Tom Hobson (M.Div. Gordon-Conwell 1983, Ph.D. Concordia St Louis 2010) is Assistant Pastor of Bonhomme Presbyterian Church (ECO), Chesterfield MO, and retired Chair of Biblical Studies, Morthland College, W Frankfort IL. Website: www.biblicalethic.org. Supervisors: Rev. Don Everts
Zeitschrift fur altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte, 2013
The Septuagint gives us two surprises in its translation of the kosher food laws in Leviticus 11 ... more The Septuagint gives us two surprises in its translation of the kosher food laws in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Among the creatures it specifically identifies as clean and permissible to eat, it names an insect that it calls the o˙ fioma¿ chß (literally " snake-fighter, " Lev 11:22), and among the ruminant mammals, it names the kamhlopa¿ rdaliß or giraffe (Deut 14:5). To the knowledge of this writer, neither of these curious identifications has attracted the attention of scholars. Both of the Hebrew terms behind the LXX translations in question here are terms for which our present translations are little more than conjecture. One, or possibly both (depending on the text), are hapax legomena. Could it be that the LXX, which translated the Pentateuch in Egypt in approximately 280 BCE, preserves some reliable clues to the meaning of the Hebrew? And if so, then what exactly do these Greek translations mean? The two lists of clean food animals in the Pentateuch contain such striking verbal agreement that it is almost certain that one derives from the other, or that both derive from a common source, even though some of their verbal agreement may be attributed to subject matter. Leviticus is clearly longer at points where the two texts discuss the same subject, but it is not clear whether Leviticus is expanding the material or Deuteronomy is condensing it, although Milgrom makes a detailed case for the priority of Leviticus in the Anchor Bible. 1 This study will not address the questions of when Leviticus and Deuteronomy are to be dated, either relative to each other or to the Late Bronze Age in which the Mosaic tradition claims to have originated. The question to be answered in each case is: What animal was originally intended by the reading found in the Hebrew text received by the LXX trans-lators? This study will examine whether the LXX correctly identifies the זמר in Deuteronomy 14:5 as the giraffe (if that is what it meant by the Greek term it used), and what the LXX means by the " snake-fighter " in Leviticus 11:22. We will first examine the identity of the " snake-fighter " in relation to the creature denoted by the Hebrew in Leviticus 11:22, and then we will examine the identity of the creature denoted by the term " giraffe " in the LXX translation of Deuteronomy 14:5. Hesychius of Alexandria has two definitions for 'οφιοµαχoς [sic – the LXX term is first declension, possibly indicating two different nouns with the same connotation]. One is the 'ιχνευµων or mongoose, an obvious candidate for the name " snake-fighter. " Philo (On
The article argues that Jesus euphemistically refers to homosexual behavior and similar sexual of... more The article argues that Jesus euphemistically refers to homosexual behavior and similar sexual offenses against the Jewish law by use of the term "aselgeia" on his list of sins that �defile the human heart� in Mark 7:22-23. The article examines the use of "aselgeia" by Jewish, pagan, and NT writers, and uses the Syriac transiation to attempt to identify the original Aramaic word used by Jesus in this verse and what he may have meant by it. Jewish writers use "aselgeia" to refer to what they considered to be shocking violations of the sexuality taught in the Torah.
A large number of offenses in the Torah call for the offender to be " cut off from his/her people... more A large number of offenses in the Torah call for the offender to be " cut off from his/her people " (known in Judaism as the kareth penalty). 1 Gerhard von Rad is the modern first scholar to argue that the penalty " cut off from one's people " refers to " the excommunication of the offender " rather than a threat of divine extermination. 2 Von Rad's theory has been followed by Westermann, Zimmerli, Pope, Elliger, and Grelot, among others. 3 The chief opponents of von Rad's theory in the modern era have been Wold and Milgrom, who argue that kareth is a divine extermination curse which parallels Near Eastern curses that call on a deity to " erase one's name and seed from the land, " a curse that includes no afterlife and no descendants. 4 Wold sees the witness of ancient Judaism as being unanimous in support of this position.
