Is the title: "New" Testament offensive to Jews? Alternative neutral name?

Question

Having lived in Israel during several periods of my life, I know that the words "Old" in the "Old Testament" and "New" in the "New Testament" are offensive to many Jews. From what I understand, it's because "old" tends to have negative connotations (ex: outdated, irrelevant, decrepit, obsolete) and "new" has positive connotations (ex: new and improved, better, more relevant, contemporary, updated). I understand their logic and sentiment about all of that! In fact, I agree with them full-heartily. Let's be honest, if you were to say: "do you want this 'old' toy [any item, really] or this 'new' toy [any item, really]?" the majority of people will prefer the "new" item because we tend to associate "new" with "better quality," especially in comparison to anything "old" (unless you're an antique collector, historian, etc).

Thus, like Jews, I prefer to call the "Old Testament," the "Hebrew Bible" -- so it's free of all those negative connotations. This is not just because I want to be PC or demonstrate my respect/sensitives towards their perspectives (though both are true), but also, I think... even as a Christian, though we value both bodies of scriptures, the "old" in "Old Testament" carries that same negative baggage with it... "It's too old and obscure to understand... and irrelevant since Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses...." And I think this is a dangerous approach to this sacred literary corpus insomuch we develop preconceived notions that it will be too challenging to comprehend/apply and worse, insignificant (I don't think we do it consciously, it's just embedded in the word "old"). Consequently, we have an innate proclivity to value it less... And this is sad since there is much to be gleaned from the Hebrew Bible! From the Hebrew Bible, the divine covenants concerning salvation were taught as well as the Abrahamic covenant, etc. etc. Many of these principles and prophecies are timeless, and should not be burdened down by the word "old," which denigrates its worth and authority a bit.

Now, I am not naive, and I know the Christian communities will never adopt such a name change because it's just not practical nor a priority, mostly because most people don't care and a change in the name will just cause confusion, and cause more problems. To be clear, I'm not advocating/promoting that the Churches do so.... But, I must say, that I am pleased to see that "Hebrew Bible" is being used more and more in biblical scholarship and the academic spheres. Personally, I'm going to use it in lieu of "Old Testament," (even within a Christian context) and I will be happy to explain/elucidate my reasoning to whoever I'm speaking to.

However, after this long-winded spiel, I realize (and I'm sure you have by now, too) that I don't know what neutrally-charged, more appropriate, title to use when referencing the "New" Testament. I know within the walls of synagogues, the "New Testament" is not a likely topic that arises, but how do I reference it in an inter-faith academic dialogue if I don't want to pin on the "New" connotations? In acadamia/biblical scholarships, what name/title do they ascribe to the "New Testament." I'm assuming, they probably call it "New Testament" just so that everyone is on the same page and knows what they are talking about... but if we were to have a "Hebrew Bible" equivalent for the "New Testament," what would it likely be? "Greek Bible" doesn't work because the Septuagint (LXX) is the Hebrew Bible translated in Greek by Jews (hundreds of years before the existence of the "New Testament")... "Christian Bible" doesn't work because that seems to confine Christians to only the "New Testament," which only perpetuates the dilemma. Or is there already one, and I am just uninformed?

Basically, how do Jews refer to the "New" Testament? What is PC?

Todah!

Answer 1

Thank you for your sensitivity.

The issue with "old" and "new" isn't just what you said about "old and outdated, new and shiny". It's also that, to us, the latter isn't a "testament" at all. God made a covenant with Israel at Sinai and God does not break His word, so to say that He set aside that covenant to make a new, contradictory one is problematic.

When I have participated in discussions with Christians and needed a general term, I've generally used the phrase "Christian books", a habit I learned from one of my rabbis. This, unlike "Christian Bible", doesn't imply that it's the whole Christian corpus. The phrase "Christian books" seems, in my experience, to be clear and non-controversial, assuming you've already established that you're talking about bibles and not, say, papal edicts.

After reading this answer I thought of another possibility: "Christian canon". I'm not sure whether Christians would understand that to mean the Hebrew Bible too, but you could explore that if you don't like "Christian books".

This might seem like a nit, but I try to avoid calling those books "scriptures", as "scripture" can have the connotation, in a religious context, of being from God. We don't believe that about your books. You could probably get away with "Christian scriptures", but try "Christian books" instead -- I think it will serve you well and not lead to the occasional raised eyebrows that "scriptures" might.

Answer 2

I can see how Christian books could be useful; however, there are so many Christian books out there; Christian books may just be too broad. You might still find yourself having to explain and search for more specific adjectives.

Here are some additional suggestions:

• The 27 Books
• Primary Apostolic Writings
• Primary Christian Writings

Reading through the conversation in the comments to this answer, about Holy/divine writings, I am reminded of an old term, "Holy Writ," and wonder if the word writ might be employed:

• Apostolic Writ
• Christian Writ

Christian Writ strikes me as an exceptional over-all option, in that it:

• defines the collection specifically as what the Christians/Apostles wrote,
• is concise and natural enough to bear up under repetition in lengthy discourse,
  (is even one syllable shorter than "New Testament.")
• respectfully conveys that the Christians consider the collection divine/holy,
  without implying whether one agrees or disagrees with their conviction.
• writ does not seem to be used for other Greek/Christian writings
  (such as the church Fathers, or contemporary books/documents).

Christian Scripture also puts ownership of the conviction on the Christian; however, it may not be distinct enough to represent only the books written by Christians, since the whole of their bible, both parts together, is held by Christians as Scripture.

