(comp. διαθήκη καινή [di·a·theʹke kai·neʹ, “new covenant”], Heb. ix, 15, with the same expression in viii, 8; and διαθήκη, ix, 16, 17, with ver. 20, and Exod. xxiv, 8).”

Likewise, B. F. Westcott, coeditor of the Westcott and Hort Greek text, in his work, The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1892, p. 300, wrote the following:

“The Biblical evidence then, so far as it is clear, is wholly in favour of the sense of ‘covenant,’ with the necessary limitation of the sense of the word in connexion with a Divine covenant. When we pass to the consideration of the sense of διαθήκη in c. ix. 15 ff. one preliminary remark offers itself. The connexion of vv. 15—18 is most close: v. 16 ὅπου γάρ [hoʹpou gar, “For where”] . . . : v. 18 ὅθεν οὐδέ [hoʹthen ou·deʹ, “Consequently neither”]. . . .

“This connexion makes it most difficult to suppose that the key-word (διαθήκη) is used in different senses in the course of the verses, and especially that the characteristic of a particular kind of διαθήκη, essentially different from the πρώτη διαθήκη [proʹte di·a·theʹke, “former covenant”] of vv. 15, 18, should be brought forward in v. 16. For it is impossible to maintain that the sacrifices with which the Old Covenant was inaugurated could be explained on the supposition that it was a ‘Testament.’ Nor does it appear that it could be called a ‘Testament’ in any sense.

“It is then most reasonable to conclude that διαθήκη has the same sense throughout, and that the sense is the otherwise universal one of ‘covenant,’ unless there are overwhelming arguments against such a view.”

Therefore, in Hebrews 9:16, 17, the Greek word di·a·theʹke has the same meaning as in the surrounding verses, namely, “covenant,” corresponding to the Hebrew word berithʹ. These verses are imbedded in the apostle’s discussion of the Mosaic Law covenant as compared with its antitype, the new covenant. Paul speaks of the mediator (“covenanter”) dying in order for the covenant to become legal and binding. In the case of the Law covenant, the animal victims took the place of Moses, the mediator of the Law covenant, their blood substituting for his in legalizing and making the covenant operative. Correspondingly, in the case of the new covenant, Jesus Christ, the mediator of the new covenant, actually gave his perfect human life in sacrifice. When he shed his blood in death, the new covenant was validated.

2 Corinthians 3:14—Gr., ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης (e·piʹ tei a·na·gnoʹsei tes pa·lai·asʹ di·a·theʹkes); Lat., in lectione veteris testamenti

1611 “in the reading of the old testament” King James Version.

Today it is a common practice to refer to the Scriptures written in Hebrew and Aramaic as “The Old Testament.” This is based on the reading in 2 Corinthians 3:14 in the Latin Vulgate and the King James Version. The Christian Greek Scriptures are commonly called “The New Testament.” It is to be noted that in 2 Corinthians 3:14 the word di·a·theʹkes means “covenant,” as in the other 32 places where it occurs in the Greek text.—See App 5C.

Concerning the meaning of the Latin word testamentum (genitive, testamenti), Edwin Hatch, in his work Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxford, 1889, p. 48, states that “in ignorance of the philology of later and vulgar Latin, it was formerly supposed that ‘testamentum,’ by which the word [di·a·theʹke] is rendered in the early Latin versions as well as in the Vulgate, meant ‘testament’ or ‘will,’ whereas in fact it meant also, if not exclusively, ‘covenant.’” Likewise, in A Bible Commentary for English Readers by Various Writers, edited by Charles Ellicott, New York, Vol. VIII, p. 309, W. F. Moulton wrote that “in the old Latin translation of the Scriptures testamentum became the common rendering of the word [di·a·theʹke]. As, however, this rendering is very often found where it is impossible to think of such a meaning as will (for example, in Ps. lxxxiii, 5, where no one will suppose the Psalmist to say that the enemies of God ‘have arranged a testament against Him’), it is plain that the Latin testamentum was used with an extended meaning, answering to the wide application of the Greek word.”

In view of the above, the rendering “old testament” in the King James Version in 2 Corinthians 3:14 is incorrect. Many modern translations correctly read “old covenant” at this point. Here the apostle Paul is not referring to the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures in their entirety. Neither does he mean that the inspired Christian writings constitute a “new testament (covenant).” The apostle is speaking of the old Law covenant, which was recorded by Moses in the Pentateuch and which makes up only a part of the pre-Christian Scriptures. For this reason he says in the next verse, “whenever Moses is read.”

Therefore, there is no valid basis for the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures to be called “The Old Testament” and for the Christian Greek Scriptures to be called “The New Testament.” Jesus Christ himself referred to the collection of sacred writings as “the Scriptures.” (Matthew 21:42; Mark 14:49; John 5:39) The apostle Paul referred to them as “the holy Scriptures,” “the Scriptures” and “the holy writings.” (Romans 1:2; 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:15) In harmony with the inspired utterance in Romans 1:2, the New World Translation contains in its title the expression “the Holy Scriptures.”