The exchange between Jacob Milgrom and Roy Gane on the proper meaning of the preposition מן (usually translated in its privative sense from) in some passages of Leviticus gives us an opportunity to take a look at the semantic possibilities of מן that may escape the notice of a  student beginning to learn Hebrew.

To be more specific, the question is whether the meaning of מן in the חטאת pericopes in Leviticus– passages concerning purification offerings (traditionally translated as sin offerings)–should be translated as from (privative) or as for, on account of, because of (causitive). My goal in this post is not to summarize the arguments for and against the position of each scholar, but to show how important the right understanding of מן, and prepositions in general, may be for reconstructing whole systems or even getting behind the theology of a book.

But, before we talk about Leviticus, let’s take a look at an example from HALOT where מן is causitive:

וַיָּנֻעוּ אַמּוֹת הַסִּפִּים מִקּוֹל הַקּוֹרֵא וְהַבַּיִת יִמָּלֵא עָשָׁן

The doorposts would shake at the sound of the one who called, and the House kept filling with smoke. (Isaiah 6:4 JPS)

In this verse, מִקּוֹל is translated as at the the sound (voice), and the reason why this translation is possible is because it essentially says that the doorposts (or whatever this means) would shake because of (מן) the voice of the one who called.
Read more »

For this parable, we are going to have the benefit of not only seeing its Hebrew but also two translations. John Hobbins was kind enough to translate the text in two posts entitled “The Parable of the Banquet in the Talmud.” In the first part, he looks at the exchange between R. Eliezer and his students culminating in a quote from Qohelet. Hobbins reminds us of the importance of taking the context of the parables into consideration as they may have never been stand-alone units.

I have my doubts about the tendency to treat parables as self-contained units. They may have been (or may never have been), once upon a time, autonomous units. But, just as is the case with the parables of the New Testament, the parables of the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud do not stand on their own anymore. Relationship to context needs to be taken into full account.

In the second part, he looks at the parable of a king who invited his servants to a feast (hence the title of the parable). He also provides a list of non-biblical expressions in the Talmud text and a vocalized biblical Hebrew assimilation that makes it a lot easier to read.

In the book They Also Taught in Parables, the authors go all the way to the end of Berakhot 153a since the last unit has R. Meir’s son-in-law expanding on the last parable. To make things a little easier to follow, I will divide this whole section (as demarcated by the book) into three parts. The first two will follow Hobbins’ sense-units and the last will include the conclusion. I will first provide the translation in They Also Taught in Parables (PT) followed by the Hebrew text and Hobbins’ translation (HT) (expect, of course, for the last part).

Read more »

There are different approaches that one can use to understand the complexities of the Pentateuch. I have been thinking about two approaches in particular, source criticism and literary criticism, after reading James S. Diamond’s book Stringing the Pearls: How to Read the Weekly Torah Portion. Dr. Diamond teaches in the Program in Judaic Studies at Princeton University and this book grew out of his two-year intensive Tanakh course sponsored by the Hebrew College of Boston. Although the aim of the book is to introduce the Jewish reader to the Torah portions (there are 54 portions or parashyiot which are read throughout the year covering the entire Torah), it covers a whole range of topics making it a great introductory short book on the Torah from a Jewish perspective.

My intention in this post is to look at Diamond’s handling of Genesis 37, a text that he uses to illustrate how the narrative can be read using literary criticism. Part of my interest in literary criticism is my admiration for Robert Alter’s work in this area.

Diamond gives us a general overview of source and literary criticism and how each one approaches the text in the Torah. Although source criticism can be quite technical, he points out that it is easier nowadays for lay people to understand it due, in great measure, to the work of Richard Elliot Friedman. In short, he says that source criticism “seeks to identify the different hands and voices that are visible and audible in the text. Source criticism builds on linguistic analysis but looks at larger literary issues such as style and point of view” (71).

