Volume 3, A Companion to Textual Criticism, Volume Editors Russel E. Fuller and Armin Lange, cons... more Volume 3, A Companion to Textual Criticism, Volume Editors Russel E. Fuller and Armin Lange, consists of the following subvolumes: Volume 3A History of Research edited by Armin Lange and Russell E. Fuller surveys the history of research on the textual criticism and textual history of the Hebrew Bible and its versions in both Judaism and Christianity from its ancient beginnings until today for all of its important versions. Volume 3B Modern Printed Editions of the Jewish Bible and its Christian Versions edited by Richard D. Weis †, Armin Lange, and Russell E. Fuller, provides a comprehensive discussion of the printed editions of the Jewish Scriptures in all of the languages covered in THB 1 and 2 starting from the advent of the printing press in the West. Volume 3C Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism edited by Mika S. Pajunen will address in one place technical terminology, genres and media transmitting biblical texts, the practice of textual criticism, translation theory and translation technique, and theories of textual transmission. Volume 3D Science and Technology edited by Marilyn J. Lundberg brings together information on the science and technologies that increasingly impact and influence not only the decipherment, study and conservation of ancient manuscripts of all types but also the textual criticism of biblical texts itself. Issues of manuscript conservation, analytical tools, and (virtual) manuscript enhancement are thus as much discussed as electronic databases of biblical texts or digital online repositories of biblical manuscripts.
Of the approximately fifteen hundred personal names in the Bible the Masorah designates only nine... more Of the approximately fifteen hundred personal names in the Bible the Masorah designates only ninety or so with a notation that they are personal names. The reason why the Masorah selects these ninety names for special mention is because they are all homonyms. They have the same form, same consonants and vowels as other words, and thus are liable to be confused with those words. This article will survey the usages of Masoretic personal name notations, examine the type of names covered by these notations, explore names that are selected because of specific accents or spelling. One of the surprising results of our analysis of the Masoretic personal naming notes is the discovery that the Masoretes had identified a name that has been ignored by modern scholarship.
Although the Bible knows of some cases where fathers name children, normally when a mother is de... more Although the Bible knows of some cases where fathers name children, normally when a mother is described as having given birth to a child (וַתֵּלֶד בֵּנ) it is she who names the child, not the father. This rule is explicitly stated in a Masoretic note which also points out three notable exceptions, with Er (Gen 38:3), Gershom (Exod 2:22), and Beriah (1 Chr 7:23). In all three cases both ancient and modern scholars read differently and emend the text, but the Masorah, by its note, cautions against any such change. Thus, according to the Masorah, it was Judah who named Er, it was Moses who named Gershom, and Ephraim who named Beriah.
In the Hebrew Bible there are many verses and phrases which are paralleled elsewhere with only mi... more In the Hebrew Bible there are many verses and phrases which are paralleled elsewhere with only minor changes. 1 In accordance with their goal of accurately transmitting the text of the Hebrew Bible the Masoretes assembled numerous lists detailing these variants. Frequently in these lists they employed mnemonic devices to help insure that these variants would be remembered and recorded properly. One of the most interesting of these mnemonic devices was termed by them סימן פסוק ,אחד 2 which literally means "one verse is the siman.
This article describes how the author introduces Masoretic notes in a classroom by means of a mne... more This article describes how the author introduces Masoretic notes in a classroom by means of a mnemonic called PAGIC. The mnemonic provides a framework for understanding the reasons for the vast majority of Masoretic notes and serves to reinforce the students' knowledge of Hebrew grammar as well as helping them appreciate the structure of the biblical text.
The Text of the Hebrew Bible. From the Rabbis to the Masoretes, 2015
In various sessions of the IOMS meetings at the SBL there have been pleas to try and integrate th... more In various sessions of the IOMS meetings at the SBL there have been pleas to try and integrate the Masorah into biblical studies. There have, of course, been many studies on the importance of the Masorah in the area of biblical Hebrew grammar, as well as a few articles showing how the Masorah can be helpful in the interpretation of some biblical passages, but these articles have usually focused on isolated examples. It is the intention of this paper to show that the Masorah can be used as a supplementary tool for elucidating a unified Hebrew text. I will demonstrate my argument by taking as my example the well-known story of Samuel’s birth that occurs in the first chapter of the Book of Samuel.
