Feeds:
Posts
Comments

The abstract of this article reads as follows:

Most English Bible translations render גשׁ־הלאה in Gen 19:9 with some variant of ‘Stand back!’ However, a very few interpreters recommend a translation along the lines of ‘Come closer!’ more in keeping with the typical gloss on נגשׁ. A detailed study of the syntax and semantics of both נגשׁ and הלאה, as well as constructions similar to גשׁ־הלאה demonstrates the strength of the minority suggestion.

The author engages the text of Genesis 19 at the point where it challenges the reader to decide whether the mob wants Lot to stand aside so they can do injury to his household or to ‘Come here!’ so the threatened damage can be inflicted upon Lot himself. Although Heard recognizes that the intended meaning is not beyond debate, he reconstructs semantic and contextual considerations in order to suggest that the more plausible reading urges continued movement along a trajectory already established, Lot’s movement being away from the confines of his house and towards the mob. In the course of his argument, he effectively refutes L. Bechtel’s discovery of a judicial element in the mob’s demand. According to Heard, the scene envisages mob violence—not conventional or vigilante justice—against Lot himself.

To judge by the diverse biblical material that speaks of the restoration of a Jewish presence in post-exilic Judah, the project required enormous tenacity. Rebuilding projects usually do. Because we hold the template of the past in our minds and because we knew that past as a fact on the ground rather than a work in progress, we underestimate what achieving it again will cost.

Restoration is not for the faint of heart.

The romance of the notion may inspire at the outset but it fails to sustain the long effort required.

When the Jewish returnees have finally erected their temple, it doesn’t hold a candle to its Solomonic predecessor. The newbies, perhaps, dance for joy at what appears to be its fabulous novelty, eyes moist with the emotion of it. Yet those who bear memories of what once was shed tears of nostalgia, perhaps even of disappointment.

The biblical book of Zechariah has an encouraging word for those whose memories stubbornly constrain their hope:

For whoever has despised the day of small things shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel.

Restoration requires getting started. It demands a capacity for glimpsing a better future in the modest successes that are all the harvest that re-initiators are likely to reap.

‘To despise the day of small things’ is understandable, for one has known better. Yet it is not enough.

One must scan the new-built walls for traces of eventual glory.

This, too, is a spiritual discipline.

The abstract of this article reads as follows:

A long-recognized crux interpretum in Genesis is the diathesis of the Niphal (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 28:14) and Hitpael (Gen 22:18; 26:4) stems of ברך in the different renditions of the patriarchal promise of blessing. Many scholars assume that both stems should be translated the same way, arguing for either a medio-passive (‘be blessed’ or ‘become blessed’) or a reflexive (‘bless themselves’) translation. After investigating the functions of the Niphal, Piel, and Hitpael verbal stems in biblical Hebrew, this paper reexamines the Niphal and Hitpael of ברך in the Hebrew Bible and argues that these two stems of this lexeme have different meanings contextually. Despite their different nuances, however, both stems indicate that the nations are blessed by means of Abraham, not that they utter blessings using Abraham’s name because they recognize his status as one greatly blessed by God.

The argument of this fine article pivots upon whether the patriarchal blessing promises that employ ברך in the Niphal and Hitpael denote ‘blessing mediation’ or ‘blessing utterance’. That is, are the nations to be blessed through Abraham or are they to achieve the promised blessing by blessing themselves by uttering Abraham’s name? One might just detect a trend towards the latter in English Bible translations of the second half of the twentieth centuryֶ, although more recent translations seem largely to have reverted to the former preference. The two lists of translations provided by the author suggest to this reader that discernible ideologies or theological pre-understandings animating the translation projects themselves might go some distance toward explaining how this crux is handled in translation. That is a line of inquiry that might repay careful study.

Noonan’s linguistically astute argument claims for ברך a stative rather than active identity. Its Piel form is therefore ‘active with a passive undersubject’, suggesting that the subject ‘makes, declares, or considers the undersubject to be in the state of being blessed’. Continue Reading »

wonders: Proverbs 30

Contrary to popular belief, the sages who stand behind the biblical anthology of proverbs do not flatter themselves for having an understanding of the world all sewn up.

The maker of proverbs is a student of the world who, for all the order and pattern he discerns, is left astonished by reality’s inscrutable mysteries. On balance the proverbialist stands more in awe of the world than in control of it.

Yet this capacity to marvel must usually be detected between the lines. One sees it, for example, in the juxtaposition of proverbs that on the surface seem to contradict each other. The anthologist knows that they do not, but rather that wisdom takes the shape of working out just which truth seems more pertinent for this moment of complex reality. There is always a bit of guessing, always the need for the ‘judgment call’.

