertion found in many translations concerning his declaration that all foods were clean is not found in the King James Version: Mark 7:19. The expression "purging all meats" may have meant the digestion and elimination of food from the body rather than the declaration that all foods were kosher. 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" (Lev 19:18; cf. Golden Rule, Mark 12:31), "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul and strength" (Deut 6:4–5, the Shema, Mark 12:29–30).
Still others believe a partial list of the commandments was merely an abbreviation that stood for all the commandments because Jesus prefaced his statement to the rich young ruler with the statement: "If you want to enter life, obey the commandments". Some people claim that since Jesus did not qualify his pronouncement, that he meant all the commandments. The rich young ruler asked "which" commandments. Jesus gave him a partial list from the second table. The first set of commandments deal with a relationship to God. The second set of commandments deal with a relationship to men. No doubt Jesus condsidered the relationship to God important, but Jesus may have considered that the young man was perhaps lacking in this second set, which made him obligated to men. (This is inferred by his statement that to be perfect he should sell his goods, give them to the poor and come and follow Jesus — thereby opening to him a place in the coming Kingdom.)
Several times Paul mentioned adhering to "the Law", such as Romans 2:12–16, 3:31, 7:12, 8:7–8, Gal 5:3, Acts 24:14, 25:8 and preached about Ten Commandment topics such as idolatry (1 Cor 5:11, 6:9–10, 10:7, 10:14, Gal 5:19–21, Eph 5:5, Col 3:5, Acts 17:16–21, 19:23–41). Many Christians believe that the Sermon on the Mount is a form of commentary on the Ten Commandments. In the Expounding of the Law, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it; while in Marcion's version of Luke 23:2 we find the extension: "We found this fellow perverting the nation and destroying the law and the prophets".[