What’s correct: Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures?
It is not so much an issue of correctness as it is about a difference in theological assumptions conveyed by the terms Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures. The term, “Old Testament,” presupposes that there is some other text, another testament, that is newer, which may surpass, fulfill or update the older one in some way. Old Testament is thus a theologically loaded term. As a result, scholars normally use the more neutral term, “Hebrew Bible,” to refer to this set of writings. In Judaism, this group of writings is called the Tanakh. The term, “Hebrew Bible,” also distinguishes it from the Christian Scriptures, which encompass both the Old and the New Testaments as well as other texts, depending on the tradition of Christianity that one follows. The term Old Testament is still used in many Christian contexts as it is a traditional term.
Why is it we say there is one covenant, but in our communion liturgy we talk of the “new covenant”? Is there an old and a new covenant?
This is a good, but very complicated, question – for which I sought the help from my colleagues, Lewis Donelson and Paul Hooker at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Likely, the old covenant is a reference to the covenant made to the Israelites in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament – although this is complicated by the fact that there is more than one covenant mentioned in the Hebrew text. The new covenant, which is in mentioned in different parts of the New Testament (namely the letters of Paul and the Book of Hebrews), is seen as transforming this old covenant in some way. According to Lewis Donelson, depending on the New Testament text, the nature of the transformation varies. In Hebrews, the new covenant seems to entail the end of temple and sacrifice. In the letters of Paul, it perhaps entails grace and faith overcoming law/works. Both Paul and the Book of Hebrews see the new covenant as continuous with the old, however.
Paul Hooker, based on his understanding of Reformed liturgical theology and practice, advises that the covenant offered at the Table does not require that it supersede or invalidate the covenants mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. He suggests that: “God’s covenants with humanity as a whole (Noah), with Israel (Sinai), and in Jesus Christ (Eucharist) are not related in linear, historical form but in concentric, expansive form. They are all promises of engagement and relationship, and they build one upon the other.”
Could you suggest some resources to use personally or in a small group that would help refresh basic knowledge of the Old Testament?
The book that I assign in my Introduction to the Old Testament class is “A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament” by Michael Coogan, which provides a very thorough and accessibly written survey of the study of the Hebrew Bible. Another book I would recommend, which is also very readable, is “Who Wrote the Bible?” by Richard Elliott Friedman. Friedman’s work provides a clear and engaging introduction to his views on the Documentary Hypothesis. A good archaeological take on the Old Testament is Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman’s “The Bible Unearthed.”
I don’t want to ignore parts of the Bible, but I don’t know how to preach or teach some of the more violent passages (Joshua, for example) or some of the seemingly obscure passages (like Levitical law!). Do you have ideas for how to include some of these challenging texts in worship or in Bible study?
This is good question and one that many students regularly struggle with in my classes. I certainly do not have a complete or final answer to this question. So instead of answering it, I will present the advice that I give in my classes. First, even if you do not know how, it is pretty important to try to incorporate some of these ignored texts into your teaching and/or preaching. One of the chief complaints I get from seminarians is that they’ve attended church all their lives, but have never heard these stories and didn’t know they existed. So I want to encourage the reader to try to preach on some of these more difficult parts of the Bible. Of course, one should first carefully discern whether a congregation or class is ready to engage with these stories and not force disturbing narratives onto an audience that might not quite be ready for them. A lot depends on the nature of the relationship between the preacher/teacher and the congregation/class.
Second, depending on the context and your knowledge of your congregation/class, the importance lies not in giving the students or parishioners a feel-good, nice, neat, definitive “answer” to these difficult passages. Rather, the point, I think, is to struggle openly with them. Or to put it differently, I think sometimes we refrain from teaching or preaching these difficult passages because we feel that we need to make perfect sense of them or give a complete answer, usually a nice or friendly one, that resolves all the questions these difficult passages or stories raise. I think instead what is better is for the teacher or preacher to just discuss, wrestle with and ask questions about these stories, not necessarily resolve them. Many of these stories have no resolutions – sometimes deliberately so! Rather, a better way to think about these stories is that their purpose might be to steer the reader towards the mysteries and unknowable questions that life raises, which these stories reflect in new and interesting ways.
Suzie Park is associate professor of Old Testament at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Her primary research interest centers on the literary and theological interpretations of the Old Testament.
