maklelan

My Blog is Moving

2009-08-16T23:04:00.000-07:00

My blog is moving to DanielOMcClellan.wordpress.com. I like the layout and the features more at wordpress, and it's time to class things up a bit. I hope you don't mind the inconvenience.

The Composition of the Pentateuch

2009-08-15T21:18:00.000-07:00

I just ran across a very interesting post by John Anderson at Hesed we'emet on the composition of the Pentateuch. In preparing for comps, John put together a lengthy outline for an essay on the driving theories of the development of the Pentateuch. This is a very helpful outline of the scholarship, and it evidently helped him pass. Thanks John.

Cook and Holmstedt's Hebrew Grammar

2009-08-15T08:44:00.000-07:00

The University of Toronto's R.D. Holmstedt teamed up with Asbury Theological Seminary's John Cook a while ago to produce an introduction to Biblical Hebrew that would be freely available online. They've had a draft edition up for some time, but they've just completed an update. Check it out here.

New Exams for MSt Students at Oxford

2009-08-11T13:53:00.000-07:00

I received an email this morning from the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies letting me know they would really appreciate it if I remained at Yarnton Manor an extra week (until 2 July, 2010) as they will now be giving oral exams to some of the Oriental Institute's MSt students. They want me around in case I'm chosen. Sounds like fun.

Don't Make Fun of Grad Students!

2009-08-08T23:11:00.001-07:00

I had to throw in this little extra, from Dave Beldman. Only one of the countless brilliant moments from the Simpsons.

Death will come out of it! No one will escape!

2009-08-08T22:02:00.001-07:00

Via Alan Lenzi at Bible and Ancient Near East. A tablet was recently unearthed in Turkey (dating to around 630 BCE) in which an Assyrian official named Mannu-ki-Libbali begs for reinforcements against approaching Babylonian troops. The requested troops arrived too late, and the town, Tushan, was ultimately destroyed.

Lenzi points to the tablet as evidence of literacy in the seventh century even among low-level bureaucrats, which is a conclusion with which I am in agreement. It's an exciting find, and a dramatic glimpse into the life of a first millennium BCE individual. This is one of the reasons I enjoy studying the ancient world.

Duane Smith also comments here and points to the original article here.

Psalm 29:1 and the Sons of the Gods

2009-08-05T11:44:00.000-07:00

The construct בְּנֵ֣י אֵלִ֑ים in Ps 29:1 is generally translated "Sons of the Gods," or simply, "The Gods." I tend to view אֵלִ֑ים, rather, as a singular with an enclitic mem, just as bn 'ilm is generally interpreted in the Ugaritic literature. Since Psalm 29 is an almost direct borrowing from Syro-Palestinian storm god imagery (and may allude to Baal's seven thunders and lightnings), it seems likely to me this very rare form (cf. Ps 89:7; Dan 11:36) is simply a borrowing of the form as it appears in other Northwest Semitic literature. Thoughts?

Jim Davila's More Pseudepigrapha Project

2009-08-04T09:42:00.000-07:00

I recently came across a fascinating project undertaken by the University of St. Andrews. They hope to provide a follow-up volume to Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha that will include the lesser known and more fragmentary pseudepigraphic and apocryphal texts from early Judaism and Christianity. The cutoff will be 600 CE, or the rise of Islam, which extends well beyond the scope Charlesworth's volumes. The project is called More Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.

One of the more interesting aspects of the project will be the inclusion of quotations of lost books of the Bible, such the Books of the Acts of Solomon, and the book of the Chronicles of King David. Jim discusses his "wish list" of lost books here. From the above University of St. Andrews link, following is a list of the complete or substantially complete books to be included in the volume:

Adam, Creation of (Slavonic)
Adam, Horarium of
Adam, Octipartite (Slavonic, etc.)
Balaam Text from Deir Alla
Cave of Treasures
Daniel, Armenian Seventh Vision of
Daniel, Syriac Apocalypse of
Daniel, Two Byzantine Greek Apocalypses of
Danielis, Somniale
Danielis, Lunationes
David and Goliath (Aramaic 'Song of the Lamb')
David and Solomon, Selendromion of
Elijah, Hebrew Apocalypse of
Sheva Eliyyahu (Sheva Zutarti) (The Adjuration of Elijah)
Enoch, Ethiopic Vision of
Ezekiel, Visions of
4 Ezra, Armenian version of
5 Ezra
6 Ezra
Ezra, Vision of (longer version)
Gad the Seer, Words of
Geniza Wisdom text
Jeremiah, Coptic Apocryphon of (History of the Captivity in Babylon)
Jeremiah's Prophecy to Passhur
Joseph, History of (Syriac)
Joseph, Narrative of (Coptic)
Levi, Aramaic
6-7 Maccabees
Massekhet Kelim (Treatise of the Holy Vessels)
Melchizedek legend in Chronicon Paschale
Melchizedek, Story of (Greek)
Midrash Vayissa'u (Book of the Wars of the Sons of Jacob)
Moses, Eighth Book of
Moses, Sword of (Harba di-Moshe)
Naphtali, Hebrew
Palaea Historica
Pseudo-Philo, Sermons on Jonah, Sermons on Samson
Satanael Text (Slavonic)
Sefer ha-Razim (Book of the Mysteries)
Seven Heavens, Apocalypse of the
Shem, Treatise of (Aramaic and Judeo-Arabic versions)
Signs of the Judgment
Sibyl, Latin Prophecy of the
Sibyl, Tiburtine
Solomon, Hygromanteia of (Epistle of Rehoboam)
Solomon, Testament of (Vienna manuscript)
Ten Tribes, Apocryphon of the
Visions of Heaven and Hell
Sefer Zerubbabel (Book of Zerubbabel)

This looks to be a very exciting publication. Any thoughts?