The article argues that Jesus euphemistically refers to homosexual behavior and similar sexual of... more The article argues that Jesus euphemistically refers to homosexual behavior and similar sexual offenses against the Jewish law by use of the term ἀσέλγεια on his list of sins that " defile the human heart " in Mark 7:22-23. The article examines the use of ἀσέλγεια by Jewish, pagan, and NT writers, and uses the Syriac translation to attempt to identify the original Aramaic word used by Jesus in this verse and what he may have meant by it. Jewish writers use ἀσέλγεια to refer to what they considered to be shocking violations of the sexuality taught in the Torah. It is commonly claimed that Jesus never speaks one word about homo-sexuality. However, one can argue to the contrary that he actually speaks two. As we look at his list of sins in Mark 7, we find two words that arguably include homosexual behavior within the scope of their meaning. One is the term πορνεία (sex outside of marriage), a word which has been much studied and commented upon 1. The other is the word ἀσέλγεια, a word on which precious little study has been done 2. William Barclay considers ἀσέλγεια to be possibly the " ugliest word " in the list of NT sins 3. He capsulizes the word's meaning as " utter shame-lessness ". It is variously translated as " licentiousness " , " wantonness " , and " lasciviousness ". It's a word that Jesus (translated through the tradition that Mark presents) could easily turn to as a synonym for homosexual activity and other similarly shocking behavior forbidden by the Jewish law.
The Septuagint gives us two surprises in its translation of the kosher food laws in Leviticus 11 ... more The Septuagint gives us two surprises in its translation of the kosher food laws in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Among the creatures it specifically identifies as clean and permissible to eat, it names an insect that it calls the o˙ fioma¿ chß (literally " snake-fighter, " Lev 11:22), and among the ruminant mammals, it names the kamhlopa¿ rdaliß or giraffe (Deut 14:5). To the knowledge of this writer, neither of these curious identifications has attracted the attention of scholars. Both of the Hebrew terms behind the LXX translations in question here are terms for which our present translations are little more than conjecture. One, or possibly both (depending on the text), are hapax legomena. Could it be that the LXX, which translated the Pentateuch in Egypt in approximately 280 BCE, preserves some reliable clues to the meaning of the Hebrew? And if so, then what exactly do these Greek translations mean? The two lists of clean food animals in the Pentateuch contain such striking verbal agreement that it is almost certain that one derives from the other, or that both derive from a common source, even though some of their verbal agreement may be attributed to subject matter. Leviticus is clearly longer at points where the two texts discuss the same subject, but it is not clear whether Leviticus is expanding the material or Deuteronomy is condensing it, although Milgrom makes a detailed case for the priority of Leviticus in the Anchor Bible. 1 This study will not address the questions of when Leviticus and Deuteronomy are to be dated, either relative to each other or to the Late Bronze Age in which the Mosaic tradition claims to have originated. The question to be answered in each case is: What animal was originally intended by the reading found in the Hebrew text received by the LXX trans-lators? This study will examine whether the LXX correctly identifies the זמר in Deuteronomy 14:5 as the giraffe (if that is what it meant by the Greek term it used), and what the LXX means by the " snake-fighter " in Leviticus 11:22. We will first examine the identity of the " snake-fighter " in relation to the creature denoted by the Hebrew in Leviticus 11:22, and then we will examine the identity of the creature denoted by the term " giraffe " in the LXX translation of Deuteronomy 14:5. Hesychius of Alexandria has two definitions for 'οφιοµαχoς [sic – the LXX term is first declension, possibly indicating two different nouns with the same connotation]. One is the 'ιχνευµων or mongoose, an obvious candidate for the name " snake-fighter. " Philo (On
Todos los derechos reservados. No se permite la reproducción total o parcial de este libro, ni su... more Todos los derechos reservados. No se permite la reproducción total o parcial de este libro, ni su incorporación a un sistema informático, ni su transmisión en cualquier forma o por cualquier medio, sea éste electrónico, mecánico, por fotocopia, por grabación o por otros métodos, sin el permiso previo por escrito del autor.