In the past, there have been many studies on the importance of the Masorah in the area of biblic... more In the past, there have been many studies on the importance of the Masorah in the area of biblical Hebrew grammar, as well as a few articles showing how the Masorah can be helpful in the interpretation of some biblical passages, but these articles have usually focused on isolated examples. This paper will attempt to show that the Masorah can be used as a supplementary tool for elucidating a unified Hebrew text as in the well-known story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife that occurs in chapter 39 of the Book of Genesis. I will endeavor to show that the Masorah can assist the elucidation of this text by determining its parameters, by paying attention to its accents, by pointing out its connectiveness to other texts, and by implicitly pointing out the literary structure of the text.
A New Perspective on Ezra-Nehemiah: Story and History, Literature and Interpretation, 2012
One of the features of the new BHQ is the inclusion on every page of both the Masorah parva and m... more One of the features of the new BHQ is the inclusion on every page of both the Masorah parva and magna of the Leningrad Codex. Only the Masorah parva (Mp) had been published in previous editions of Biblia Hebraica, a diplomatic representation in BHK3, and a revised edition by Gérard E. Weil in BHS. While preparing the fascicle of Ezra-Nehemiah for BHQ, the author noted that some Mp material written in the margins of the Codex had never been published, neither in BHK3 nor in BHS. These are catchwords which are attached to many Mp doublet notes. Most Mp doublet notes are simply marked by the numeral “two,” which indicates that an identical word or phrase occurs somewhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The reader is given no indication as to where that parallel doublet might occur. However, a special group of doublets has catchwords attached to the numeral indicating in what specific verse the parallel doublet occurs. In effect, the catchwords serve as memory aids explicitly reminding the reader where the second form of the parallel doublet is to be found. Examples will be given to show how texts outside of Ezra-Nehemiah were used by the Masoretes to elucidate elements in the text of Ezra-Nehemiah, and examples of the reverse, where the text of Ezra-Nehemiah was used to elucidate parallels in the texts outside of Ezra-Nehemiah. This article will also suggest how these catchwords can be used as a tool for exegesis for the modern biblical scholar.
Essays in Education and Judaism in Honor of Joe Lukinsky, 2002
This paper examines how chapter divisions compare with the parashiyyot, the weekly Synagogue lect... more This paper examines how chapter divisions compare with the parashiyyot, the weekly Synagogue lectional readings and in particular with one test case, parashat וארא. The origin of chapter divisions is traditionally associated with Stephen Langton (13th century). The original impetus of the chapter divisions seems to have been to divide the text into units of sense and into divisions of reasonable length. Chapters often signal time breaks (often introduced by וַיְהִי “and it came to pass”) and many begin with expressions such as (יֹּאמֶר/וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה “The Lord said/spoke to Moses”). When the chapter divisions ignore the Masoretic divisions of petuchot and setumot, particularly those in close proximity to the beginning of a chapter, this must be the result of a different exegesis. The test case analyzed here of parashat Wa’era’ is an example of a Masoretic sectional division which does not correspond with the beginning of a chapter. It is argued that the Masoretic division is to be preferred over the chapter division. Firstly, because the Masoretic division enables the previous parashah to end on a note of hope and encouragement. Secondly, it allows the new parashah to highlight God’s reaffirmation of the בְּרִית between God and the patriarchs. Thirdly, the Masoretic division respects the distinctiveness of the literary unit which starts at verse two of chapter six and continues to verse eight. Finally, the Masoretic division avoids two problems which is produced by the current chapter division. It avoids the problem of the repetition of God speaking in two successive verses without Moses replying, and it avoids the problem of God speaking with two different names.
