Send A Scholar to Camp Israel

OK, there must be some people who read my blog who have been blessed with some extra money. If you feel so led, I encourage you to head on over to Ken Ristau’s blog and read about his fund raising efforts so that he may participate in an archaeological dig at Tel Dor this summer.

You can participate in his silent auction for some movie posters here, or you may read about other ways to donate here.

Ken completed his undergraduate degree at Taylor University College where I teach and he was one of my best students I have taught at Taylor — and he is a good friend as well. So, if you have a bit of extra cash and you want to donate it to a good cause, I encourage you to do so.

Biblical Studies Carnival – Hosting Thank You

I wanted to say a public “thank you” for all of the positive feedback I have received for hosting Biblical Studies Carnival II. I really enjoyed putting it together.

In turn, I would like to thank the following individuals who have volunteered to host a Carnival. As it turns out, we have hosts scheduled all the way to September 2006. Way to go!

Don’t forget you can nominate a post at anytime by emailing the required information to biblical_studies_carnival [AT] hotmail.com or enter it via the submission form provided by Blog Carnival here.

For more information about the Biblical Studies Carnival please consult the Biblical Studies Carnival Homepage.

U2 – The Clear Highlight of the Grammy Awards

Despite the fact that tonight’s Grammy Awards were too long, too glitzy, too excessive, and too self-absorbed (come on — it’s only music!), I was pleased to see Irish rock band U2 clean up with a total of five awards.

Their latest album, How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com) won for Album of the Year and Best Rock Album; “Sometimes You Can’t Make It On Your Own” won Song of the Year and Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal; and “City of Blinding Lights” was named Best Rock Song. (Steve Lillywhite also picked up the Grammy for Producer of the Year, Non-Classical, in part for his work on How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb) U2 is Grammy’s most honored band.

In many ways U2 came full circle with How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. Like virtually all of U2’s albums, I love every song on this CD. I also think that it is among U2’s most explicitly spiritual albums. According to various interviews, the “bomb” in the name of the album refers to his father, Bob, and that the songs are mostly about Bono’s efforts to deal with his dad’s death to cancer in 2001. The award winning song “Sometimes You Can’t Make It On Your Own” is a moving tribute to Bono’s father. In his acceptance speech tonight, Bono remarked, “People say this is an odd title for an album… I was talking about my father Bob. He was the atomic bomb in question and set off a chain reaction in me. I want to thank my father for giving me the voice and a bit of attitude to use it.” My own father died from cancer almost five years ago and I have found the song (and other U2 songs, such as “Walk On”) quite meaningful as I have dealt with my dad’s death.

U2’s previous Grammy Awards are as follows:

  • 2002: Record of the Year (“Walk On”), Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal (“Stuck In a Moment”), Rock Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal (“Elevation”), and Best Rock Album (All That You Can’t Leave Behind)
  • 2001: “Beautiful Day” wins Song of the Year, Record of the Year, and Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal
  • 1995: Best Music Video, Long Form – “Zoo TV Live From Sydney”
  • 1994: Best Alternative Album – Zooropa
  • 1992: Best Rock Group Performance – Achtung Baby
  • 1989: Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group – “Desire”; Best Video Performance, Short Form – “Where the Streets Have No Name”
  • 1988: Album of the Year – The Joshua Tree; Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group – “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For”

Love Poetry for Biblical Literalists

Since Valentine’s Day is fast approaching, I figured I would provide some biblical love poetry for any young men who may be out there (I also figured since Jim West showed a picture of his ideal woman, I would too!). Whisper these words into the ears of your Valentine’s Day date and you will be guaranteed a second date! … Really!


(Image from an old Wittenburg Door)

How beautiful you are, my love,
how very beautiful!
Your eyes are doves
behind your veil.
Your hair is like a flock of goats,
moving down the slopes of Gilead.
Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes
that have come up from the washing,
all of which bear twins,
and not one among them is bereaved.
Your lips are like a crimson thread,
and your mouth is lovely.
Your cheeks are like halves of a pomegranate
behind your veil.
Your neck is like the tower of David,
built in courses;
on it hang a thousand bucklers,
all of them shields of warriors.
Your two breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle,
that feed among the lilies….
Your lips distill nectar, my bride;
honey and milk are under your tongue;
the scent of your garments is like the scent of Lebanon
Your belly is a heap of wheat…
Your nose is like a tower of Lebanon,
overlooking Damascus (Song 4:1-5, 11; 7:2, 4)

(OK, most of the metaphors are understandable, though it is interesting that more dynamic translations like the NLT unpack many of the metaphors in these verses, but they leave the breasts alone. Hmmm… so just how are breasts like fawns feeding among the lilies?)

