FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: renaming old testament/new testament
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I've tried googling this, but I'm coming up empty handed. I find google is like Jeopardy - you only get points if you ask the right question!

Has anyone heard anything about "talks" coming from higher up about renaming the Old Testament and the New Testament the 1st Testament and the 2nd Testament? Can you point me in the direction of information on this topic?

Thank-you in advance.


If this were to actually happen in some formal way --- I just don't know. It seems that the reasoning for it is exactly what I figured. I found this from America Magazine:

America Magazine Wrote:
Many scholars today avoid the term “Old Testament” on the grounds that it implies supersessionism, the replacement of Old Israel by New Israel. The word “old” in our culture often implies worn out and ready for replacement. Since the Holocaust, Christians have rediscovered their deep bonds with the Jewish people and realized that the anti-Judaism in Christianity fueled the catastrophic anti-Semitism of modern times. Christian scholars today avoid derogatory references to Jews and highlight the Jewish matrix of Christianity. Some Christians opt for “less imperial” terms than “Old Testament” and use instead “Prior Testament,” “First (and Second) Testament” or “Shared Testament.”

A number of Christian scholars (I among them), however, use “Old Testament” without apology. We find substitute terms awkward and unable to resolve the main difficulty, which is supersessionism, the view that the Christian church supersedes or replaces the Jewish people as God’s chosen people. All Catholic biblical scholars that I know fully embrace Pope John Paul II’s famous rejection of supersessionism when he affirmed that God’s bond with Judaism is “the covenant never revoked.” The Jewish New Testament scholar Amy-Jill Levine in The Misunderstood Jew: The Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (Harper, 2007) also affirms the validity of “Old Testament” on the grounds that the books were not all written in Hebrew, that Orthodox Christian Churches use the Old Testament in Greek translation, and that Protestant and Catholic Churches differ somewhat in their list of books. “Old,” therefore, is good (as it would have been in the ancient world) as long as we regard “Old” as synonymous with accepted and revered, and “New” as synonymous with renewed and brought to a new stage.

What a load of bollocks all this madness is. It's such a ridiculous idea that the Jewish experience in WWII should have any effect whatsoever on revelation, on Church teaching, on theology, or anything like these things.  And it's especially repulsive when you stop to think that in that same era, many more millions of Christians were being slaughtered by Communists (Jewish-led, by the way) -- the very group Hitler was first concerned with and tried to stop (and rightfully so). (Yes, yes I did just dare to say Hitler did one right thing. And he loved dogs, too. Apparently he was a malevolent human being who, like everyone else, did some good things and some bad things (well, lots of bad things in his case) and was not a demon.) (And no, I am very much not a Nazi. That crap has no place in Christ's Church.)

The Church is Israel, has always seen Herself as Israel, and will remain Israel. When Christ came, some branches of the "olive tree" of Israel were broken off, and some were grafted on. But the olive tree is one and the same. Branches can still be grafted on when people come to Christ. It's the same deal for Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans, atheists, Muslims, and anyone else. Unlike Hitler and the Talmud, God isn't racist.

And no, the Old Covenant wasn't "revoked" by God. It was, however, fulfilled by Him. God did not "revoke" or "break" it; the Jews did:

Jeremiah 31:31-34:  "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah : Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Hmmm... looks like the New Covenant -- the one Jesus brought about -- is with the House of Judah and Israel.  Since the New Covenant is with the Church, that means that the Church is Israel and of the House of Judah, or "the Jews."

For more about all this, see  http://www.fisheaters.com/dispensationalism.html

When the author refers to "many Christian scholars", I'm wondering to whom particular they're referring. Who wants to change these terms? I assume they don't believe in evangelization, right?
(12-26-2014, 07:27 AM)Jacafamala Wrote: [ -> ]When the author refers to "many Christian scholars", I'm wondering to whom particular they're referring. Who wants to change these terms? I assume they don't believe in evangelization, right?

