In an engaging and intelligent post, John Anderson brought the topic to our attention again, and Doug Chaplin followed up. There is also a pretty hearty conversation going on in the comment section of John’s post. In an older post of mine (two years ago), I shared some of my thoughts on the topic–and linked to other conversations going on at that time. That post just happens to be one of my all time most visited posts. People are always interested in this topic.
In my older post, I preferred using the term Tanakh as a richer option than “Hebrew Bible,” which seems bland to me. I also felt that when Christians are talking about an explicitly Christian reading of the Tanakh (such as with “OT theology” as John mentions), they shouldn’t be too uncomfortable with the term “Old Testament.” For Christians, the fact of the matter is that Jesus does change the equation when reading the Tanakh, though exactly how he does is the bigger question.
While I don’t disagree with my former self, I think I’ve become a little more pragmatic since that older post. In academic settings, I just say “Hebrew Bible” because that’s what everyone else says. In non-academic Christian settings, I just say “Old Testament.” In non-academic interfaith conversations, I’d probably say “Tanakh” more often than “Hebrew Bible.” For me, the matter is about a mixture of respect, honesty, and practicality.
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
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?
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.
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.