Zeitschrift fur altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte, 2013
The Septuagint gives us two surprises in its translation of the kosher food laws in Leviticus 11 ... more The Septuagint gives us two surprises in its translation of the kosher food laws in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Among the creatures it specifically identifies as clean and permissible to eat, it names an insect that it calls the o˙ fioma¿ chß (literally " snake-fighter, " Lev 11:22), and among the ruminant mammals, it names the kamhlopa¿ rdaliß or giraffe (Deut 14:5). To the knowledge of this writer, neither of these curious identifications has attracted the attention of scholars. Both of the Hebrew terms behind the LXX translations in question here are terms for which our present translations are little more than conjecture. One, or possibly both (depending on the text), are hapax legomena. Could it be that the LXX, which translated the Pentateuch in Egypt in approximately 280 BCE, preserves some reliable clues to the meaning of the Hebrew? And if so, then what exactly do these Greek translations mean? The two lists of clean food animals in the Pentateuch contain such striking verbal agreement that it is almost certain that one derives from the other, or that both derive from a common source, even though some of their verbal agreement may be attributed to subject matter. Leviticus is clearly longer at points where the two texts discuss the same subject, but it is not clear whether Leviticus is expanding the material or Deuteronomy is condensing it, although Milgrom makes a detailed case for the priority of Leviticus in the Anchor Bible. 1 This study will not address the questions of when Leviticus and Deuteronomy are to be dated, either relative to each other or to the Late Bronze Age in which the Mosaic tradition claims to have originated. The question to be answered in each case is: What animal was originally intended by the reading found in the Hebrew text received by the LXX trans-lators? This study will examine whether the LXX correctly identifies the זמר in Deuteronomy 14:5 as the giraffe (if that is what it meant by the Greek term it used), and what the LXX means by the " snake-fighter " in Leviticus 11:22. We will first examine the identity of the " snake-fighter " in relation to the creature denoted by the Hebrew in Leviticus 11:22, and then we will examine the identity of the creature denoted by the term " giraffe " in the LXX translation of Deuteronomy 14:5. Hesychius of Alexandria has two definitions for 'οφιοµαχoς [sic – the LXX term is first declension, possibly indicating two different nouns with the same connotation]. One is the 'ιχνευµων or mongoose, an obvious candidate for the name " snake-fighter. " Philo (On
The article argues that Jesus euphemistically refers to homosexual behavior and similar sexual of... more The article argues that Jesus euphemistically refers to homosexual behavior and similar sexual offenses against the Jewish law by use of the term "aselgeia" on his list of sins that �defile the human heart� in Mark 7:22-23. The article examines the use of "aselgeia" by Jewish, pagan, and NT writers, and uses the Syriac transiation to attempt to identify the original Aramaic word used by Jesus in this verse and what he may have meant by it. Jewish writers use "aselgeia" to refer to what they considered to be shocking violations of the sexuality taught in the Torah.
A large number of offenses in the Torah call for the offender to be " cut off from his/her people... more A large number of offenses in the Torah call for the offender to be " cut off from his/her people " (known in Judaism as the kareth penalty). 1 Gerhard von Rad is the modern first scholar to argue that the penalty " cut off from one's people " refers to " the excommunication of the offender " rather than a threat of divine extermination. 2 Von Rad's theory has been followed by Westermann, Zimmerli, Pope, Elliger, and Grelot, among others. 3 The chief opponents of von Rad's theory in the modern era have been Wold and Milgrom, who argue that kareth is a divine extermination curse which parallels Near Eastern curses that call on a deity to " erase one's name and seed from the land, " a curse that includes no afterlife and no descendants. 4 Wold sees the witness of ancient Judaism as being unanimous in support of this position.