In my experience it's rare to find folks in academia,, especially in Biblical studies or theology departments who believe even the basics of any Christian Faith. It's a game to them, as in how far can we go in completely dissembling, deconstructing and, to use a phrase they like " re- imaging" Christianity.

Perhaps I'm naive but I think time will eventually do away with modern Christians obsession with the World War 2 era and what it allegedly means for theology. The last generation who has a memory of the post war years and the heady days of modernisms seeming triumph are either dead or dying out, the last representatives being peers of men like Joseph Ratzinger and Hans Kung.  The 20th century will eventually be seen in the light of history, from a distance.

The name of the set of books is not really that important. It would be scary if they were to change the words of institution (you know, Jesus there speaks of the new covenant) to please the PC gone mad world.
I had used this post to make the point about the Church being identical with, not a replacement of, Israel, without reading all of the OP and seeing that it had been made there. So I'll just say; yes! Am I wrong in thinking the whole idea seems like an anti-Christian caricature?
Hmmmm... something to chew on. This topic has come up in recent weeks from our "guest priest" that has been filling in for us in recent months, he's quite insistent that the change is imminent from Vatican and has been referring to them as 1st and 2nd Testament in his homilies. Isolated, I wouldn't be overly concerned, but it seems part of a larger pattern of his that makes me wonder how obedient he is. I was curious if there was truth to his statements, or if it was part of his larger delusion about what the Church is and isn't.

(12-26-2014, 10:08 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]The name of the set of books is not really that important. It would be scary if they were to change the words of institution (you know, Jesus there speaks of the new covenant) to please the PC gone mad world.

My initial reaction was that renaming the books would be part of that road. Denying there was an OLD covenant and a NEW covenant would constitute something of a crisis.
(12-26-2014, 12:09 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: [ -> ]My initial reaction was that renaming the books would be part of that road. Denying there was an OLD covenant and a NEW covenant would constitute something of a crisis.

A crisis that has been going on since at least JP2, who consistently spoke as if the Old Covenant were still operative. It is insane to deny supersessionism; it is without question the teaching of the Church from the beginning. It does not have to imply that the Old Law was bad, as sometimes the rhetoric of some authors make it sound, or that Jews are bad or deicides or anything like that, but it is part of the whole point of the New Testament that with the coming of the Messiah the purpose of the Old Law was fulfilled, and thus it ceased to be operative. If the Church wants to emphasize the "fulfilled" rather than "replaced" aspect of the doctrine of "Church as Israel," that's fine - it is arguably more accurate in some sense. However, it's hard to understand how any form of "dual covenant" theology isn't heretical.

When I was a Biblical Studies student, I frequently encountered the term "Hebrew Bible" which doesn't bother me, though it isn't totally accurate. In my experience, all but the most ideological professors and students used "Old Testament" at least part of the time if for no other reason than we know what a person who is using the term means. Whatever academics do doesn't bother me; were the Church to start using such terminology officially, that would be a big red flag.
I don't like the term Old Testament/New Testament that much. Not because I deny or doubt there is a New Covenant, but because they should not apply to books (I mean, doesn't it sound rather too Protestant to apply “Testament” to books, since they don't have the sacrifice? I don't know...). Not everything in the OT is about the old covenant, and even the books that are explicitly about it (like Deuteronomy) they are still valuable, being like images of the New Covenant.

But I realize that if the names are changed it wouldn't be because of this rather peculiar concern I have but because of some PC driven theology.

Thinking better about this I now wonder how much this affects the Mass. We know that for consecration to be valid the priest must have the same intention the Church always had. I heard this still counts if the priest believes that what he believes is what the Church always believed. But if the priest says something along the lines “The Church believed thus in olden days, now we know better”? Should we worry?
PrairieMom, this is like the second time this priest raises issues, you should look into that.
I had not heard of this idea until this thread. As I started reading I thought it was a joke. But then again if you had shown me 10 years ago the idea that "BC" and "AD" would be replaced with "BCE" and "CE" in the books I would have thought it was a joke too.
Pages: 1 2 3