Hebrew Bible Related Reviews from RBL (6 February 2006)

This week’s Review of Biblical Literature is kind of sparse. Judging from the reviews I read, I’m not sure there will be much I will run out and buy! (How’s that for a ringing endorsement!). There are a couple more positive reviews of Brueggemann’s Theology of the Old Testament and Fretheim’s work looks like it is worth a gander. My interest was piqued in Min’s The Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah due to my work in Chronicles, though from reading Grabbe’s review a inter-library loan will suffice. I should also note that philo-blogger Torrey Seland’s book is reviewed.

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament

  • Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Reviewed by Thomas Kraus and Mark Mcentire
  • Fretheim, Terrence E. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation. Reviewed by Robin Gallaher
  • Min, Kyung-jin. The Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah. Reviewed by Lester Grabbe
  • Wright, Jacob L. Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and Its Earliest Readers. Reviewed by Tamara Eskenazi

Other

  • Seland, Torrey. Strangers in the Light: Philonic Perspectives on Christian Identity in 1 Peter. Reviewed by Fika Van Rensburg
  • Court, John M., ed. Biblical Interpretation: The Meanings of Scripture — Past and Present. Reviewed by Stephen Moyise

Biblical Studies Software News & Notes

While I have been busy with the Biblical Studies Carnival and teaching various courses, there has been a number developments in the area of biblical studies software that are noteworthy:

  • BibleWorks 7.0. The long-awaited upgrade to BibleWorks was announced near the end of January and is now shipping. The new version sports an improved user-interface and Unicode support, among other things. Check out the list of features here and view a video introduction here. BibleWorks is a robust original-language Bible research program for Windows. Buy from Amazon.com
  • Accordance Blog. Accordance Bible Software — arguably the best biblical studies software on the face of the earth (at least for the Macintosh) — has been assimilated into the blogosphere. The blog — found here — will keep all of us up-to-date on the latest features and releases and will also profile different aspects of Accordance, such as the new Bible Atlas 2.0 release featured here.
  • SBL Hebrew Font upgrade to version 1.12. If you are running Windows XP (and MacOS X), then your best bet for right-to-left Hebrew is to use the new SBL Hebrew font with the SIL Hebrew Keyboard. While this release came out near the end of last year, I neglected to announce it. You can download it here. (In addition, FireFox users may want to download a patch to FireFox that corrects some fixes with right-to-left languages. It may be downloaded here).

Biblical Studies Carnival II

Welcome to the second Biblical Studies Carnival! Whether you want to call them biblioblogs or just blogs, what is certain is that Biblical Studies is alive and well in the blogosphere. From cuneiform to creation, the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Devil, forgeries to lost books, and rapture to resurrection, there is something to interest everyone in this month’s Carnival.

Since the last Biblical Studies carnival in April 2005 (hosted by Joel Ng at Ebla Logs), there have been numerous excellent posts covering a wide range of topics related to the discipline of biblical studies. These have included individual posts, series, memes, as well as multi-participant series. Please note that the posts highlighted in this Carnival only represents a small sampling of posts in biblical studies since the first Carnival. Feel free to explore some of the biblical studies related blogs noted in my navigation bar to the left or check out Biblioblogs.com for a comprehensive blogroll.


Biblical Studies Carnival II – Legacy Posts

There have been a number of great posts on various topics since the first Biblical Studies Carnival back in April 2005, including a number of noteworthy series. (Scroll down if you want to go to the January 2006 Biblical Studies Carnival entries).

Archaeology

A number of the more significant archaeological finds in 2005 received good coverage among biblical studies blogs.

