mountainman

This is a general question about the distribution of mainstream
(and other) opinion concerning the relationship between the two
historically separate division of books found in "the bible", the Old
and the New Testaments, in an historical sense.

Let's also acknowledge that the two distinct sets of books are
separated by an historical span of at least 500 years, or by some
other figure (eg: 600, 400? My research of the Old Testament is
not strong, so I'll leave the exact figure open). The issue being
we have two separately created components, centuries apart.

What is this nature of this relationship? In the terminology of BC&H
how does one describe the relationship between the old and the new.

For example, some say that the old writing acts as "prophecy" with
respect to the new, and that the common denominator are the
"Hebrew sages" who incarnate in accordance to earlier "Hebrew sages".
So the relationship expressed here might be termed "prophetical".

There may indeed be separate relationships old to new, and new to old.
The new books may specifically claim "propheticism" from the old books.

What other terms are usually used in describing how the old testament
relates to the new testament, or how the new testament relates to
the old testament?

For example, there may be those who hold certain opinions that relate
to the revealed authority of god as being bound in these books. Here
then we would expect to see the relationship between old and new as
being a lineage of revealed authority.

Another relationship may simply be claimed as "historical", but this
does not provide us any additional information on the nature of the
historical relationship.


What terminology best describes in general the relationship(s) claimed to exist
by BC&H scholars, or apologists for that matter, between the old and new
components of "the bible"?

mountainman

How are novice BC&H students introduced to the relationship
between the two sets of literature "OT" and "NT". Is there any
reading available on this issue?

Is there in fact no formal relationship assumed?
Or is there a common postulate shared between
BC&H scholars that these tow sets are somehow
related, and if so, what is this postulate?

mountainman

The IIDB FAQ has this to say:

3. Jewish Scripture (OT?)
4. Christian Scripture (NT?)

Is that all there is to it?

Toto

The use of the term Old Testament is considered insulting by some, as it implies that the Jewish scriptures are certainly outdated and replaced with the NT.

Clearly, however, the New Testament was written with reference to the Hebrew Scriptures, however you want to call them.

I'm not sure what the point of your question is.

mountainman

Thanks for the response Toto.

My question is about the hypothetical relationship(s)
that the scholarly based research (as distinct from the faith-
based research -- eg: this dichotomy referenced by spin's post
"What may be wrong with christian biblical scholarship?")

From your response it appears clear that there exists the
postulate that NT was written with reference to the Hebrew
texts, but surely, this is an hypothesis.

My point of my question is to confirm this state of affairs.

Do academic based BC&H researchers admit to this relationship
as hypothetical (perhaps as another "unexamined postulate"),
or is it accepted -- on face value - that it is true that there is
a relationship so described. Thanks for any comments.

Chris Weimer

Multiple quotes to the Hebrew scriptures establish the link between the two. Any cursory reading will verify this. It's not an hypothesis but an observation.

An hypothesis would be, for example, what sort of relationship is there between the two sets of texts?

mountainman

Do you mean to say that you would consider that there
was some specific relationship between the Hebrew texts
and the NT texts as an hypothesis, but you would not
consider that that there was some general (but unspecified)
relationship between the two sets of texts as an hypothesis?

And if the former, can you perhaps provide an example or
two of different specific hypothetical relationships that BC&H
scholars in the past considered to exist, and in fact whether
any of these specifically defined (hypothetical) relationships are
accepted generally, and are common to current scholarship,
obviously (shared) at the axiomatic level of development.

Many thanks for any insights to this question.

Chris Weimer

An old and outdated hypothesis was that the gospel writers, Matthew in particular, used the Hebrew scriptures in Hebrew rather than the Greek translations. It didn't bear out scrutiny.

Another one would be proof-texting - that the evangelists used the scriptures to assure the readers that what happened was in accordance to prophecy. This is largely in accord with current (and ancient) scholarship.

mountainman

In this instance, it appears to me that an hypothesis was broached
in which the relationship between the 2 sets of texts was that they
were both originally written in Hebrew, and this is no longer in favour.