A bit more eccentric:

• The Christian Rule of Faith
• The Christian Anthology

It might be helpful to refer to the collection by its components:

• Gospels, Acts, Letters and Revelation,
  either list them, or refer to the particular part that is pertinent to conversation.

In reference specifically to the original Greek manuscripts, some of the above suggestions might be adapted by replacing writings with documents, manuscripts, parchments, or corpus.

A bit too obscure:
Early Christian writings
Greek Christian writings
Apostolic writings
Greek Canon
Christian Canon

Greek Canon-used to refer to collection of Greek art. One might think using earliest instead of just early would remedy this; however, earliest has connotations concerning (carbon) dating of the manuscripts and if you merely intend to imply foundational, then, primary would be the word of choice, as foundational would be a mouthful.

I don't intend to solve the matter with "an answer" but rather to present a compendium of vocabulary, terms, and adjectives adjectives; to consider the various implications, connotations, and limitations; to thus help equip/prepare those who endeavor to communicate respectfully and effectively about such matters in inner faith dialogue.

Answer 3

I generally refer to it as "the Christian Bible"; while this may not be 100% accurate it's generally good enough for conversational purposes. (Many people would assume that the Christian Bible includes the Tanach, so the phrase is most useful when the conversation has already made it clear that the Hebrew Bible is not part of that.)

• Jew: "The Bible" == Hebrew Bible
• Christian: "The Bible" == Hebrew Bible + Christian Bible
• Rest of the world: I would assume the Christian view dominates, though I've also heard people (Hindu, Muslim, and Zoroastrian) referring to "The Christian Bible" as including the Hebrew parts.

While "The New Testament" does have some negative connotations, it is also pretty universally understood to be the Christian books that got canonized by their religious authorities; in some cases it's easiest to use the generally understood term.

Answer 4

In The Torah: A Modern Commentary (2005), Rabbi Gunther Plaut uses the term 'Christians' New Testament' (pages 145, 421, 422) and 'Christian Scriptures' (p. 141) to refer to the twenty-seven pieces of literature written in the first century by Christians and considered authoritative and inspired by them. He also uses the term 'Christian tradition' (p. 145).

Answer 5

I prefer using the term "the Greek Testament".

First, it avoids using the word "Bible", for a work which Jews do not recognize as being part of the Bible.

It is also true to the original language of these books, Greek, which stands in contrast to the Jewish Bible, which was given in Hebrew.

Just in case anybody might not be sure what we're talking about, we use the word "Testament", which is a world commonly used in the Xtian world, and rarely used in the Jewish world.

For those who shun even using the word "Testament", I suggest that use the following euphemism, "the Greek addition to the Bible". This signals that we do not view this as a valid part of the Bible, rather as a foreign (Greek) addition.

Answer 6

I don't have a good answer, but I'd like to take this opportunity to point out the flaws in any answer I've heard or can think of. :-)

The best alternative I can think of is "Christian Bible". But most Christians would understand that to mean both Old and New Testaments, not just the New. And of course Christians believe both Old and New to be authoritative, so rightly so.

"Christian Books" or similar phrases is ambiguous. Christians have written lots of books. Books from many modern writers are routinely referred to as "Christian books".

An obvious parallel to "Hebrew Bible" is "Greek Bible". But that's also ambiguous. It could be taken to mean the Septuagint. Or to mean a copy of the Bible that is in Greek, as opposed to a translation into another language.

The problem, I think, is that any brief descriptive phrase will likely be ambiguous, and any phrase long enough to be clear will likely be loo long to be practical. No one is going to say, "... and in the Twenty-Seven Books Which are Generally Regarded as the Christian Addition to the Hebrew Bible we read that ..."

Christians have been calling this collection of books the "New Testament" since, when, Eusebius? We're simply "used to it" by now. Replacing a term that is that well established is hard. Of course if you could come up with a new term and get people to use it, it wouldn't have to be all that descriptive. I mean, how descriptive is "New Testament"? You could say that the Book of Mormon is "a new testament", etc. We know what it means because it is well established and widely understood.

Just BTW, I don't see why "Old Testament" should be offensive. I don't generally assume that "old" means "worse", and I don't think that most people do. Richard Dawkins books are much newer than the Bible, but that doesn't make me assume they are more authoritative. "Old" can be out of date, but it can also be tried and true. But that said, when it comes to what offends people, it is often not dictated by strict logic. I'm not offended by the phrase "sexual intercourse", but I am offended by the f-word. Why? What's the difference? It just ... is.

Answer 7

First of all, the Old Testament is not the Torah. Someone came along, took a Sefer Torah, translated it to some other language using on purpose words and expressions with idolatrous intent, put things to it, took things from it. Anyone is free to do this, but in the end you don't have a Torah. So I don't see any reason why a jew should feel uncomfortable with someone saying 'Old Testament'. I know of jews who are upset in such circumstances, but then I tell them that's not the Torah, not even resembles it, why the worry? Second of all, is 'New Testament' offensive to jews? Why? Because christians call that that way? They're free to do it. Let them call it whatever they like. You can even have a conversation with a christian about it. Everytime the christian says 'New Testament', you know what he is talking about. Everytime you say 'the christian writs', he knows what you're talking about. If he doesn't know in the begining, then tell him that's the thing he's calling 'New Testament'. If he asks you why you're not calling it 'New Testament' just say because you don't like that expression, but he can use it, you will understand. Two people talking of the same thing using different wording. This is a civilised conversation.