Literary criticism on the other hand is attuned to the esthetic dimension of the text. “It seeks to illuminate the internal coherence of an individual narrative, of a poem, of a book, of the Pentateuch as a whole, even of the TANAKH as a whole” (72). He cites Gabriel Josipovici who contrasts the literary approach with source criticism:

It is not that the documentary hypothesis is necessarily wrong in substance; Genesis is clearly made up of a number of traditions which have been combined at different stages. But is not the task of the critic to try and come to grips with the final form as we have it, and to give the final editor or redactor the benefit of the doubt, rather than to delve behind his work to what was there before?” (72)

Read more »

Daniel Kirk, author of Unlocking Romans, shared a few thoughts on his blog about J. Richard Middleton’s book The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1.
You can read his thoughts in Image as Function in Gen 1, Liberating Image: Imago Dei in ANE Context, and Liberating Image: Some concluding remarks. Although I have not read the book yet, it looks like the type of book I would enjoy reading.

Here is what Peter Enns has to say about it:

“The Liberating Image is a balanced yet challenging articulation of the Imago Dei in Genesis, its ancient Near Eastern context, and its present-day theological implications. By locating himself in his postmodern context, Middleton brings a refreshing hermeneutical self-consciousness to the scholarly task, which is aimed at providing a substantive and compelling argument without posing as the last word. His analysis of Imago Dei in Genesis in the context of ancient Near Eastern religions leads Middleton to the conclusion that the Israelite theological traditions of Genesis 1-11 are recontextualized in conscious opposition to ideological categories of Mesopotamia. That Israel’s story promotes the dignity of all humans, not just of the royal or priestly classes, should have vital ethical implications for today.”

I accidentally ran across a few lectures by Dr. Middleton, and, although at first I had not recognized his name, I immediately recognized the title of his book. There is one lecture entitled In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth: Responsible Interpretation of Genesis 1 in Ancient and Contemporary Contexts where Dr. Middleton talks about how one goes about interpreting Genesis 1 responsibly (i. e. you should read it “literally,” but you have to listen to the lecture to find out what he means by “literal”). Those familiar with John Walton and G. K. Beale’s works will find some similarities in his approach in terms of Genesis’ function and temple imagery. The Q and A was interesting with some provocative answers. There are also two Chapel talks at Greenville College that are somewhat short but well worth listening. In the first he talks about creation and in the second about redemption. The second lecture pretty much covers the content of his essay A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Case for a Holistic Reading of the Biblical Story of Redemption (Journal for Christian Theological Research 11 [2006] 73-97). This lecture and essay will resonate with those who liked N. T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope. I really enjoyed reading the essay and it is a great way for those who have not read Wright’s book to become familiar with the premise that what the bible envisages for the eschaton is not heaven as the final destination but new heavens and a new earth (i. e. new creation).
Read more »

John Goldingay talks about blessing as one of the aspects of “God speaking” in creation. God’s speech is life-giving. He mentions something Genesis Rabbah says concerning the fact that Torah does not start with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, ‘aleph. And what does that have to do with blessing? Here is what he says,

“Thus blessing “is not simply a friendly wish” but “a bestowal of life-force… an act whereby the power-for-life monopolized by Yahweh generously is transmitted to Abraham and his descendants” (Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997], p. 165) — and here to humanity as a whole and to other living creatures. God shares power-for-life with the animal world. The prominence of the blessing theme makes for a pointed contrast with the gloomy vision of other Middle Eastern stories of the origins or the world and humanity, as well as with the troubled experience of Israel in; for instance, the exile. Genesis Rabbah 1:10 (on Gen 1:1) sees here another significance in the fact that Scripture begins with a bet, not an ‘alep, the second letter of the alphabet rather than the first, since b is the first letter of the word for blessing (whereas ‘aleph is the first letter of the word for curse). “Bless” has the first word in Scripture” (Israel’s Gospel, 54).

