Pat McCullough joined the discussion on the terminology one should use for Israel’s Scriptures (something I touched on with my daughter the other day). See Pat’s post for links to the others. All I’ll say is this: of all the Orthodox Jews I know (and I know many), I’ve not heard any of them refer to their Scriptures as the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament. The Jews I know they call their Scriptures one of three things: (1) Torah, (2) Tanakh, (3) Bible. Torah is by far the most common, with Bible coming in second. The only guys that I’ve heard use Tanakh in regular conversation are the guys in yeshiva and they use it interchangably with Torah, but even then Torah wins the day. I don’t think it makes an ounce of difference how we refer to the Old Testament (I go back and forth between a number of designations), but I wonder if those who prefer “Hebrew Bible” wouldn’t also prefer “Greek Scriptures” for the New Testament, ya know, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses call it in their Kingdom Interlinear Translation.

Pat:

Thanks for your comments! I have begun to think recently about using Tanak, but it sounds a bit odd to me—probably because I’ve never used it in such a context (Tanak theology?!?!). But, I do think it is a fine choice that seems to remedy many of the attendant difficulties of Hebrew Bible. Yet, as a scholarly convention, Hebrew Bible seems to be well-accepted. And as you might expect, I agree quite wholly with your sentiments that one’s choice should be governed by a modicum of respect, but also by context.

You are a gifted writer. It was fun reading your stuff. I have subscribed! I would recommend a few more definitions so people can follow it since it is so deep

I included Nick’s entire post in this pingback because I think it’s helpful. I have had similar experience with my Jewish friends and acquaintances regarding their most used designations. My friends, though, have been more often Reform or Conservative Jews than Orthodox (though I did sit next to an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi from Israel on a plane this past spring). I don’t use “Bible” because of the confusion–who knows which Bible I’d be talking about? And I don’t use Torah just because my academic self wants me to be more precise–unless I really am only talking about the Torah.

Thanks, z! I do have a few more designations in that older post I’ve linked to above.

Thanks, John. I haven’t yet read it, but this article seems relevant to the discussion:

Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, “Tanakh Theology : The Religion of the Old Testament and the Place of Jewish Biblical Theology.” In Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, 617-644. Philadelphia: Fortress Pr, 1987.

Ah, labels. Can’t live with them, can’t live without them.

I prefer “Hebrew Bible” in most cases, although I sometimes use “Torah” (limited to the five Mosaic scrolls and pronounced appropriately). The big problem I have with “Hebrew Bible” is the word “Bible.” It implies a notion of canon, book culture, and/or text-form limitation that is far too arbitrary, anachronistic, and reductionistic. I touch on this problem briefly in my post Annoying Biblical Studies Terminology in which I decry the term “final form.” However, I do think one can use “Hebrew Bible” in an inclusive sense to mean ANY text which might or might not be part of one canon or another and which might or might not be in one arrangement/order or another, and which might or might not be based on one text-form or another, and which might or might not exist in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. The thing that holds the term together is the ancient Israelite peoples (“Hebrew”) and their traditions (“Bible”). Thus, when I say “Bible,” I am speaking of a metaphoric box and the historical situation in which that box exists, not so much the content or arrangement of that metaphoric box (see Annoying Biblical Studies Terminology).

Tanakh or Hebrew Bible are both very heavily used terms, and have the advantages that both refer to the same thing among both Jews and non-Jews, as well as not being ambiguous in any way. If you say “Old Testament” you are making it obvious that you are coming from a Christian background, because Jews would not call it that.

Pat: I’ve never actually met a Reformed Jew although I’ve read about them. And funnily enough, of all the “Messianic Jews” I’ve met, almost all of them were actually Gentiles! Figure that one out…

John: Re: “Tanak theology” — Isn’t that one of Childs’ staring points in Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context, i.e., that Jews themselves don’t write OT theologies?

That’s interesting. I have had very good friends, including one of my groomsmen, who are Reform Jews. My groomsman’s sister is actually studying to be a cantor in the Reform Jewish tradition.

I attended a Messianic Jewish Synagogue for a couple months. As far as I know, me and a friend of mine were the only Gentiles there! Though I have known several Gentiles very interested in Messianic Judaism.

Nick:

Childs may make that point, I would have to go back and look again. I recall it vaguely, so it must not have been a seminal part of his argument (nor do I recall him using the phrase “Tanak Theology”). I may have mentioned to you that Jon Levenson has an article out entitled something like “Why Jews are Not Interested in Old Testament Theology.”

And, in a bit of jest, of course you’ve never met a Reformed Jew. No one has. No such person exists. Now, a Reform Jew (as Pat says), that I can be on board with. Just razzing you buddy! But, to tell the truth, I have seen Reform Jews very bluntly correct those who call them “Reformed” Jews.