A lot of this recent discussion really seems to miss the point The point of the article isn t whether the term is any good or not I personally think it is a very useful term but not a perfect one like most good terms and you guys are correct some of the disadvantages surely have to do with the fact that it is less useful for those like Catholics and Eastern Christians whose Greek based Bibles contain books not included in the Jewish and Protestant Canons That however does not detract one bit from the fact that the article describes That fact is that many scholars including the SBL guidelines do indeed recommend this term for the common books of the Jewish and Protestant canons You can agree with that or not but it doesn t affect the article If there are any good sources explaining positions against the use of the term those too would be equally welcome in the article Also the term does not specifically mean the MT it only means the books in common and the sourcing fully bears this out