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.

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.

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 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).

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.

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.