Metheg Use in Aleppo and Leningrad

2009-08-03T10:28:00.000-07:00

I've been working for almost a year now on the critical apparatus for BHQ Isaiah, and I've noticed an interesting phenomenon. We're using Goshen-Gottstein's HUB version of Isaiah, which is based on Aleppo, as a sort of jumping off point for the critical apparatus. As part of my work I'm in charge of cataloging errors and harmonizing the text with Leningrad, which is the base text for BHQ. The differences (at least in Isaiah) between Aleppo and Leningrad are relatively insignificant, but the vast, vast majority of the variants arise with the use of the metheg. Leningrad seems to use it far more often than Aleppo, although there are also a number of places where Aleppo includes it against Leningrad. Could there be anything significant at the root of this, or is it just the preference of the scribe?

How to Read a Paper at SBL

2009-07-31T22:40:00.000-07:00

Via John Hobbins at Ancient Hebrew Poetry, here are a few common errors from SBL presenters:

(1) The speed-reading of densely argued material, because “time is short.” Solution: Cut your paper in half. Make sure the content is a KISS (Keep It Short and Sweet). Read as little as possible. Work from notes, maintain eye contact, and adjust your delivery speed based on audience response.

(2) No handouts provided. So people forget your name, what text you are talking about, your thesis. Solution: provide handouts that highlight your thesis, provide text, and include information you take for granted in the presentation itself. Essential background information that is old to you is bound to be new to someone else.

(3) A monotone delivery in which you stumble over the written word and never look up. It reinforces the communication process if hearing, reading, laughing, storytelling, a dramatic gesture or two, converge to make a point. At ISBL-Rome, James Kugel, formerly of Harvard, was an excellent role model in this sense. In celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, he told a number of excellent jokes on Jesuits and on Orthodox Jews to illustrate his points, but also, just to put everyone in a lucid state of mind. Like the story of a Jesuit who is looking for a particular church in Paris. He asks a passerby, “How can I find St. So-and-so?” The answer, “You’ll never find it, Father. It’s right in front of you.” After pointing out a commonality between Jesuits and Orthodox Jews, their love of Jesuitical/Talmudic reasoning, he got everyone’s attention when he said that in terms of reading the Bible with intellectual honesty, Orthodox Judaism is stuck where Catholicism was 100 years ago.

(4) Not making your point clearly. You have to be creative about getting your point across. The acoustics in many rooms is terrible. It is often helpful to gather everyone together in a virtual huddle. One excellent presider of a session I presented in, Tova Forti, did just that. We were all far more attentive than we would otherwise have been thanks to her forethought.

(5) Wall-flower presiders. Presiders need to be proactive. A very short but interesting presentation of a presenter can be helpful. If a presentation bombs, it’s still possible to briefly reboot the discussion on the basis of the subject matter. It’s also a huge plus to have time at the end for a panel discussion in which the same question can be put to more than one presenter. If presenters are taking the scholarship of someone in the audience as their point of departure, by all means ask the audience member to join in the discussion. In a Wisdom session, Michael Fox was in the audience and presenters were engaging his scholarship in almost every paper. Forti rightly invited him to comment. What fun to see your paper cut down to size immediately!

I feel vindicated for making sure I always have good handouts for my presentations. I agree that having a vague and unclear thesis is about the most annoying thing a presenter can do. I've also whittled a few pages off my presentation already just to make sure I can give the central points the time they deserve. Thanks, John, for the great advice!

New Mount Zion Inscription

2009-07-31T08:28:00.000-07:00

Via Jim Davila, a stone vessel bearing ten lines of text has been discovered in Jerusalem that seems to come from priestly circles. The orthography is quite unique, and so translation is expected to take up to six months. A couple lines are easily visible above. Anyone here want to see if they can do better?

SBL Program Book is Now Up

2009-07-28T21:00:00.001-07:00

I was happy to log on this morning and see this November's SBL program book up on the SBL website. The most important for me is session 22-149, where I'll be presenting on Anti-anthropomorphisms and the Vorlage of LXX Exodus:

It has long been recognized that the Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible often tend away from literal renderings of anthropomorphic passages. LXX Exod 24:10, interjecting "the place where God stood" in an effort to avoid intimating that God has a visible form, is a clear example of this theological emendation. The use of the resumptive adverb ekei in the Greek, however, betrays a uniquely Hebrew syntactical construction, and seems to reveal a Hebrew parent text that already contained the de-anthropomorphic element. This paper will investigate the LXX translations of anthropomorphic passages from Exodus and evaluate the possibility that the Hebrew Vorlage to LXX Exodus already contained a number of the de-anthropomorphic elements traditionally attributed to the exegesis of the translators.

Michael Heiser's "So What Exactly is an elohim?"

2009-07-27T20:20:00.000-07:00

I came across an interesting article by Michael Heiser (here) that discusses the taxonomy of the word "elohim." Rather than incorporate a wider Near Eastern context, Heiser focuses primarily on the biblical contextualization, even including New Testament ideologies. Although I disagree with the presumption of a univocal biblical text and the neglect shown other Northwest Semitic manifestations of the word (see Joel S. Burnett's dissertation for a comprehensive discussion. I discuss it here), I found much worth contemplating in his paper, and I think it's excellent that Heiser has devoted so much time to the Divine Council. I hope you enjoy it.

The Assyro-Babylonian Context for qoneh as "Begetter"

2009-07-19T19:37:00.000-07:00

As I dig deeper into the participle qoneh in Gen 14:19, 22, I am more and more convinced that Bruce Vawter is partially correct in rejecting the translation "creator." I think the most accurate translation is "Begetter" (which Vawter does not support). Looking through Akkadian texts for parallel vernacular and ideas, I have run across quite a bit of information that supports my reading.