One notes the capacity for wonder also as the counterpart to the sheer audacity of making proverbs. To state things as unequivocably as the proverbs do is, in the hands of a sensitive student of the world, a reckoning with the fact that they do not always turn out to be that way. It is a pointing in a safe direction, a description of 80% of a peeled-back onion. There are always contingencies. There is always the unknown. There remains at all times the possibility of exception. Any sympathetic reader of proverbs—or for that matter, any modern user of a proverb, whether ancient or recent—knows this and does not insist upon silly absolutisms.

Yet if this understated recognition of the world’s wonder lies below the surface, between the lines, barely visible amid warp and woof in the Bible’s proverbial anthology, it occasionally blossoms to the point of articulation. One such florescence occurs amid the ‘numerical proverbs’ of the thirtieth chapter:

Three things are too wonderful for me; four I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a girl.

Wisdom has its limits. Wonder abides at the seam where human understanding is joined to what cannot truly be known.

Eagles soar, the very picture of magnificent serendipity. A snake casts its curling line sideways and yet moves forward on a Spring morning’s sun-warmed rock. A ship, winds changing and sails flying, finds its way across a sea too wide for measuring and puts in to safe harbor. A man, full up with flow charts and deadlines and bills, looks into a woman’s eyes and says three words that throw it all into jeopardy.

There is no doubt that knowledge advances, explains, masters, and controls. The boundaries along which awe must make its home are shifting lines.

Yet the day when a man can no longer scribble his short list of ‘things too wonderful for me’ becomes, in a sense, the date of his death.

Words matter. Sometimes they wound. At points they murder.

The Bible treats the power of words with remarkable care. It knows they can give life, or take it.

With stark parallelism, the one-hundred-fortieth psalm casts its light upon the destructive power of the slanderer, wishing his absence from the community with the same vehemence that would deny long life to the one who exercises violence by more conventional means:

Do not let the slanderer be established in the land;
let evil speedily hunt down the violent! (Psalm 140:11 NRSV)

Because human opinion is fickle and vulnerable to eloquent lies, slander is to be considered a dangerous habit. Where freedom of speech has enjoyed its unquestioned and totalitarian libertinism, we find it difficult to imagine that a community should see the ‘merely’ verbal violence of slander as a lethal matter. We fool ourselves.

Words matter. They shape conscience, society, and practice. They ennoble the city, they enrage the mob.

Weapons and strong arms gone perverse spill blood. Words do, too.

So, this counter-deceptive prayer: Do not let the slanderer be established in the land.

insatiable: Proverbs 30

The Proverbs manage to blend pragmatic hope with pessimistic appraisal of a world that suffers a nagging defect at its core. If this mix approximates to the life experience of many readers, this may in part explain the enduring appeal of this wisdom anthology, to say nothing of its instructive value.

Though wisdom’s voice does not cross over into despair, it probes the case for pessimism with a certain valor.

The leech has two daughters. ‘Give! Give!’ they cry. There are three things that are never satisfied, four that never say, ‘Enough!’: the grave, the barren womb, land, which is never satisfied with water, and fire, which never says, ‘Enough!’

As sentient human beings capable not only of suffering but of reflecting upon the fact that we do so, we find that life itself seems often to be under assault. Murphy’s Law—the stuff of modern-day folk wisdom—rings true because our wounds and bruises remind us that so many things can go wrong at any given moment, and that many of them do.

The biblical proverbialist, too, knows of a certain relentless campaign that seems to be waged at most times and at all opportunity against peace and productivity. The leech, for example, never ceases to suck a creature’s life-blood.

Grave, frustrated womb, thirsty land, consuming fire. These ubiquitous cancers keep up their incessant narrative that the world—to lapse yet again into folk wisdom—is not our home.

Yet this world, at the same time, is our home. The Proverbs know this if they know anything at all.

Here is where we sort wisdom’s long view from folly’s immediacy, declare our preference, make our choice. Here is where we know YHWH’s care or fall prey to accident in its apparent absence. Here is where we construct a family, build a home, learn to read, cradle our grandchildren, plant a tree whose fruit will delight another generation’s mouth, not our own. Here is where we invest that portion of our being that is capable of doing good.

Here is where we lean into insatiable entropy in a faintly quixotic—but YHWH-endorsed—effort to construct a world worth the trouble of it all.

Or chase the wind.

Distance is not always what it seems.

The psalms have in common with the book of Isaiah a penchant for inverting the normal correspondences of distance and proximity. Employing the overlap between spatial and moral concepts of height, these voices of the biblical anthology claim that YHWH in his supreme elevation is paradoxically closer to those who are spiritually low than to those who exalt themselves.

