Several folks in the biblioblogosphere (that is, the world of biblical studies blogs for those uninitiated) have been discussing the perennial question of what to call those Scriptures that Jews use, but Christians also use with a different label. The first post that I read regarding the issue was from Tyler Williams, who gives reprints a helpful mini-history and explanation for the various major terms used. I highly recommend his post. Others weighing in are: Claude Mariottini (who got the ball rolling in reaction to something in the Chicago Tribune), Richie Heimbrock (a fellow Fullerite), Chris Heard, and Chris Weimer.
My former pastor, who has now gone on to be the president of Goshen College, refers to the OT/HB/TNK as the “Older Testament.” He studied under James Sanders for his doctoral work, who is mentioned by Tyler as introducing “First and Second Testaments” (which, he notes, is used even by Fuller’s own John Goldingay). I’m not sure “Older Testament” makes things any better, but it’s another option, so I thought I’d throw it out there. To me, the term seems to emphasize its “oldness” in Christian eyes.
I appreciate Tyler’s desire to use the standard terms as long as they are used with “charity and understanding.” I think I try to use Tanakh with my Jewish friends, but I wonder if they think I’m phony doing that (I’m not trying to be!). I think saying Tanakh is better than Hebrew Bible (HB) because “Tanakh” feels richer to me . . . and it’s old, or at least refers to a more historic way of dividing these Scriptures. HB seems like just a bland description, besides the well-noted fact that not all the “Hebrew Bible” was written in Hebrew (along with other inaccuracies implicit in the term). Chris Weimer’s “Jewish Scriptures” is pretty good, but I would prefer to use something more standardized (also, there are some questions there about when the Scriptures were written, since the term “Jews” probably didn’t exist until after the exile).
If one is talking about a Christian perspective on the Scriptures, either academically or personally, I think it is appropriate to recognize that Christians do view the Tanakh in light of their New Testament (and in light of Jesus in particular). If one is involved in an open dialogue between Jews and Christians, I think it is important to be honest about the theological distinctives of each group rather than try to come up with common terminology. If Christians try to pretend like Jesus doesn’t reorient the way they view the OT (whatever that reorientation looks like), I see that as dishonest. Likewise, I would see it as dishonest for Jews to pretend that they feel it is it is okay for the Tanakh to be viewed through a christological lens. The purpose of dialogue, as I see it, is understanding not watering things down. [That said, there are surely Christians out there who would deny that Jesus reorients the way they view the "OT" and Jews who genuinely wouldn't care how the Tanakh is viewed by Christians. For me, this all simply highlights the complications involved in deciding which label to use.]
Jim Getz’s response to Tyler (in the comments of Tyler’s post) is provocative and interesting to me:
Personally, when I think Old Testament I think LXX, including the Deuterocanonical works. It’s a document of the Church to be interpreted by the Church. When I think Tanakh, I think of a Jewish canon to be interpreted in terms of rabbinic principals. When I think Hebrew Bible, I think of the academy and the study of a foundational document by moderns who may or may not hold this to be “factual” or even “true.”
Generally speaking, I use “Hebrew Bible” unless I’m preaching in a church or giving a talk at a synagogue, then I’ll use the appropriate term for that faith community.
That last part is generally where I come out, but his description of OT and Tanakh has me scratching my head, or rubbing my chin, or [insert preferred pensive bodily movement here]. It is interesting, since most of the earliest church probably used the LXX (that is, the Septuagint, the Greek version of the “OT”) . . . well, used whatever parts of what we call the LXX were available to them. And post-70 CE rabbinic Judaism, naturally, used rabbinic principles to interpret the Tanakh. But today, would all Jews feel comfortable with rabbinic interpretation alone? Or would all Christians feel comfortable with identifying the “Old Testament” as the LXX? Obviously, the Protestants don’t, since they are the ones that tossed aside the Greek version in favor of the Hebrew version. Jim knows this, of course, so I’m guessing he is only referring to much earlier usage and not contemporary usage of the OT/HB/TNK within faith communities.
In sum, I say: be honest about what you would personally call this collection of Scriptures, but also be humbly respectful of how others honestly view it themselves. That’s about all we can do, I think.
I think my statement works both historically and currently as well.
While “all” Jews wouldn’t necessarily feel comfortable with rabbinic interpretation alone, the majority would and do rely on it to a great extent, especially when the Tanakh is used in a worship setting.
The same would also hold true for Christians, since the majority (85% by the last estimates I’ve heard — though I could be wrong) aren’t Protestant, but are RCC, EO or somewhere in between (e.g. Western Rite Orthodox, etc.). I’m not about to cross the Tiber, but you got to admit that Protestants are in the extreme minority of the world wide communion of the saints (i.e. the Church).
As a side note: at Brandeis, there is a tendency among Christians, Jews and others to simply refer to the OT/HB/TNK/whatever as “the Bible.” But hey, Brandeis is a different place.
Thanks, Jim. I appreciate the response. One thought: One of the elements of this debate is so that we do not overlook the way that one group of people read a particular text, even if they are a minority. Jews are a very small minority of those who actually view their Scriptures as Scripture. Though it is a difficult question to answer, there are perhaps around 13-14 million Jews in the world. We would certainly not use the “majority rules” argument for them.
That’s not obviously not fair. Jewish people certainly have a unique claim to be heard in how they view their own text, whatever their population stats are.
I still have a problem with the majority argument, though. Many Protestants act like they are the dominant form of Christianity in the world and, thus, they do need to be reminded that they are the minority, but I don’t think that gives us the right to ignore their point of view.
But in the end, you were just stating how you view things personally and not making an argument, so my assessment of it is perhaps moot.
I don’t quite understand Jim Getz’s definition of OT. The LXX, including the apocrypha, were written by Jews, not Christians – albeit they were preserved by Christians, not Jews. The church interprets these texts, but they weren’t written by members of the church – so how can he say it’s “a document of the church”?
That’s a good point, Rebecca. If I could put words in Jim’s mouth, I think the concern would be more “what constitutes the ‘Old Testament’ for Christians” and less “to whom belongs the LXX.” I think that was his point, at least, and perhaps saying that the LXX is “a document of the church” was an unfortunate slip of the keyboard. I think he meant that this is what the church appropriated as Scripture (as opposed to Hebrew and Aramaic versions of the texts) on the whole. If Jim happens to come back and check, then perhaps he can correct me there.
I think you’ve pretty much got it, Patrick.
Sure, the LXX was written by Jews, but then again most of the NT was as well. The sect of Judaism that came out on top after the cataclysms of 70 and 135 CE affirmed what was Scripture for the Jewish community. Whether part of the rejection of certain books was due to their acceptance by Christian communities is a debate that will probably go on till the end of time.
Now, if some other Jewish sect had won, their canon might have looked different; but they didn’t so the Jewish Bible is the Tanakh. Canon is a fluid idea, no?
BTW: my thought on “majority rule” would be in reference to an individual religion, not more generally — thanks for pinning me down on that.
There are common references that both Faiths use:
The Scriptures (Exodus 32:16 ” המכתב ” ;” τας γραφας ” Luke 24:45) are THE WRITINGS.
The Word (Exodus 4:15; Matthew 7:24;13:20)is the COMMUNICATION that flows out of the mouth of God, his messengers, and believers under his influence.