Vawter correctly states in his paper, "Yahweh, Lord of the Heavens and the Earth" (CBQ 48 [1986]: 465)that the Akkadian literature from Syria-Palestine does not contain a single use of qanû in a context that suggests creation (the same is true of Mesopotamian Akkadian literature). On the other hand, while the titles “Lord of Heaven and Earth” and “Lord of the Gods” are not uncommon in Akkadian, qanû appears in none of them. In fact, it appears in no divine epithets. This seems to have escaped Vawter’s consideration. The titles that do occur, however, indicate a procreative reading of qny fills a significant gap in the parallels to Assyro-Babylonian divine epithets that is left empty if that reading is rejected. As in early Syria-Palestine, theogony plays a central role in Mesopotamian literature. Several titles address the creation of heaven and earth as well as of other gods. In some epithets, and even some prose, the procreative aspect of this creation is explicit. Anu is described in one text as inseminating the heavens, which then gives birth to the earth. Marduk is called bān šamê u erṣeti, “Creator of Heaven and Earth” in CT 9, 6.1. Ea is pātiqu šamê u erṣetim, “Creator of Heaven and Earth” in KAR 252 and RS 3.39. Enlil is described as ālid ilāni rabûti, “Begetter of the Great Gods,” in KAR 25.3.32. In a parallel epithet, Ninlil is called bānīt ilāni rabûti, “Creatress of the Great Gods.” Elsewhere the participle bānû, “Creator,” appears directly parallel to the participle mu-al-lid, “Begetter.” In light of these parallels, it is clear that creation and procreation were often conceived of as synonyms. It also establishes the priority of a procreative reading of the Ugaritic qnyt ’lm, contra Vawter’s proposal that it be translated “Mistress of the Gods.” In the Syro-Palestinian or Assyro-Babylonian epithets there is no equivalent, of which I am aware, to Vawter’s reading, which is why he must appeal to the Egyptian title nbt pt to provide a parallel. If one accepts the procreative nuance of the Syro-Palestinian use of qny, the Assyrian literature provides numerous analogies. These theogonic epithets, combined with the prose mentioned above, support the head of the Near Eastern pantheon as begetter of deities named “Earth” and “Heaven.”

An additional relevant phrase is abi wa-li-di-ka, “the father who begot you,” which appears repeatedly in Akkadian literature. The parallel use of abu and the participle ālidu throws light on the phrase אביך קנך in Deut 32:6. Scholars have long recognized the procreative nuance to the verse, but rarely is that sense conveyed in the translation. “Your father who begot you” would be most appropriate. Vawter’s argument against this reading is untenable. He rejects the contextual influence of עשך and יכננך on the procreative reading of קנך, arguing rather that תגמלו provides a more immediate context in Israel’s failure to appropriately “repay” Yahweh. He argues we must understand what it is Yahweh did for Israel that merited repayment. He posits that vv. 8–9 provide the clearest answer in Yahweh’s inheritance of Israel. Nowhere does Vawter engage the word אביך, immediately parallel to קנך. He must mitigate the clear and immediate context with one that is broad and eisegetic.

This is some interesting summer research. Further updates to follow.

Can qoneh Mean "Creator"?

2009-07-02T19:28:00.000-07:00

The participle qoneh has generally been understood to reference the acquisition or possession of a thing, whether through creation, purchase, or inheritance. The participle is found most importantly (for our purposes) in Gen 14:19, 22:

קנה שמים וארץ

It has traditionally been translated, "Creator of heaven and earth," but some have raised objections to that reading. In Lowell K. Handy's treatment of the Syro-Palestinian pantheon (Among the Host of Heaven) we read, "the meaning of the root . . . has been determined to be ‘acquire/own’ and not ‘create'" (76). Handy cites Peter Katz's 1954 Journal of Jewish Studies article and Bruce Vawter's 1986 Catholic Biblical Quarterly article. We may add a 1980 article by Vawter appearing in the Journal of Biblical Literature which argues the verb qnh in Prov 8:22 should not be understood as "created." To support this he argues the verb should never be taken to mean "create" in Ugaritic or in the Hebrew Bible.

His argument clearly stems from a need to find an uncreated premortal Christ in Proverbs' Wisdom, but of interest to us is his footnote number 20, in which he attempts to support the statement that the translation "create" in the Ugaritic corpus' use of qnh is "never certain," and in some cases, "definitely ruled out." He does this simply by citing translations that use another word:

wy'ny.]aliyn[.b'l.]/ m.kqnyn. '[ ] / kdrd.dyknn. This is translated by Gordon in Ugarit and Minoan Crete (New York: Norton, 1966) 89: "And Aliyan Baal declares: / 'Why, like - upon / Like - which he causes to be"'; the same translation is in his earlier Ugaritic Literature (Scripta PBI 89; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1949) 50. In the second edition of Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978) 133, J. C. L. Gibson does not translate the text (10 iii 5-7, according to the Herdner sigla), but in his glossary he offers "creator" as the meaning of the qny there (the full word he transliterates kqnym).

Vawter does not address any of these arguments directly, but in this instance he is particularly to be faulted for neglecting to address that qnyn appears in parallel with yknn, which overlaps most parsimoniously with qnh in the sense of creation. My translation of KTU 1.1.0.3.6-7:

Indeed, our creator is eternal
Indeed, ageless is he who made us.

For a similar reading, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 15. Compare also to KTU 3.5.35-36; 4.1.5-6; 4.4.47-48; where yknnh is parallel to 'abh ("his father").

