« Walter Reich on Recent Finds In Palestine
Main
O'Reilly Fears the Loss of White, Christian, Male Power »
May 31, 2007
Those Mostly Hebrew Writings
Well, here we go again! What to call them? Chris Heard is a zealous proponent of calling it Tanakh. And if I were an esteemed Associate Professor of Religion at Pepperdine University or anywhere else, I would call it Tanakh also. And like Chris I would use something like “Roman Catholic Old Testament” or “classic Septuagint canon” when I meant something other than Tanakh. If one is going to use term of great precision, one must use it with greater precision.
My problem is that I am not an esteemed Associate Professor of Religion at Pepperdine University or anywhere else and when I use the word Tanakh with most of my acquaintances they look at me with that "here he goes again" expression. At this point, the best thing that can happen is a diversion from whatever point I want to make into some version of the discussion that Claude Mariottini, Chris Weimer, Chris Heard, Richie, Tyler, MetaCatholic and no doubt others are having. (I use Claude's last name because he has two posts on the subject and I use the Chrises' last names because there are two of them.) So I tend to use the imprecise term "Hebrew Bible." Sure, it causes some problems when I want to talk about the Aramaic portions of Tanakh the Hebrew Bible but they really don't come up that often and can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I do think I am going to start using Tanakh here on Abnormal Interests when I do more technically orientated posts, particularly when precision is important. I really don't worry that much about the implication of three stage canonization. Charles did it for me in a comment on Chris' post. It's an issue, but it is a minor one that can be addressed when the topic of discussion is "canon."
So what to call the other collected works bound together with Tanakh in a typical Gideon Bible? In an effort to minimize theological overhead, I rather consistently use Christian New Testament. I know that this to is a very imprecise expression. I also know that it doesn't fully remove the theological implication of supersession. It does place these works in their proper sectarian context.
Bottom line: there is no perfect answer to what to call either collection of works. In large measure I thing it must depend, on the one hand, on the audience and the intention of the speaker/writer on the other. My only requirement is that every effort should be made to minimize the theological implications of whatever name one gives them. They both contain important works of antiquity and should be treaded with the same high respect one gives other works of antiquity. In addition, we need to remember that any name for them has an arbitrary quality that has little, and in some cases nothing, to do with the collections themselves.
This whole discussion is in reaction to a article by Timothy J. McNulty in the Chicago Tribune. So at least we know whom to blame this time around.
Posted by Duane Smith at May 31, 2007 8:56 AM | Read more on Hebrew Bible |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2125