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.

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.