In this instance, Vawter has overstated his argument and has neglected to even engage a very serious obstacle to his thesis, preferring rather to assert that Gordon translated it with another word, and so "create" cannot be "certain," which, in this case, is clearly incorrect. The argument that qoneh in Biblical Hebrew cannot mean "creator" because it does not mean "create" in Ugaritic is thus undermined.

Comments?

Deut 32:43 and Scribal Emendation

2009-06-06T09:57:00.000-07:00

I posted quite some time ago about scribal emendation in Deut 32:8 regarding the "sons of God." That's not the only passage in that chapter, however, to betray such emendation. Deut 32:43 is a little less simple, but just as important to the discussion of early Israelite and even Second Temple Period beliefs in deity. The MT reads thus:

הַרְנִ֤ינוּ גֹויִם֙ עַמֹּ֔ו כִּ֥י דַם־עֲבָדָ֖יו יִקֹּ֑ום וְנָקָם֙ יָשִׁ֣יב לְצָרָ֔יו וְכִפֶּ֥ר אַדְמָתֹ֖ו עַמֹּֽו

“Praise, O nations, with him, for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and take vengeance on his adversaries; he will be merciful to his land, to his people.”

LXX has an entirely different reading that seems to preserve something missing from MT, but also seems to add something to the text:

εὐφράνθητε, οὐρανοί, ἅμα αὐτῷ, καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ· εὐφράνθητε, ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ Θεοῦ· ὅτι τὸ αἷμα τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκδικᾶται, καὶ ἐκδικήσει καὶ ἀνταποδώσει δίκην τοῖς ἐχθροῖς καὶ τοῖς μισοῦσιν ἀνταποδώσει, καὶ ἐκκαθαριεῖ Κύριος τὴν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ.

“Rejoice, O heavens, together with him, and let all the sons of God worship him. Rejoice, O nations, and let all the angels of God draw near to him. For he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will take vengeance and repay righteousness to the enemies, and recompense the hated, and the Lord will purify the land of his people.”

The first clause includes the phrase "let all the sons of God worship him" where MT is silent. This seems close to an original reading, closely attested by 4QDeutq, which reads "let all the gods worship him," which is almost identical to Ps 97:7. Q and LXX also have "heavens" against MT's "nations. LXX adds the clause with "nations," however, and provides the parallelism "angels of God" for "sons of God," manifesting the Second Temple Period's conflation of angels and all other divinity attested in the Hebrew Bible (Brenton's version of this verse has "Let all the angels of God worship him," which is quoted verbatim in Heb 1:6). While the "sons of God" were originally conceived of as actual offspring of El, the conflation of Yahweh and El combined with the elevation of Yahweh-El over all the nations and their gods demoted everyone else to the rank of angel, or mere messenger of God. Where MT simply erases the reference to the children of God (or possibly just "gods"), LXX adds a parallel to qualify it. Earlier, in Deut 32:8, LXX interpolates "angels" where Q has "sons" in the phrase "sons of God."

MT also puts "his servants" where LXX and Q have "his sons." It seems quite a bit of manipulation has taken place over the years in this verse. I'm still doing preliminary research, but I've found this verse fascinating. What do you think?

'ilānū

2009-05-12T23:11:00.000-07:00

I just picked up a publication from the SBL Dissertation Series. It's Joel S. Burnett's A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim. It's a fascinating read, but I thought I'd highlight the first section, which discusses the early Near Eastern manifestations of the plural of El/'ilu as a singular title. Burnett groups the Hebrew 'elohim, the West Semitic 'ilanu, and the Phoenician 'lm together as "concretized abstract plurals" that were used with singular verbs in reference to patron or personal gods, and sometimes to the Egyptian king. They are found from the Amarna Letters to Mari, Ugarit, Taanach, and Qatna. Burnett rejects the notion of a "plural of majesty" on the grounds that it is not clearly found in all the languages which preserve the above plural noun. It is more closely related in all the languages to an abstract plural, like 'adonim (lordship), or 'abot (fatherhood). He calls it "concretized" because of its appropriation as a title for specific gods. This would render a literal translation of the word in the Hebrew Bible "deity." ha'elohim would be "the deity."

A New Dead Sea Scroll Discovered?

2009-05-06T15:41:00.000-07:00

Again via Jim Davila, an IAA operation has confiscated what appears to be a 2,000 year old piece of papyrus with a Hebrew text on it referencing "year 4 to the destruction of Israel," which could refer to 74 CE, after the destruction of the temple, or 139 CE, four years after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The story is here. A photo of the papyrus (courtesy of the Scroll Conservation Laboratory, Israel Antiquities Authority) is downloadable here. Cool stuff.

History of the Publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls

2009-04-30T11:43:00.000-07:00

Via Jim Davila, Geza Vermes discusses, in Standpoint: Online, his role in, and a history of, the discovery and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as their impact. A very informative read.

Graduate School

2009-03-31T20:05:00.000-07:00

After considering an offer to go straight into a PhD program at Claremont Graduate University, my wife and I have decided to accept an invitation to read for the Master of Studies in Jewish Studies at the University of Oxford. We're excited to spend some time in the UK. I'm presenting a paper in the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible session at SBL this November, so I'll have to turn around and fly back for a week within two months of arriving. Despite all the flying, I think it will be a great experience for my family and me.

No Jobs?

