why the term "old testament" is inaccurate when referring to judaism.

the phrase old testament is widely used in christian contexts to refer to what jews call the tanakh. however, this terminology carries theological implications that do not align with jewish belief. 

in christianity, the old testament is called "old" because it's seen as being fulfilled or replaced by the new testament. the idea is that there was an "old covenant" between G-d and israel, and then a "new covenant" came through jesus.

in judaism, this framework simply doesn't exist. the covenant between G-d and the jewish people is ongoing and eternal. the teachings of the torah are not superseded by any later revelation, but remain the foundation of jewish life, ethics and theology. as such, referring to jewish scripture as the "old testament" inaccurately suggests that our texts are outdated, incomplete, or subordinate to later christian writings.

instead, jews use the term tanakh, an acronym formed from the three sections of the hebrew bible: torah (teaching), nevi'im (prophets) and ketuvim (writings). this term is not only more accurate, but it also reflects the integrity of the jewish canon as a distinct and self-contained body of sacred literature.

this isn't about policing language or being pedantic – language shapes perception, and the continued use of "old testament" in reference to jewish scripture reinforced a christian-centred worldview that positions judaism as something incomplete. for jews, the tanakh is not "old" at all, but remains present and enduring within global jewish practice.