In this instance, the hypothetical relationship (IMO) appears to be
that the texts of the NT bear out some prophetic extentions of
the Hebrew texts.

But has this hypothesis ever been disputed by (ancient and) current
scholarship? Specifically, with reference to this previously mentioned
dichotomy between academic based scholarship, and faith based
scholarship, I can readily perceive that the latter group would examine
such an hypothesis.

IMO however, the hypothesis of "prophetic relationship" is difficult
to be established on objective and scientific grounds with respect
to the former group of scholars --- those to be perceived as the
"academic based" researchers of BC&H.

How do this academic based group of researchers countenance the
hypothesis of prophecy, when the act of prophecy is not universally
admitted to be scientifically established in the year 2007?

Amedeo

You are looking at two sets of books, which somebody has called The Old Testament and the New Testament.

Whereas "Bible" [= Books] referred only to the Old Testament, soon enough somebody thought of the two sets as constituting the Books of Divine Revelation -- not chronologies, biographies, and theologican tractates, but "the Books of Divine Revelation." So, your first inquiry should be directed to Christian editors of the the two sets and their union. At the same time, look into the editor of all the biographical books of Jesus the King-Messiah , and consider the division between Canonical (allegedly authentic) Gospels and the Apocryphal ones.

Some Jewish and/or Christian theologians have wondered whether divine Revelation on Inspiration ended with the Old Testament, or with the New Testament, or is still incomplete. Logically, Jews who do not become Christians hold that Revelation ended with the Bible (thought it should logically continue, since most of the Bible consists of a theological epics of the heroes of Israel, and of devotional poems), that the New Testament is not a continuation of the Bible, wherefore, the Canonial Christian Scriptures are all apocriphal. On the contrary, The Catholic maintain that they may validly make "befitting inferences" from the New Testament and that the upper clergy is divinely inspired in their official pronouncements [such as the assumption of Mary into heaven and other doctrines which are not present the Scriptures].

On the other hand, since Philo the theologian, both Jews and Christians employ allegorizing exegeses whereby they expurgate errors, fallacies, and immoralities from their own Scriptures: the distilled truth is the God-revealed or inspired truth. Needless to say, the clean-up job is as good as the minds of the sweepers... who have left intact, or interpret literally, the most blatant nonsenses, errors, and immoralities that fill the pages of both Testaments. As they do not expurgate the talking gods and theological framework from the scriptures, all of their scriptures belong to the category of editorialized mythic literature.

The synoptic Gospels (compiled biographies of Jesus King-Messiah) have a specific relationship to the Old Testament, regardless of who narrated the episodes of Jesus's life, and irrespectively of their being true accounts or not: The Jesus messianic figure is narrated as a fulfilment of certain prophesies in the Bible. This is not a matter of textual identities; it is a matter of coincidence between what the Bible foretells and facts in the life of Jesus as the they asserted in the biographies. Accordingly, the synoptic Gospels are books of the Bible, independently of their being believed by the Jews. // As alleged Books of revealed or inspired Truth, the Bible is not a statement of what the Jews believe to be true. What belongs or does not belong in the Bible is not under the jurisdiction of the believing Jews or, for that matter, of the believing Christians. If the Jews are the authors of the substance of the Bible, then obviously the Bible EXCLUDES any literature whose substance is not authored by the Jews. In the same way, an anthology of poems by French poets excludes any poetry, even written in French, which is not authored by Frenchmen.// Now, it happens that Jesus was a Jew [in nationality: a member of Israel] and, as I pointed out in other posts, he preached his own messianic autobiography, so, his words [or the Synoptic Gospels] are a de facto part of the Bible. The letters of Saul of Tarsus, who defined himself as a Jew of Jews (even though he retained his Roman citizenship) also belong in the Bible, if its substance is the human work of the Jews. But the orthodox Jews logically consider all the scriptures of the New Testament (and the very concept of a new covenant) heretical and to be kept out of the Bible.