2009-03-06T08:33:00.001-08:00

Throughout my undergraduate years the professors in and around my emphasis made sure to warn everyone that in our field, there were no jobs. If we weren't willing to go teach high school somewhere because we couldn't get hired we shouldn't be in the major. I was always a little skeptical, mainly because everyone who was telling me this had a job. In the last three days two job postings have been made public for Hebrew Bible positions on PaleoJudaica.com, here and here. One of them has a pretty small salary, but it's a foot in the door. It seems to me there are still jobs out there.

biblecriticism.com

2009-03-03T13:53:00.000-08:00

The youngest ever PhD from Hebrew University has launched a new website that seeks to trace, among other things, the sources of the Hebrew Bible. The author provides Word documents that color code the texts of the Bible, up to 2 Sam 5, according to the Deuteronomistic sources. I'm a little wary of that degree of specificity, but judge for yourself. The website is here.

Studia Antiqua - Call for Papers

2009-01-24T11:56:00.000-08:00

Studia Antiqua, BYU's student journal for the study of the ancient world, is happy to announce an extended deadline for the spring 2009 call for papers. The extension will move the deadline to Monday, February 2.

Studia Antiqua invites submissions from students and professionals in and outside of Brigham Young University that treat a topic related to any pre-Islamic culture. While the majority of our papers are related to the ancient Near East, we encourage submissions discussing any of the world's ancient cultures. Book reviews are also welcome. Submissions should be sent to studia_antiqua@yahoo.com.

For more information about the journal, and for access to back issues and submission guidelines, please visit studiaantiqua.byu.edu or the Students of the Ancient Near East website.

What's in Your Canon?

2009-01-18T14:39:00.000-08:00

Bible Study Magazine has an interesting chart showing the canons of the different biblical traditions:

Binyan Trouble in Psalms 2:6

2009-01-07T21:16:00.000-08:00

The Hebrew of Psalms 2:6 is as follows:

וַאֲנִי נָסַ֣כְתִּי מַלְכִּ֑י עַל־צִיֹּון הַר־קָדְשִׁי

‎The verb נָסַכְתִּי appears to be the root נסך in the Qal binyan, which leaves rather slim pickings regarding translation. According to HALOT, the Qal means "to pour out." Pouring out to cast a statue is connoted in Isaiah 40:19. Is the psalmist here referencing the production of a statue of God? The KJV translates the verb "set."

Other possibilities have been suggested, though. If the verb is a Niphal, and the vocalization and assimilation of the nun has just been neglected, the verb can be translated "to consecrate," or "anoint." Another meaning in the Niphal is applicable, which would render the translation "woven," or "shaped."

We're thus left with the following possibilities for translation. Let me know which you prefer:

But I have consecrated/anointed/cast/formed my King upon Zion, his holy mountain.

‎

Gary Rendsburg's The Redaction of Genesis

2009-01-07T21:01:00.000-08:00

An out of print book written in 1986 by a scholar of the Hebrew Bible whom I hold in high regard, Gary Rendsburg, is available online in PDF format here. It provides a form critical look at the presentation of Genesis, particularly focusing on chiastic arrangements of the material and what is revealed, as a result, about the composition and redaction of the book. Certainly worth a read.

More Resources for Biblical Studies

2009-01-04T21:05:00.000-08:00

I found a Russian website with literally hundreds of primary texts related to biblical studies. The site is here, but you'll need a program called DjVu in order to open the files. A free plugin is available here. I'm browsing an Ethiopic version of Matthew published in 1749 right now.

Free Book Downloads

2009-01-02T13:10:00.000-08:00

Daily Hebrew has a list of dozens of free book downloads related to Semitic languages. They're all from the 19th or early 20th century, but several standards are there, including several editions of Gesenius. Have a look here.

Change to Symposium Schedule

2008-09-09T15:38:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately, Bryan Kerr has had to withdraw from the Egypt session of the symposium, but we have added Kerry Muhlestein and Alyssa Lewis, who will be presenting a paper on the role of violent rituals in the Egyptian temple. Please see the updated schedule below.

The SANE Symposium on Temples and Ritual in Antiquity

2008-08-19T08:13:00.000-07:00

BYU's student organization for ancient studies, the Students of the Ancient Near East, has organized a symposium on temples and ritual in antiquity that will take place on Friday, November 7, 2008, in the BYU Wilkinson Student Center. The symposium will feature presentations from professors and students. Admission is free and no registration is required. Please refer to the above schedule for more details, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

P.S. - The symposium has also been mentioned at Temple Study , Mormon Metaphysics, and Heavenly Ascents.

P.P.S. - Most people aren't familiar with all the presenters, so I've taken the liberty of putting together very brief biographies. If there is no information next to your name it means I don't know anything about you, so get in touch with me and let me know what you'd like said about you:

Donald W. Parry is professor of Hebrew Bible at BYU and is currently editing the Great Isaiah Scroll for publciation. He received his PhD from the University of Utah.

Dan Belnap is assistant professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU. He earned his MA and PhD in Northwest Semitics from the University of Chicago.

David Larsen is a masters student in theology at Marquette University. He operates the Heavenly Ascents blog.

Bill Hamblin is a professor of history at BYU. He specializes in the Near East and warfare. He recently published Solomon's Temple in Myth and History with David Seely.

James Carroll received a bachelors degree from BYU in Computer Science, with a minor in ancient Near Eastern history. He is currently working on a PhD at BYU, where his research focuses on Computer Assisted Ancient Linguistics.

David Seely is professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in Ancient and Biblical Studies.

Justin Robinson

Matthew Brown holds a B.A. degree in history from Brigham Young University. He is the author of eight books (with two more forthcoming) that focus on ancient scriptural texts and the history and beliefs of the LDS Church. Matthew has had several articles published in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, FARMS Review, and The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research.

Andrew Miller is working on a masters degree in Spanish Pedagogy. He operates the Strong Reasons blog.

Aaron Snyder is a senior in Political Science at BYU.

