“WHY THE NAME NEW TESTAMENT ?”

Abstract

Both theology and philology suggest that the title of the Christian scriptures should have been “The New Covenant” rather than “The New Testament”. Why then did the Church Fathers from at least Tertullian in the 2nd century adopt novum testamentum? Was it simply a confusion of the LXX (covenant) and koine (a will) meanings of diathe–ke– (diaqh/kh and the methodological issues it raises (section 1) and then turn to two very different theological approaches to the question (section 2): I reject the attempt of Behm to impose (a version of ) the koine meaning (in his view, as a unilateral disposition) on the LXX (and subsequent literature, and even extending back to berit in the Hebrew Bible) as both theologically and legally inappropriate. Far preferable is the more recent account of Schenker, who sees the use of diatithe–mi and diathe–ke– in reference to meta ten teleuten transactions as having been chosen as appropriate to the terms of God’s covenant regarding the land and its use, and rightly shows the range of succession institutions to which this terminology could be applied. Both Behm and Schenker need to take positions on the forms of succession in vogue at the relevant periods (LXX and NT) in the Hellenistic and Jewish worlds. In section 3, I summarise the current state of knowledge and debate in legal historical studies, stressing the danger of assuming the features of modern “wills”, and noting the close relationship to political alliance (cf. covenant) in the “will” of the 2nd cent. BCE Ptolemy Neoteros of Cyrene. More generally, I argue that there is a connection between covenant and inheritance in the Hebrew Bible, including (but not restricted to) “spiritual inheritance” (section 4); that this was sharpened in the “Testament” genre of 2nd commonwealth (pseudepigraphical) literature, developing a model found already in the Hebrew Bible (section 5); that two New Testament texts explicitly associate covenant and (by analogy) testamentum (even more than the Jewish and Hellenistic forms of will) may well have proved theologically appealing to Tertullian, resulting in his adoption of the terminology of testamentum vetus and novum (section 7). In particular, the Roman testamentum took effect in its entirety only on death and automatically revoked any earlier will. 1. FROM BERIT ( ), TO DIATHE–KE– (diaqh&kh), TO TESTAMENTUM explanation, which has long been known. The term for “covenant” in the Hebrew Bible is * I am greatly indebted to Dr. Jennifer Dines (Cambridge), Dr. Gerald Downing (Manchester), Profssa. Daniela Piattelli (Rome) and Prof John ( Jack) W. Welch (Brigham Young) for comments and substantial bibliographical assistance in the preparation of this paper. Comments by Philip Alexander, Adrian Curtis and Walter Houston on an oral presentation at the Ehrhardt Seminar of the University of Manchester, have also proved of great assistance. ** Professor of Law and Jewish Studies, Liverpool Hope University. Email: jacksob@hope.ac.uk 1 So Lincoln’s conclusion to her article: 1999:27f. 2 According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “Testament, New. 1. Name”, as at http://www.newadvent.org/ cathen/14530a.htm: “Testament come from testamentum, the word by which the Latin ecclesiastical writers (from at least Tertullian in the late 2nd century) translated the Greek diatheke. With the profane authors this latter term means always, one passage of Aristophanes perhaps excepted, the legal disposition a man makes of his goods for after his death. However, at an early date, the Alexandrian translators of the Scripture, known as the Septuagint, WHY THE NAME NEW TESTAMENT? (BERNARD S. JACKSON) 51 berit. The expression “new covenant” appears there only once, in the famous (eschatological) prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31–33 (MT 31:30–32): (31) Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant (berit h. dashah) with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (32) not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. (33) But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. The Septuagint translates berit h.adashah here as diaqh/khn kainh/n, in accordance with the standard LXX translation of berit as diaqh/kh 5 (though diaqh/kh is sometimes used in the LXX also for other terms). This is followed in New Testament citations of Jer. 31:31, quoted directly in Heb. 8:8 and paraphrased in 2 Cor. 3:6. It is found also in the context of the eucharistic claim in 1 Cor. 11:23: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” and in the synoptic versions of the last supper: Mark 14:24 and Luke 22:20. However, in koine Greek diaqh/kh is not the normal term used for a treaty or agreement, but most typically refers to a ‘will’. Could it be, then, that the Church fathers, when writing in Latin, arrived at testamentum by adopting the koine meaning of diaqh/kh rather than that of the LXX? Neither “new covenant” nor “new testament” are actually used in the Christian scriptures to refer to themselves, although 2 Cor. 3:14 does use palaia=v diaqh/khv (rendered veteris testamenti in the Vulgate) to refer to the literary manifestation of the old covenant. Rather employed the word as the equivalent of the Hebrew berith, which means a pact, an alliance, more especially the alliance of Yahweh with Israel.” It adds: “. . . the expression Old Testament (he palaia diatheke time in Melito of Sardis, towards the year 170. There are reasons for thinking that at this date the corresponding word “testamentum” was already in use amongst the Latins. In any case it was common in the time of Tertullian.” In fact, palaia=v diaqh/khv is found already in 2 Cor. 3:14. See further n.12, infra. 3 Biblical quotations are from the RSV, unless otherwise indicated.