Side Note:

I was curious to find out when blessing and cursing first occur in the Bible. Blessing first makes its appearance in Genesis 1:22:

God blessed them, saying, “Be fertile and increase, fill the waters in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”

The noun blessing is used for the first time in Gen 12:2.

I could not find the noun for curse using the root ארר (which is what I think the midrash has in mind), since it is usually קללה which HALOT defines as a curse-formula by which someone or something is designated as cursed (ארור). So the first time the verbal form of ארר is used in the Bible is in 3:14:

Then the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you did this, More cursed shall you be Than all cattle And all the wild beasts: On your belly shall you crawl And dirt shall you eat All the days of your life.

The first time God blesses something is on the fifth day and what He blesses is specifically living beings. The interesting comment in Genesis Rabbah is that the first letter already foreshadows that. I think it is a little ironic that the first curse is also attributed to a living creature.

In celebration of “International Septuagint Day” Tyler Williams presents us with some Reasons to Study the Septuagint (in Honour of International Septuagint Day). I had also recently listened to D. A Carson’s sermon/lecture at UCCF Staff Training Conference on Psalm 40 where he talks about his understanding of how the LXX translates verse 40:7 and how Hebrews uses this psalm. Then Michael Heiser blogs about Hebrews’ quotation of Psalm 40:6-8 in The Naked Bible. He links to an article by Karen Jobes The Function of Paronomasia in Hebrews 10:5-7 where she contends that the author was using paronomasia for rhetorical effect.

So I thought it would be interesting to talk about Hebrews’ use of Psalm 40:7 by looking at Carson’s exposition and raising some questions. The reason why I think Carson’s treatment is useful is because he is not trying to get into technical stuff but wants to make Psalm 40 understood as a whole. I also thought it was a worthwhile exercise to see how he dealt with Hebrews’ use of Psalm 40.

Here is the passage in Psalm 40:7 (LXX 39:7):

Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. (NIV)

* The LXX has “my ears you have prepared”

And Hebrews 10:5:

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; (NIV)
Read more »

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. (Psalm 23:5)

Even people who may not be too familiar with the biblical text will recognize the phrase “my cup runneth over” as coming from the Bible (and some might even guess it is from a psalm or Psalm 23). But, what does that really mean… my cup runneth over/overflows? Yalkut Shemoni (A haggadic compilation on the books of the Old Testament) has, in my view, an unexpected interpretation:

Said R. Abbaye, “from here we learn that the cup of David in the times to come [Messianic Age] will hold 221 logs [133 liters].”

Now that’s a big cup.

Although here we get no explanation of why David will have such a big eschatological cup in the Messianic Age, we know where the number 221 comes from. Gematria is the calculation of numerical equivalence of letters, words or phrases. For example David in Hebrew is דוד (sometimes also spelled דויד), since each letter has a numerical value we get ד = 4) + (ו = 6) + (ד = 4) = 14). New Testament commentators point out that Matthews’ genealogy revolves around the number 14 which, as we just saw, is David’s number.

The Hebrew word translated as “runneth over” (more literally translated as “satiation” as in JPS’s translation “my cup is full”) is רויה, (ר=200; ו=6; י=10; ה=5) = 221. Therefore, according to this interpretation, the phrase כוסי רויה stands for “my cup is 221″ which is then attributed to David in the future.

This type of interpretation does not seem very promising if we are interested in understanding what it is meant by “my cup is full” without the dubious aid of gematria. But it does put the focus on the very interesting word רויה (satiation).
Read more »

I had the privilege of preaching on Amos 5:18-27 in my church, and the time spent preparing for it was precious. One of the things that impressed me as I read what people had to say about chapter 5, and in particular 5:18-27, is the different ways that Amos can be appropriated and used in various times and cultures.

I would like to show you an example of how Amos is used in the 1st and 20th centuries. First I want to consider how Stephen quoted verses 5:26-27 in Acts 7 and then how Martin Luther King Jr. quoted verse 5:24 in his famous I Have a Dream speech.