Daniel Becerra is a senior in ancient Near Eastern Studies with a Greek/New Testament emphasis. He recently returned from an archaeological dig at Tel es-Safi (Philistine Gath) in Israel.

Rachel Grover is working on a masters degree in art history at BYU. She recently returned from a research trip to Jordan.

Chris Dawe is a senior in classical civilization at BYU.

Bryan Benson is the Social Science program coordinator at Western Governor's University in Salt Lake City. He received his Ph.D from Boston College.

Dustin Simmons is a senior in classics at BYU. He is the president of BYU's chapter of Eta Sigma Phi, the national student association for Classics.

Keith Fairbank is a senior in classics at BYU.

Kerry Muhlestein is associate professor of ancient scripture at BYU. He received his PhD from UCLA in Egyptology.

Alyssa Lewis is a Junior in the Ancient Near Eastern Studies major at BYU.

Doug Marsh is a senior in classics.

Elliott Wise is working on a masters degree in art history at BYU.

John Gee is the William "Bill" Gay Assistant Research Professor of Egyptology at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. He earned his Ph.D in Egyptology from Yale University.

Jacob Moody is a senior in ancient Near Eastern studies. He recently returned from his second season at the Tel es-Safi/Gath dig in Israel.

Mark Wright is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Anthropology at UC Riverside. His research focuses on Mesoamerican archaeology.

Scott Preston Sukhan Nibley is a senior in English at BYU. He is minoring in ancient Near Eastern studies.

Joseph Petramalo is a senior in ancient Near Eastern studies at BYU.

I hope that helps. If anyone has any questions or concerns please feel free to let me know.

Just so y'all are aware. . .

2008-08-07T19:49:00.001-07:00

My blog's reading level:

All I need now is for someone to actually read it.

How to Teach Biblical Hebrew

2008-08-07T16:54:00.001-07:00

I found an interesting article via the wonderful blog Awilum about teaching Biblical Hebrew. I will be teaching BYU's intensive Biblical Hebrew course next summer and enjoyed the links a great deal. Hopefully someone out there also finds them interesting.

King of the Universe

2008-08-05T07:55:00.000-07:00

I'm doing some research on 2 Maccabees and have come across an interesting little problem that may help my research a great deal. My thesis, in a nutshell, is that 2 Maccabees 7 is an interpolation from the late first or early second century CE. As part of my research, I've come in contact with a lot of different perspectives on 2 Macc. One of the most interesting, I think, comes from Christian Habicht way back in 1976.[1] He argues for a Hebrew original for 2 Macc 7. I’m intrigued by the possibility, and the phrase “king of the universe,” found in 2 Macc 7:9 (ὁ δὲ τοῦ κόσμου βασιλεὺς) seems to me to support the conclusion.

As Goldstein points out in his Anchor Bible volume on 2 Maccabees,[2] the term is absent from Jewish literature in Greek until after the first century CE. The phrase corresponds with the Hebrew melech ha‘olam, but ‘olam meant “eternity” until the beginning of the Common Era, when it came to signify the world or universe. The earliest such use is found in late Aramaic Qumran texts. ”King of Eternity” is how melech ha‘olam was translated into Greek prior to the first century CE (see Tobit 13:7, 11 – βασιλέα τῶν αἰώνων – King of Eternity).

If 2 Maccabees 7 was composed in the second century BCE, as is accepted, we would expect to find the phrase “King of Eternity,” as the phrase “King of the Universe” is not attested in Judaism during this time period. Goldstein assumes “King of the Universe” developed first in Greek Jewish literature and was later borrowed into Hebrew, but much more likely is that the Greek “King of the Universe” was a translation of the Hebrew phrase melech ha‘olam as it was understood in the Common Era. This would mean (1) 2 Maccabees 7 was translated into Greek from Hebrew, and (2) the translation took place well into the Common Era.

[1] Christian Habicht, 2. Makkabäerbuch (JSHRZ 1.3; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1976), 171–77, 233.

[2] Jonathan Goldstein, II Maccabees (Anchor Bible 41A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 305.

Great Collection of Links

2008-06-30T15:57:00.001-07:00

I was just perusing the Students of the Ancient Near East website to see if any updates had been made since I was last there, and I am pleased to say that two very exciting things have been added. First, and more importantly, our resources page has been updated to include all the ancient Near Eastern studies related links from last semester's contest (which I did win). Simply click on the "Links" tab to find hundreds of invaluable resources, including, at the very bottom, the entire SBL Handbook of Style.

From the SANE homepage you can also find last spring's issue of Studia Antiqua, BYU's student journal for the study of the ancient world. There are several great articles in that issue. We're working on next semester's issue right now, which includes a wonderful introduction to the Shabaka Stone. Don't miss it.

Deuteronomy 32:8

2008-06-16T19:55:00.000-07:00

Deuteronomy 32 is poetry from verse 1 to 43. Much like Exodus 23:17, verse 8 is of little theological significance until we peel off a layer or two of redaction and theological emendation. Comparing the various ancient attestations of the verse reveal some interesting clues to the nature of the original text. The verse as it appears in the Masoretic text (I'll transliterate from now on, since I can't get a decent Hebrew font working):

bəhanhēl elyōn gōîm bəhaprîdō bənê ādām yasēb gəbulot ‘amîm ləmispar bənê yisrāēl
When the Most High gave inheritance to the nations, when he divided the sons of Adam / He set the boundary of the people according to the numbering of the sons of Israel.

The Septuagint preserves a different reading:

ὅτε διεμέριζεν ὁ ῞Υψιστος ἔθνη, ὡς διέσπειρεν υἱοὺς ᾿Αδάμ, ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων Θεοῦ

When the Most High was distributing the nations, as he scattered the sons of Adam / He set the boundaries of the nations according to the numbering of the angels of God.