In July 2005, Hanan Eshel of Bar Ilan University in Israel announced the discovery a fragmentary “Dead Sea Scroll” containing portions of the book of Leviticus. Tyler Williams at Codex provided “A Step-by-Step Reconstruction of the New Leviticus Fragments.” This post included enhancement of images of the fragments and a reconstruction of the original scroll; much of what you would find in a preliminary publication of such fragments (For an index of posts relating to the Leviticus Scroll, go here).

Another significant archaeological discovery in 2005 was Eilat Mazar’s uncovering of a large public structure — claimed to be King David’s palace — at her City of David dig. Paul Nikkel at Deinde just so happened to pop by Eilat Mazar’s City of David dig before heading back to the UK to start the academic year. His post, “Photos of Mazar’s City of David Excavation” brings together a series of excellent hi-resolution photographs of the structure. (The “Yehukal seal” also discovered at the site received some coverage among biblio bloggers; see here for a summary of posts).


Old Testament/Hebrew Bible

With the recent controversy over teaching intelligent design in public schools in the United States, interest in the interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis is perhaps at an all time high. Chris Heard, over at Higgaion, provides a number of biblical reasons that answer the question, “Why I Am Not a Creationist.”

If you have ever wondered about when David first met King Saul, you will want to read Jeremy Pierce‘s post on “Chronology in I Samuel 16:1-18:5.” While most understand these chapters to be either contradictory or not in chronological order, the Parableman considers another option to understanding this biblical crux interpretum.

Last fall there was a flurry of posts surrounding historiographic issues in biblical studies. The debate revolved around questions of method as well as particular artefacts like the Tel Dan Stele and the Merneptah Stele. While I will not attempt to detail all of the posts (this is especially difficult now that Jim West’s former blog, Biblical Theology, is sadly no longer extant), some representative posts are noted below.

One of the primary voices in the debate was Joe Cathey, the Texan behind Dr. Cathey’s Blog. His post “Tel Dan – A Response” is representative of a series of posts on the Tel Dan Stele specifically and historiographic issues generally.

Kevin Edgecomb also weighed in on the interpretation of the Tel Dan Stele, particularly looking at the phrase “House of…” in reference to territories and their associated rulers in inscriptions in his posts “‘House of David’ and BYTDWD” and “Further on ‘House of…’ Usage” and “Further on BÄ«t-PN usage.” These posts bring together a wealth of evidence on this construction.

Chris Heard of Higgaion entered the debate with an outstanding summary of the online discussion as well as his own comments with his post “Ah, Merneptah!.” This post is an excellent appraisal of the significance of the Merneptah stele for reconstructing the history of Israel.

(See here for an attempt to track the overall minimalism/maximalism debate)

Finally, if you ever stayed awake at night pondering the difference between “Deuteronomic,” “Deuteronomistic,” and “Urdeuteronomium” (as I have), then you will want to take special note of Joe Cathey‘s superb post, “Deuteronomy/Deuteronomistic History.” In this post, Joe provides some clarity to the discussion and clears some paths through the forest of confusing terminology and neologisms. My personal favourite is “deuteronom(ist)ic” since it covers all the bases!


Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha

Philip Harland at the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean blog has produced a massive four-month 22-part series on the New Testament Apocrypha. In this series, Phil summarizes and provides some critical engagement with various texts within early Christian apocrypha — texts that include everything from a potty-mouthed Jesus who didn’t play well with others to Isaiah as a heavenly tour-guide.

The book of Tobit was the focus of a blog entry by Ed Cook over at Ralph the Sacred River. His post, “A Lost Scrap of Tobit from the Schoyen Collection,” provides an excellent transcription, translation, and some commentary on the hitherto unpublished scrap of 4Q196, a papyrus copy of the Aramaic version of the book of Tobit.

Starting October 2005, Stephen Carlson over at Hypotyposeis produced a three-part series seriously attempts to come to terms with what constituted forgery in the ancient world. The posts are as follows: The Seriousness of Forgery in Antiquity; Toward an Understanding of “Forgery�: Metzger; and Toward an Understanding of “Forgery�: Speyer.

