In retrospect, with regards to how I put together the title for Part 1, I should have avoided assuming too much, thereby producing a title which is misleading.
Indeed, Jesus and his contemporaries were using the Tanakh (that is, the Hebrew Bible, or Christianity’s Old Testament). This implies that there was no marked contextual demarcation then as to the worldviews of the characters and audiences of the Tanakh vis-a-vis those of Jesus’ time. The Tanakh was not Jesus’ “old testament” in that it continued to be Jesus’ foremost “current” authority in matters of living. Therefore, where Jesus was concerned, the core of both the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament” were not separate entities.
That was my idea behind the title of Part 1, “The Biblical Period: From the Old Testament to the New Testament.”
However, in retrospect, as I was saying, I would have liked to have put it as, “The Biblical Period: From the Old Testament to Just About at the Beginning of the Formation of the New Testament,” which, I rather say, is a bit mouthful. The contents of which is what I have put together, just the same, in my dissertation.
My [doctoral] dissertation:
Siacor, Mona Lisa. The Significance of the Elterngebot (Iloilo City: CPU Press, 2017).