The article argues that Jesus euphemistically refers to homosexual behavior and similar sexual of... more The article argues that Jesus euphemistically refers to homosexual behavior and similar sexual offenses against the Jewish law by use of the term ἀσέλγεια on his list of sins that " defile the human heart " in Mark 7:22-23. The article examines the use of ἀσέλγεια by Jewish, pagan, and NT writers, and uses the Syriac translation to attempt to identify the original Aramaic word used by Jesus in this verse and what he may have meant by it. Jewish writers use ἀσέλγεια to refer to what they considered to be shocking violations of the sexuality taught in the Torah. It is commonly claimed that Jesus never speaks one word about homo-sexuality. However, one can argue to the contrary that he actually speaks two. As we look at his list of sins in Mark 7, we find two words that arguably include homosexual behavior within the scope of their meaning. One is the term πορνεία (sex outside of marriage), a word which has been much studied and commented upon 1. The other is the word ἀσέλγεια, a word on which precious little study has been done 2. William Barclay considers ἀσέλγεια to be possibly the " ugliest word " in the list of NT sins 3. He capsulizes the word's meaning as " utter shame-lessness ". It is variously translated as " licentiousness " , " wantonness " , and " lasciviousness ". It's a word that Jesus (translated through the tradition that Mark presents) could easily turn to as a synonym for homosexual activity and other similarly shocking behavior forbidden by the Jewish law.
The Septuagint gives us two surprises in its translation of the kosher food laws in Leviticus 11 ... more The Septuagint gives us two surprises in its translation of the kosher food laws in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Among the creatures it specifically identifies as clean and permissible to eat, it names an insect that it calls the o˙ fioma¿ chß (literally " snake-fighter, " Lev 11:22), and among the ruminant mammals, it names the kamhlopa¿ rdaliß or giraffe (Deut 14:5). To the knowledge of this writer, neither of these curious identifications has attracted the attention of scholars. Both of the Hebrew terms behind the LXX translations in question here are terms for which our present translations are little more than conjecture. One, or possibly both (depending on the text), are hapax legomena. Could it be that the LXX, which translated the Pentateuch in Egypt in approximately 280 BCE, preserves some reliable clues to the meaning of the Hebrew? And if so, then what exactly do these Greek translations mean? The two lists of clean food animals in the Pentateuch contain such striking verbal agreement that it is almost certain that one derives from the other, or that both derive from a common source, even though some of their verbal agreement may be attributed to subject matter. Leviticus is clearly longer at points where the two texts discuss the same subject, but it is not clear whether Leviticus is expanding the material or Deuteronomy is condensing it, although Milgrom makes a detailed case for the priority of Leviticus in the Anchor Bible. 1 This study will not address the questions of when Leviticus and Deuteronomy are to be dated, either relative to each other or to the Late Bronze Age in which the Mosaic tradition claims to have originated. The question to be answered in each case is: What animal was originally intended by the reading found in the Hebrew text received by the LXX trans-lators? This study will examine whether the LXX correctly identifies the זמר in Deuteronomy 14:5 as the giraffe (if that is what it meant by the Greek term it used), and what the LXX means by the " snake-fighter " in Leviticus 11:22. We will first examine the identity of the " snake-fighter " in relation to the creature denoted by the Hebrew in Leviticus 11:22, and then we will examine the identity of the creature denoted by the term " giraffe " in the LXX translation of Deuteronomy 14:5. Hesychius of Alexandria has two definitions for 'οφιοµαχoς [sic – the LXX term is first declension, possibly indicating two different nouns with the same connotation]. One is the 'ιχνευµων or mongoose, an obvious candidate for the name " snake-fighter. " Philo (On
Todos los derechos reservados. No se permite la reproducción total o parcial de este libro, ni su... more Todos los derechos reservados. No se permite la reproducción total o parcial de este libro, ni su incorporación a un sistema informático, ni su transmisión en cualquier forma o por cualquier medio, sea éste electrónico, mecánico, por fotocopia, por grabación o por otros métodos, sin el permiso previo por escrito del autor.
Uploads
Papers by Tom Hobson