The problem seems to be a confusion with a variety of subsets in the field(s) that we study. There is Canaanite Religion, in its broad and varied forms. Then a subset of this is “Israelite� religion; yet there is debate how this can be defined and at what point it begins. Most of us seek to understand this latter aspect, “Israelite� religion which is a subset of a larger geographical/historical context. But most importantly, a subset of that religion is the literary corpus which that group(s) produced (Dearman, Rleigion and Culture in Ancient Israel, 1992); HB, OT, etc. Most of us want to know about the culture/people that expressed this “Israelite� religion and sometimes use their literary writings to access that. Saying we are scholars of HB/OT is inaccurate since we regularly use archeology, inscriptions, other ANE material and other texts not in our canons; not to mention a variety of reading lenses that have nothing to do with the communities who produced these texts. In these ways I appreciate Ken’s designations (Ancient History) which seem to recognize we are not scholars of the text, but of the people behind those texts; and if the methodology changes so can the self-designation (ie: Comparative Literature if we are more interested in the intersection between the texts than the people who wrote them. But are these always distinguishable?). Then if we are to use designations like HB, OT, etc. Tyler’s comments regarding the need for clarity and definition when they are used is important. But I also appreciate his notion that labels are just that, imperfect signifiers that require constant definition.

At the end of day, my assumption is that in most cases it would be better to use inclusive rather than exclusive language. I don’t mean inclusive of material but of scholars. Certain language may preclude scholars from Jewish circles, and vice versa, from interacting in serious discussion because of the present biases.

I think professors and/or priests/ministers/pastors (and the like) should use their own judgment about terminology. Audience is an important factor. Some people seem to be tense about this issue, while others simply do not care at the predent moment. I think there is an inherent danger in making a mountain out of molehill, if you will. Having said that, I think writers should have the liberty to use various synonyms and not be forced into one nomenclature.

“Hebrew Bible” is the most effective, and most accurate when viewed as not exclusively, but largely descriptive of the language it’s written in. That was the explicitly recommended and preferred term with various Jewish scholars I was priveleged to study with.

“Tanak/Tanakh/TaNaK/etc” is a bit outré, even if there were an agreed spelling, as it’s more commonly referred to as Miqra’ in Modern Hebrew. Using it in English is just a bit twee.

Might as well throw in some others…

“Qumran community” or “Qumranites” instead of “Essenes”…

I prefer to call myself “Anabaptist” instead of “Christian”.

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.