Initially prompted by a post by Michael Pahl, Jim Davila of Paleojudaica fame asked, “out of all the lost documents related to early Christianity — those mentioned by early Christians but no longer extant, those for which we have fragments or quotations but not whole manuscripts — which would I most wish to be discovered?” Jim answered his own question with a post outlining his “Wish List of Lost Books.” He also write a follow-up post entitled ““More Lost Books.” Not only do Jim’s post bring together an impressive list of lost books, he also provides a wealth of links to similar lists by other bloggers. Now if only we could actually find some of these works!


New Testament/Early Christianity

Steven Harris at Theology and Biblical Studies deals ably with the contentious issue of the Apostle Paul’s attitude to women in the church in his post “Silent women in the church?.” Steven looks specifically at 1 Corinthians 14 and explores whether the text itself is corrupted, and if not, whether Paul’s directives in this passage are meant for all believers at all times, or whether they are specifically related to cultural issues being faced by the church at Corinth. He concludes that the directives are not absolute, but are meant to put a stop to disruptive behaviour in the service that may hinder the building up of the congregation in love.

With Valentine’s Day fast approaching, what is more appropriate that to remind ourselves about the nature love? Rick Brannan at ricoblog guided us through 1 Corinthians 13 in a series of three posts: “Noisy Gongs And Clanging Cymbals,” “So Then What Is Love?” and “The Greatest Of These Is Love.”


Biblical Studies Carnival – January 2006

One of the more provocative posts of the new year was Loren Rosson’s “Dangerous Idea” meme. Inspired by a list of ideas contributed by leading scientists to The Edge magazine, Loren Rosson III over at The Busybody ushered a call to other bloggers to come up with their own “Dangerous Ideas in Biblical Studies.” Loren provided five “dangerous ideas” in the field of biblical studies — ideas which may well be true (or have arguably valid reasons for being true) but many people would prefer they not be true — in his original post. He then brought together “A Dozen Dangerous Ideas” based on his own ranking of the “dangerous ideas” submitted by other bloggers.

Another provocative, downright devilish series of posts that span the field of biblical studies as well as popular culture is Phil Harland‘s History of Satan series. These posts at Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean deal with the development of the character of Satan throughout literary history. While the series was introduced in late 2005 with his first post (Satan 1), subsequent posts were in January and may be accessed here.


Old Testament/Hebrew Bible/Cognate Literature

Appropriate biblical nomenclature was the topic of a post entitled “Old Testament/First Testament/Hebrew Bible/Tanak: What’s in a Name? Quite a Bit Actually!” by Tyler Williams at Codex.

Kevin Wilson of Karamat fame has produced a couple posts on a “biblical” worldview, the first of which was posted in December 2005 (“A Biblical Worldview (Part I)” while the follow-up post was uploaded in January 2006 suitably titled as “A Biblical Worldview (Part II).” These posts explore the worldviews found in the Hebrew Bible and the possibility of constructing a worldview shaped by an encounter with the biblical text and actualized within the community or individual reading the text.

Duane Smith, who has many Abnormal Interests (I love the name of his blog!), has an excellent series of posts on the short cuneiform alphabetic texts from Ugarit, the most recent posted in the middle of January, “The Cuneiform Short Alphabet: Part 7” where he works through KTU 6.1: A Inscription on a Knife from Tabor Valley, Wadi Bire. Each post provides an English translation as well as a summary interpretation of the text under investigation. In addition, a more detailed study of the texts is available in PDF format for free download. Now you have no excuse not to brush up on your Ugaritic!


New Testament/Early Christianity

In the discipline of New Testament studies Ben Myers at Faith and Theology provided readers with an insightful post on Rudolf Bultmann’s interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection in “Bultmann on the Resurrection.” Ben argues that while Bultmann’s interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection is often criticised, there is much to appreciate in his view, such as his correlations between Jesus’ death and resurrection and faith and resurrection, as well as his emphasis on the eschatological character of the resurrection.

Those worrying about being “Left Behind” may find some solace in Roderick Edwards‘s post entitled “Rapture? Resurrection? Rescue?” over at The Kingdom Come.

