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.

I have a friend who is currently a first year MDiv student at a school that many salivate over. He currently does not know which way his career will go: academic studies or ministry. Currently, he’s so loaded with the daily responsibilities of classwork that he hasn’t had much time to find a niche of research that he truly gets excited about. His mental skill for academia, however, is off the charts, in my opinion. So, I’m trying to think of ways he can explore his potential academic interests. Out of anything, he is most drawn to Hebrew narrative and is interested more in literary approaches than historical-critical work. I don’t think historical reconstruction does much for him, nor does abstract theological speculation.

Personally, I had a breakthrough when I discovered just what niche I am interested in exploring. First, I thought I would be interested in Jesus studies and the Gospels, but I am not as interested in recovering the “historical Jesus.” I then realized that I’m more interested in social issues in general (hence, for example, my work with Bread for the World this past Summer), so I started to think that way when researching. I found that the themes that I get most jazzed up about are how the early Christians apply their understanding/memory of Jesus to their social situation and, on the flip side, how their social situation affects their understanding/memory of Jesus. I also noticed that I simply got excited when I read apocalyptic literature. So, there it is: social issues in the New Testament and Christian origins, with a special interest in apocalyptic literature. But it took a long time to get there. Well, relatively “long” . . . I’m still in seminary, after all. But I was quite overwhelmed with the vast possibility for research areas up until I pinpointed this.

So, what are some ways that my friend can explore what might excite him most about Hebrew narrative? What are resources that he could turn to that would help him see if this really is his bag, baby? I’m no expert in Hebrew narrative, but here goes my brainstorming session:

• Explore some authors who might be down your alley. It seems to me that this is a key move that opens possible doors in multiple directions. He really liked Robert Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative and I think he appreciated the bit of Brueggemann that he read, too.
• Try this: Since he liked Alter’s book, search ATLA and look for reviews of the book. My search pulled up 28 reviews. See what other scholars said about it. This helps him not only to think critically about Alter’s book, but also think critically about where the reviewer is coming from. The reviewer may be someone whose works are worth checking out or maybe not. Or, as with Whybray’s significant review essay in JSOT (no 27, 1983), you may get some historical context and background for Alter as a scholar and this book placed within the larger framework of those scholars attempting literary criticism of the Bible. Actually, it turns out that Alter’s book is a great exercise for this because that particular issue of JSOT contains several reviews of the book along with a response from Alter himself.
• Read other books, or even articles, that might be of interest by these authors. What authors do they reference in the main text and footnotes most often? What topics come up often in these articles and books? That might provide an avenue for further research.
• Following the last point, what are the most important/interesting issues related to Hebrew narrative? What’s going on with the deuternomistic history and how does that color the narrative? What interpretative implications are there for the various dating schemes for the texts (pre/post-exilic)? How might the Dead Sea Scrolls relate to the literature? What do we do with New Testament usage of OT narrative? Try just reading entries about these things in dictionaries like Anchor Bible Dictionary or IVP’s dictionaries on the Pentateuch or Historical Books. Which ideas seem more attractive here?
• When you find names of people that you respect and find interesting, find out where they teach (even if they might be retired) and explore those programs. Alter teaches in the Jewish Studies department at UC-Berkeley. Who else teaches there (e.g., Daniel Boyarin) and does their research seem interesting? Their doctoral program functions jointly with the Graduate Theological Union (GTU). Does that program seem like a good way to go about studying? What are some other major programs in Hebrew Bible? Look at places like Johns Hopkins, UCLA, or U of Chicago. Do these programs seem like a good fit? Who teaches there? Does their work seem interesting? What about a smaller place like Brueggemann’s home at Columbia Theological Seminary? Turns out, Columbia doesn’t have a PhD program. Would you feel comfortable at another seminary environment (like Union-PSCE or Fuller)? In all of these programs: what would be your concentration, who might be your advisor, what kinds of courses would you take, etc.?
• Read blogs that intelligently wrestle with texts of the Hebrew Bible. This isn’t my area, but some good ones for that seem to be Ancient Hebrew Poetry, Awilum, Biblische Ausbildung, Blue Cord, Claude Mariottini, Higgaion, and Ketuvim. I know I’m missing people . . . sorry! Though, trying to read through a bunch of blogs can be overwhelming, especially since a heck of a lot of blogging by biblical studies blogs is not actually about biblical studies, let alone the biblical text itself. What might be even better would be to look at the monthly “carnivals” of biblical studies blogs that highlight some of the best blogging about biblical issues in various categories. Go down month by month and read the Hebrew Bible entries. I think this gives you an idea for the vast array of approaches and ideas out there, giving you a kind of dip into the waters of academia.
• Make sure to make appointments to chat with the OT faculty at your school and get their advice about how to think about these issues, how to get prepared, where to think of applying, what books to read, what languages are important to study, etc.

These are the kinds of things (though from a NT/Christian origins perspective) that I worked through to find my interests. But it is also a deep kind of soul searching, too. I don’t think people should hop into academia because it seems like an interesting career, but because you are driven by it: either to research, to teach, or both. For me, I just have this gut level passion for thinking about social implications of textual issues. I think that comes from its immense relevance to how the sacred texts are socially used and misused in society and culture today. I also have a passion for making the complicated stuff accessible to “average” people who have a hard time dealing with it. I guess it comes down to: with what issues do you want to spend your life wrestling?

Don’t look at me! It’s not my question. Someone actually googled that inquiry to get to this blog post.

So… anybody have a good answer for this visitor?

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.