We have another alternate reading in j4QDeutj, which replaces yisrāēl with ’lwhm (plene spelling of elohim), giving us:

When the Most High gave inheritance to the nations, when he divided the sons of Adam / He set the boundary of the people according to the numbering of the sons of God.

The Dead Sea Scroll account is most likely an older reading than the MT, with the LXX reading between the two. The received text edited by the Masoretes may have read bəhanhēl elyōn gōîm bəhaprîdō bənê ādām yasēb gəbulot ‘amîm ləmispar bənê ēl (sons of God), which may have been cause for concern. Rather than preserve a reading that seemed to refer to the offspring of El (Canaanite reference or otherwise), the Masoretes (or their predecessors), may have prefixed the letters ysr to El, giving us the word for Israel. While we can't know for sure, Hebrew Bible scholars are confident in the reading preserved in the DSS; so much so, in fact, that the new Oxford Hebrew Bible inserts the older reading into their critical edition (sample w/ Deut 32:8 here). The new Biblia Hebraica Quinta makes the argument in the footnote, but it is prominent. John Hobbins addresses the manuscript evidence much more thoroughly here. An interesting little side note, to say the least.

Online Greek and Hebrew Parsing Quizzes

2008-06-14T21:40:00.000-07:00

Whether you do Greek or Hebrew (or both), these quizzes are helpful. They're pretty basic, but still a good way to keep your skills sharp. Try 'em out.

Teach Yourself Biblical Aramaic

2008-06-08T21:08:00.000-07:00

Eric Reymond, Lecturer of Northwest Semitic Languages and Cultures at the University of Michigan, has a website designed to introduce Biblical Aramaic to students with little exposure to Hebrew and other Semitic languages. It looks like a very useful tool.

Exodus 23:17

2008-05-31T13:52:00.001-07:00

Although most people don't realize it, this scripture is a theologically revealing scripture. It is also the first of a series of scriptures, stretching all the way to Psalms 42, alluding to the same theological principle. First, the passage in Hebrew and then English:

שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה יֵרָאֶה כָּל־זְכוּרְךָ אֶל־פְּנֵי הָאָדֹן יְהוָה

Exodus 23:17 (KJV):

Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God.

The Masoretic text vowels the word יֵרָאֶה, translated "appear," as a Niphal. This means the verb should be read passively. The verb r'h means "to see," which renders the reading provided by the Masoretes "appear." This formula (appear three times a year before the Lord) appears, or is alluded to, in Exod 34:20; 34:23–24; Deut 16:16; 31:11; 1 Sam 1:22 (possibly); Isa 1:12; and Ps 42:3.

Some of these attestations, however, call into question the reading provided by the Masoretes. In Exod 34:24, Deut 31:11, and Isa 1:12, the verb appears in the infinitive construct, but the Niphal reading is complicated by a missing h. The infinitive construct normally takes the ləhiqqātēl form, but here the h seems to have elided. This happens more frequently with the Hiphil. There are five other examples of an elided h in the Niphal infinitive in the Hebrew Bible, although a Qal reading is not precluded in any of them.[1] The infinitive of r'h, however, only ever appears without the h in verses alluding to our formula, and in the MT there are no examples of our formula with an unambiguously Niphal r'h.[2] The elided form without the vocalization would be identical to the Qal infinitive construct, and many conclude that the reading was originally Qal.

If the Niphal reading should be read as Qal it would render the verse, "Three times in the year all thy males shall see the face of the Lord God." The conclusion has been promulgated by many that the reading was originally Qal, but was altered to minimize anthropomorphizing tendencies.While we can conjecture about the legitimacy of the Niphal infinitive with the elided h, several manuscripts do give us evidence that supports an originally Qal reading.

The Mekhiltas of R. Simeon b. Yohai and R. Ishmael, in interpreting Exodus 23:17, exempt the blind. Later Talmudsic readings seem to recognize the ambiguity of the verse, but don't commit to either reading. For Isa 1:12 and Ps 42:3, several manuscripts (de Rossi MSS 575, 337, 368, 670, 864, 879, primo 43, 380, 683) attest to a Qal punctuation. The Syriac has Qal for Isa 1:12.

Exod 33:20 would seem to agree with a Niphal reading of Exod 23:17, but several scriptures exist which clearly assert that God's face can and has been seen. The verses in question were most likely read Qal prior to Niphal, meaning God's face was most likely sought in the early Israelite temple.

[1] See Gary Rendsburg, “Laqtil Infinitives: Yiphil or Hiphil?” Orientalia 51.2 (1982): 231–38. The verses are Exod 10:3; Job 33:30; Ezek 26:15; Prov 24:17; and Lam 2:11.

[2] 1 Samuel 1:22 contains a clearly Nipahl r’h, but it’s not clear if the phrase is an allusion to the formula in question. Carmel McCarthy concludes it is, but posits a 1st person plural jussive reading. See Carmel McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 199–200. The Samaritan Pentateuch has the full ləhiqqātēl form in Exod 34:24 in most manuscripts, but several exist without the h.