Michael Bird has posted an email interview with Dr. Stanley Porter over at Evangelical Textual Criticism blog. In the post, “Stanley Porter, the Book of Acts, and Textual Criticism,” Mike explores Porter’s views of textual criticism in relation to the commentary on the Acts of the Apostles he is working on for the NIGTC series. One line of thought that I found especially interesting is Porter’s criticism of the tendency among NT scholars towards eclectic textual reconstructions as exemplified in NA27 or UBS4 compared to the emphasis on diplomatic texts in the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible.

Rick Brannan has been busy with work on 1Timothy. On his PastoralEpistles.com blog he offers us a detailed analysis of 1 Timothy 4:10 in his post “Especially the Believers: 1Ti 4.10.” Then over at ricoblog, Rick highlights the different nuances a simple conjunction like “and” or Greek καὶ can have in his post “Mmmmmmmm… Conjunctions…” (If you think the flexibility of English or Greek conjunctions are impressive, compare them with the amazing versatility of the Hebrew conjunction ו “vav“).

Inclusive translation theory is the focus of Stephen Carlson‘s post “On Translation of “Brothers and Sisters” over at hypotyposeis. In particular, Stephen discusses the TNIV translation of ἀδελφοί, “brothers,” as “brothers and sisters” and argues that a better translation would discard the familial metaphor altogether and use a more appropriate dynamic equivalent such as fellow member, member, associate, compatriot, or neighbour.


Upcoming Biblical Studies Carnivals

Biblical Studies Carnival III will be hosted by Rick Brannan at ricoblog in the first week of March, 2006. Look for a call for submissions and nominations on his blog soon.

Submissions (which should be blog entries posted in February 2006) for the next Biblical Studies Carnival may be emailed to biblical_studies_carnival [AT] hotmail.com or entered via the submission form provided by Blog Carnival here.

For information about the Biblical Studies Carnival please consult the Biblical Studies Carnival Homepage.

Hebrew Bible Related Reviews from RBL (30 January 2006)

Like clockwork, the latest Review of Biblical Literature has appeared and there are a few reviews of books in the area of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and cognate disciplines — though pickings are a bit sparse this week. I would recommend the work on John Allegro — he was truly an interesting character in the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the biography by his daughter is a facinating read. Magic mushrooms anyone?

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament

  • Carasik, Michael (ed. and trans.), The Commentators’ Bible: The JPS Miqra’OT Gedolot: Exodus. Reviewed by Adele Berlin
  • Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi, A Study of HÌ£Ä?tÌ£Ä?’ and HÌ£atÌ£tÌ£Ä?’t in Leviticus 4-5. Reviewed by Reinhard Achenbach
  • Matthews, Victor H. and James C. Moyer, The Old Testament: Text and Context. Reviewed by Phillip Camp

Second Temple Studies

Old Testament/First Testament/Hebrew Bible/Tanak: What’s in a Name? Quite a Bit Actually!

Labels don’t really matter that much, do they? A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet — or so they say. A little while ago there was a discussion on the biblical studies email list about different names for the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible/Tanak. This discussion highlighted the significance that each of the different monikers has as well as potential problems with pretty much all of the terms. When it comes right down to it, it does make a difference what label you do use since each of the names relate to a particular community of faith and audience. That being said, I don’t think there is anything wrong with employing the various labels at different times depending on your intended audience.

From the get go, it should be noted that all of the different terms are, in fact, external labels. The collection of books that make up the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible/Tanak do not have any self-referential label. The closest you get to a self-referential title are the references to parts of the canon by the terms such as “Torah,” the “Torah of Moses” (Ezra 3:2; 7:6; Neh 8:1), the “Torah of the LORD” (Ezra 7:10), or the “book/scroll of Moses” (2Chron 25:4; 35:12; Neh 13:1).

Once you get outside the books of the Hebrew Bible you find references to “the law of the Most High,” “the wisdom of all of the ancients,” and “prophecies” in Sirach 38:34-39:1. Similarly, in the Greek translation of Sirach (completed around 132 BCE), you find reference to the Law, Prophets, and the “other books” — the last phrase being a disputed reference to the third division of the Hebrew Bible. A similar (disputed) reference to the tripartite Hebrew canon are found in 4QMMT, while there are a few reference to a bipartite canon in other DSS such as the Community Rule (1QS) and the Damascus Document (CD).