For though the LORD is high, he regards the lowly;
but the haughty he perceives from far away. (Psalm 138:6 NRSV)

Pride consists in taking oneself high, near—one might suppose—to God. The psalmist will have nothing of the calculus that equates self-elevation (our English translations go for moral connotations via words like ‘haughtiness’, but the Hebrew text will not abandon the concrete notion of height or altitude) with achievement.

Do you want to be near to YHWH, the writer appears to ask his reader? Do you crave access to the Most High?

Then stay low. YHWH—very high—hangs with the humble.

The abstract of this article reads as follows:

The purpose of this study is to critique some of the prevalent theories regarding the biblical alphabetic acrostics and to expose a previously unrecognized feature that most of the acrostics share: ‘Alphabetical thinking’ manifests itself differently in each poem; however, one common thread in most of the acrostics is the more prevalent use of the qatalּ form instead of the yiqtol form as compared to other poetry. This is likely a function of the versatility of the qatal to fit both the acrostic artifice and the acrostic style (aspectual orientation in particular). Two psalms, one acrostic and one non-acrostic, are analyzed and their verb usage compared. Three avenues of further study are proposed.

Noting the ‘belittlement’ of the Bible’s acrostic poems as a ‘silly trick’ that has been manifest from some quarters, Giffone attempts to allow the ‘acrostic form’ and the ‘acrostic style’ to speak for themselves.

The article helpfully surveys the absence of unifying form-critical qualities across the biblical acrostics and quasi-acrostics with the exception of the guiding role played by the alphabet itself. His article also brings the reader current with representative views regarding the purpose of the acrostics. These range from the assumption of ideological purpose on the one extreme (for example, the construal of order in turbulent times) through the thesis that ‘alphabetical thinking’ represents a memory aid and on to the minimalist idea that the arrangement is a mere aesthetic artifice. The author probes the higher-than-usual occurrence of qatal forms over prefixed yiqtol forms in the acrostic poems without evidently embracing the simple explanation that the prefixed Hebrew verb severely restricts the alphabetical possibilities and so cedes the artistic ground it normally occupies to the more alphabetically versatile qatal. After detailing various ways in which the biblical acrostics manifest their formal idiosyncrasy (both strictly and messily), Giffone elaborates a ‘test case’ via comparison of Psalms 32 and 34, with uncertain results. To this reader’s eyes, Giffone suspects that an ideological purpose lies behind ‘alphabetical thinking’ but does not find clear evidence in his study that this is so.

The abstract of this article reads as follows:

J.M. Allegro has convincingly shown that the archaic Hebrew relative pronoun זה can function as a genitive marker in a common Semitic pattern Noun Pronoun Noun (cf. Aramaic bayta di-malka). So far, it has been assumed that once זה was replaced by אשׁר this pattern was no longer possible in Hebrew. The current paper offers data which indicate that at least in Biblical Hebrew אשׁר can still function as a genitive marker.

This excellent article convincingly argues the case that זה was replace by אשׁר as ‘a lexical replacement rather than a syntactic change’.

The abstract of Shapira’s article reads as follows:

Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1895) is considered the pioneer of feminist literature; after her, in the 1950s, came Simone De Beuvoir (The Second Sex), and the latest crop of feminist writers includes Phyllis Trible, Mieke Bal, Ester Fuchs, Cheryl Exum, Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Ilana Pardes, and many others. These women deal also with the Bible, as they claim that the female characters, such as Eve and Miriam, have a great influence on the personal and social status of women until today. This is especially true in the Christian world, whose cultural base was the Bible.

The article presents an overview of seven areas in the Bible which point up the equality, and even the superiority of women, and our conclusions are: A) The Bible, which is mainly patriarchal, has an additional, parallel direction, in which there is a clear trend of feminine equality; B) The majority in the Bible is religious, that is, equality of the woman as a person before God, like the equality of each person within the human race; C) From this we see that the Jewish religion, as portrayed in the Bible, contains the elements which form the theological and historical base of equality; D) A possible conclusion from this work is that this ‘feminine’ side of the Bible, from Sarah and Miriam, may become the base at this time for spiritual renewal.

Shapira approaches the text synchronically. The author treats the biblical material responsibly, not supposing that conventional conclusions about the biblical text’s ‘patriarchal’ convictions can be overturned. However, Shapira finds a kind of counter-current to patriarchality that can be accessed as an alternative and subordinate biblical ideology that may be employed to construct a biblically-dependent ideology that hints at something like gender equality even if the data do not prove enough ‘to testify to biblical equality between men and women in the sense which modern democracy defines “equality”.

The author appears both to place value upon the biblical data for constructing an adequate contemporary ideology and to reckon with the possibility that this contribution may manifest itself in the minimalistic shape of a discernible counter-ideology in the biblical materials.