Genesis 43:7

2008-05-28T20:31:00.000-07:00

This scripture has little theological relevance, but it contains a number of important Hebrew principles of which every student should be aware. I'll be teaching intensive Biblical Hebrew next summer and have found that if I explain these principles to others I retain them much better and understand them more clearly. I'll discuss each word individually and give my translation at the bottom. Here's the text in Hebrew (I apologize for the font. The holem will be spaced as if it's its own letter):

וַיֹּאמְרוּ שָׁאוֹל שָׁאַל-הָאִישׁ לָנוּ וּלְמוֹלַדְתֵּנוּ לֵאמֹר הַעוֹד אֲבִיכֶם חַי הֲיֵשׁ לָכֶם אָח וַנַּגֶּד-לוֹ עַל-פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה הֲיָדוֹעַ נֵדַע--כִּי יֹאמַר הוֹרִידוּ אֶת-אֲחִיכֶם

וַיֹּאמְרו

Qal, prefix, 3rd comm. plural, waw-conversive, אמר, "to say." With the Qal prefix we expect to see an i preformative vowel. An aleph will normally quiesce in the first position, but due to the frequency of its use the vocalization has developed analogous to the 1st singular, prefix of the same verb. The double aleph will combine to give us ā, but the Canaanite shift comes into play and the holem replaces the primitive vocalization.

שָׁאוֹל שָׁאַל-הָאִישׁ לָנוּ

The first form of שׁאל here is a prepositive infinitive absolute. The second is a Qal, affix, 3rd masc. singular. This combination is fairly common in Biblical Hebrew and often gives a nuance of affirmation or "asseveration" to the following verb (often translated "surely"). Here, though, the sense seems to be that of insistence, or a pressing question or demand. An appropriate translation would be, "The man asked us directly concerning us."

וּלְמוֹלַדְתֵּנוּ

The man also asks concerning Jacob's kindred. מוֹלַדְתֵּנוּ is a substantive from the verb yld ("to give birth"). A holem male appears in place of the y, which will be explained below.

לֵאמֹר

"Saying. . . "

הַעוֹד אֲבִיכֶם חַי הֲיֵשׁ לָכֶם אָח

In both sentences the h is interrogative.

וַנַּגֶּד-לוֹ עַל-פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה

The daggesh in the g of וַנַּגֶּד indicates the original first n has assimilated (the n in the first position often assimilates when there is no vowel separating it from the next root letter). The verb is a Qal, affix, 1st comm. plural, waw-conversive.

הֲיָדוֹעַ נֵדַע

Another infinitive absolute followed by a finite verb. The h is interrogative. The sere with the n indicates the y of yd‘ has dropped out completely. The verb is Qal, affix, 1 comm. plural.

כִּי יֹאמַר הוֹרִידוּ אֶת-אֲחִיכֶם

We find with יֹאמַר another example of a preformative holem in a prefix verb. הוֹרִידוּ is an interesting verb. It's a masc. plural Hiphil imperative, which makes it causitive ("cause to come down"). The first y has been replaced with a holem male. This form is actually more archaic than the root from other derived forms of yrd. The verb was originally wrd, and this reading preserves the oldest known form.

Translation:

And they said, the man asked us directly concerning ourselves and our kindred, saying, "Does your father yet live? Do you have a brother?" And we told him all about these things. Could we really have known that he would say, "Bring your brother down"?

John 1:1

2008-05-27T19:53:00.000-07:00

I figured I'd start out by reviewing a translation issue that often seems to cause confusion. The text of John 1:1 reads thus:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

It has traditionally been translated:

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.

Obviously this translation provides a powerful foundation for a Trinitarian reading of the Gospels. Some translations, however, have advocated a far different reading. Most famous (or infamous) among these is the New World Translation, which reads thus:

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god .

The controversy revolves around the translation of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος in 1:1c and the definiteness of θεὸς. Is Jesus the God, or is he divine. The clause is a simple predicate nominative, with the predicate preceding the verb. The verb (ἦν) is a 3rd singular, imperfect, active, indicative.

Normally in a predicate nominative a definite predicate is anarthrous (lacking the article), but there are a few instance where the article is required. Smyth's Greek Grammar lists three such instances (§ 1152):

Even in the predicate the article is used with a noun referring to a definite object that is well known, previously mentioned or hinted at, or identical with the subject.

Smyth deals with Classical Greek, though, and while John employs a sophisticated Greek, it is Koine, and thus somewhat distinct from Classical Greek. Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, however, describe a similar situation in their book A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (§ 273):

The article is inserted if the predicate noun is presented as something well known or as that which along merits the designation (the only thing to be considered).

Both grammars seem to indicate the article is necessary should θεὸς be definite. Notwithstanding the grammatical requirements, the style of the New Testament can sometimes be anomalous. E. C. Colwell published an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933 that argued the word order of predicate nominatives in the New Testament also influenced the use of the article. The relevant portion of the article argues that the New Testament authors more often than not omitted the articles from definite predicate nouns when the predicate preceded the verb.

"Colwell's Rule" has become popular in discussing John 1:1, but scholars warn that Colwell's investigation was exclusively concerned with word order, and does not address all aspects of definiteness with predicate nominatives. There are also numerous exceptions to this rule. In John 1:21, for instance, John employs the article in a definite predicate noun that precedes the verb.

Murray Harris tempered Colwell's ambition in an article entitled "The Definite Article in the Greek New Testament" (301–13 in Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus). He writes that an anarthrous noun in the predicate may be definite or indefinite, but should be presumed indefinite unless the context demands otherwise. According to Harris, the construction may also be interpreted qualitatively, irrespective of the definiteness of the noun.

In the end neither conclusion answers all our concerns, but John 1:1c can surely be translated with an indefinite θεὸς with no impediments. Many accept it as the stronger perspective, although mainstream Christian scholars have been reticent to allow the reading the circulation it deserves. Any attempt to promulgate the theory is often bemoaned as tacit approval of the New World Translation, whether that translation influenced the research or not (and it usually does not). For many, however, the baby is more easily thrown out if it is shackled to the bathwater of the NWT.

For additional reading see Rodney J. Decker, "Colwell's Rule," and William Arnold III, "Colwell's Rule and John 1:1."