Within the Christian New Testament the books of the OT are referred to variously as “the Law and the Prophets” (Matt 7:12; 22:40; Luke 16:16; Acts 13:15; Rom 3:21) or “Moses and the Prophets” (Luke 16:29, 31; 24:44) or the like. One of the most common ways the NT refers to the books of the OT is by the generic term “scripture” (Gk. γÏ?αφὴ; usually in the plural, “scriptures”). So for instance, in 2 Timothy 3:16 the books of the OT are referred to as “Scripture” that is “God breathed” (Gk. θεόπνευστος).

The point of this survey is to illustrate that there was no uniform way that Jewish or later Christian communities referred to the collection of books that make up the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible prior to the second century CE.

The traditional Christian label is the Old Testament. This label for the books otherwise known as the Hebrew Bible or Tanak (note that in some traditions it also includes additional apocryphal/deuterocaonical books) is probably the most common label used overall. Its first known usage appears near the end of the second century CE. Melito of Sardis reportedly went to Palestine and “learned accurately the books of the Old Testament/Covenant” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14). Irenaeus also employed the term, though it is only after him that you find undisputed uses the labels “Old Testament” and “New Testament” for the two collections of books in early Christian writings (e.g., Clement, Tertullian, Hippolytus, etc.).

Since this term arose within a Christian context, it isn’t surprising that it is tied to a Christian understanding of these books being only one part of the two part Christian Bible: The Old and New Testaments. Historically, however, there is some difference of opinion within Christian circles what books actually make up the “Old Testament.” The early history of the debate over certain books is quite complex. It ended up that the Protestant tradition limited the term to refer to the books of the Hebrew Bible, while other Christian traditions, e.g., Catholic and Orthodox, include the books commonly referred to as apocryphal or deuterocanonical.

One of the main objections for using this term in biblical scholarship is that it clearly presupposes a Christian understanding of the Bible, which not everyone in biblical studies (obviously) shares. But even within Christian circles, this label is considered misleading by some since it may be interpreted as unnecessarily devaluing one section of the Christian Bible by calling it “old” or by implying that the “new” testament supersedes the “old” testament (the different understandings of the relationships between the testaments is beyond the scope of this post). This dissatisfaction spawned the use of the terms First and Second Testament. These terms are an attempt to recognize the two parts of the Christian Bible without some of the negative baggage associated with “Old” and “New Testament.” I believe this term was coined by James Sanders and has been adopted by the Biblical Theology Bulliten and a growing number of Christian scholars. Even John Goldingay employs it throughout his recent book Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Gospel (IVP, 2003; he only uses the term after the first chapter).

The label Hebrew Bible originates within the Jewish community and is gaining ground in academic biblical studies. It is considered less ideologically loaded than OT, though it has its share of problems. Perhaps the most obvious problem is that it is imprecise, since some of the books are actually written in or contain Aramaic portions. It still conveys religious overtones by including the term “Bible,” while Christians may object because it obscures the connection between the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament. It also doesn’t take into consideration traditions that hold to the expanded Christian canon including the apocryphal books.

Another popular Jewish term for the Old Testament is the Tanak. This term is an acronym for the three major divisions of the Hebrew Bible: Torah, Nebe’im, and Ketubim — TaNaK (תורה נבי×?×™×? וכתובי×? in Hebrew). This is perhaps one of the most common terms used within the Jewish community. Since the label is tied to the contents and order of the Jewish Hebrew Bible, it has the same, if not more, limitations as the term Hebrew Bible. Of course, this traditional Jewish division and ordering of the books appears to be quite old and even reflected in some of the NT passages noted above (also see Matt 23:35).

Other terms have been suggested, but none have really gained widespread usage. Perhaps the traditional labels, albeit problematic, are the best we have. As long as they are used with charity and understanding, I don’t see much of a problem. I have never been offended by any of my Jewish friends referring to the Old Testament as the Hebrew Bible or the Tanak, nor do I think they have been offended when I or other Christians refer to the Old Testament. I probably use the awkward “Old Testament/Hebrew Bible” the most, and reserve “Old Testament” when engaging specifically Christian theological topics and concerns. And I’m still not sure what I think of “First and Second Testament.”

What label(s) do you use and why?