Beyond Babylon

As Stephen talked about the idolatry of Israel in the wilderness, he makes a connection between that idolatry and later worship of false gods. He cites Amos 5:25-27 which basically follows the Septuagint (LXX) with minor variations. Although the differences between the Masoretic Text (MT) and the LXX are worth studying, I am only interested here in Stephen’s use of “Babylon” at the end of Acts 7:43. The basic context is that Israel committed idolatry and, because of that, God would send the people into exile. Here are the verses:

And I will send you into exile beyond Babylon. (Acts 7:43b)

And I will send you into exile beyond Damascus (Amos 5:27a, MT)

And I will send you into exile beyond Damascus (Amos 5:27a, LXX)

Both MT and LXX agree that the exile will be beyond Damascus whereas Stephen changes it to Babylon. On the reason why Stephen chose “beyond Babylon” instead of “beyond Damascus” (i.e., in Assyria), I. Howard Marshall says,

“Stephen, with the advantage of hindsight, took the prophecy to include the definitive captivity of Judah in Babylon and paraphrased it accordingly.” (Commentary of the NT Use of the OT [Baker Academy, 2007] p. 566).

If I understand Marshall correctly, the more significant exile of the Southern Kingdom of Judah became paradigmatic of the very idea of exile and his use of Babylon gives us a bigger picture of the extent of God’s punishment.

If this is correct, it is interesting to observe that Stephen preserves the spirit of what Amos was saying. In this sense, the other differences that we see between the MT and the LXX still keep the main point intact, that is, because of the people’s idolatry, God will send them into Exile.

Can we call this a hindsight use of Scriptures?
Read more »

We often hear of the power of stories, but sometimes it is good to see a specific example of how stories can help us make sense of what could be difficult to grasp in the abstract. They can also stimulate our imagination through their style, play on words, humor, cleverness, ambiguity, etc.

For this reason, I have often wondered what it would be like to transform Qohelet into a narrative. If you think that such a task is impossible or even ludicrous, the Rabbis didn’t think so. Let me show you an example. In chapter 3 Qohelet starts his “catalogue of times” and in verse 6 he says:

[a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away (ESV)]

Now, how would you turn that into a story or an anecdote?

First of all, one may ask what it means that there is a time to lose and cast away. Michael Fox says that Qohelet “begins with this postulate that there is a time for everything and applies this rule not only to clearly useful actions, but even to the ones that may seem useless and even deleterious (Fox, A Time to Tear Down, p. 208). He gives two possible examples of this: Qoh. Rabbah v. 6b and the disappearance of the asses of Saul’s father in 1 Samuel 9:3. Many may be familiar with Saul’s story, but most, including me, would not have a clue what Midrash Qohelet Rabbah has to say about it.
Read more »

I am working my way through Brevard Childs’ Introduction to the OT as Scripture (Fortress Press, 1979). The more I read it, the more I like his approach. Now I want to see how his methodology is going to play out in practice.

His canonical approach does raise some issues, and I was pleasantly surprised that every time I had a question, he either answered it or at least gave me enough to think about. One of the questions I had was about textual criticism since I wanted to know when we would start to talk about a “canon” of the OT when things seemed to be so fluid in the first century. Not only that, why should I even limit myself to the first century? What is the role of the canonical shape of scriptures throughout its entire history?

Childs proposes that we start with the Masoretic text not because it is the best, but because it is a vehicle for both “recovering and for understanding the canonical text of the Old Testament” (97). He is not just interested in the text but also in the community which shaped it. I am still not sure how this is going to work out because I am still wondering how you go about understanding the community of faith (which community?) in order to understand the canonical text. What makes sense to me at this point is that, somehow, we need to take into consideration how the community used Scriptures. Trying to understand the history of the text is fine as far as it goes, but how did the people of God appropriate it? This seems to be a much better vehicle for how we may read the text today.
Read more »