The form מַנ in the prayer for the king in Psalm 61 verse 8 has constituted an old crux. It has t... more The form מַנ in the prayer for the king in Psalm 61 verse 8 has constituted an old crux. It has traditionally been taken as a piel apocopated imperative from the verb מנה meaning “appoint!”. The ancient versions took it as akin to the Aramaic interrogative מַנ and translated it as “who?”. Because it interrupts the natural grammatical and poetic sense of the verse many suggestions have been made either to emend it or omit it as a gloss. One tantalizing suggestion, revived by Weingreen and Fishbane, is that מַנ represents a proto-Masoretic gloss standing forמָלֵא נוּנ to indicate that the following form יִנְצְרֻהוּis written with the letter nun. A number of objections may be made against this suggestion. One that the earliest we can date Masoretic notations is in the 6th century so the likelihood of such a pre-Masoretic notation going back to before the time of the Greek translation of the Bible is pretty slim. Two, that in our extant Masorahs Masoretes do not comment on the presence or absence of a nun in initial nun verbs. Three, that in these Masorahs the Masoretes themselves not only are unaware that the formמַנ represented an original Masoretic type note but that they themselves apply a different note toמַנ . Finally, it is demonstrated that the form of this putative note does not conform to any other similar Masoretic note since the termמָלֵא is never used to indicate the presence of a consonant but only of a vowel. When the Masorah wishes to indicate a superfluous nun the ketiv and qere notations are used instead. Thus if מַנ represents a Masoretic note it would be the first example of its type.
In certain sections of the Masorah magna of Codex Leningradensis (L) the usual Hebrew simanim, no... more In certain sections of the Masorah magna of Codex Leningradensis (L) the usual Hebrew simanim, normally given as catchwords representing the verses in which the form of the lemma occurs, are replaced by Aramaic mnemonics. This paper describes these mnemonics (of which over forty are preserved in L), explains the problems in their identification, and shows the use that modern scholars may make of these mnemonics. The length of the Aramaic mnemonics in L varies. The vast majority, over two-thirds, consist of three to five words. A sample mnemonic is עבר עבדא ואשׁתבע “the servant passed by and swore” where each Aramaic word of the mnemonic corresponds in some fashion with a Hebrew word in the verse it is representing. The contents of the Aramaic mnemonics are quite diverse. Most consist of amusing and often asyndetical sentences of the type סימנ שׁמעת קרית וכעסת “you heard a sign, you read, and you were angry.” As befits wisdom literature in general, a number of the mnemonics promote wisdom, good conduct and pious behavior as for example: אינתתא עצת והיבת לגברא סיפרא “the wise woman gave a book to the man.” Identification of the mnemonics with their associated biblical verses is sometimes complicated by the fact that part of an Aramaic mnemonic may refer to a section rather than a specific verse. A second problem is that sometimes there are not enough parts of the mnemonic to represent all the verses which the mnemonic is supposed to illustrate. A third problem with the Aramaic mnemonics is that it is not always easy to identify which parts of the mnemonic go with particular biblical verses. Sometimes these type of catchword problems in L may be explained by checking different forms of the mnemonic in other Masorahs.
The form F~ in the prayer for the king in Psalm 61 is an old crux interpretum. It has traditional... more The form F~ in the prayer for the king in Psalm 61 is an old crux interpretum. It has traditionally been taken as api'el apocopated imperative from the verb i1~ 9 meaning "appoint!" The ancient versions took it as akin to the Aramaic interrogative F~ and translated it as "who?" Because the form interrupts the natural grammatical and poetic sense of the verse, many suggestions have been made to emend it, and the form has often been regarded as a gloss without which the verse would read more smoothly. In this paper we will examine the tantalizing suggestion that F~ represents a proto-Masoretic gloss standing for 1' 1 J ~ ' ? 9 to indicate that the following form ' 1 i11 ¥ ~' is written with the letter nun. We raise a number of objections to this proposal and demonstrate that if 1~ represents a Masoretic note it would be the first example of its type.
Although the division of the biblical text into chapters was done on the basis of the Latin Vulga... more Although the division of the biblical text into chapters was done on the basis of the Latin Vulgate it is remarkable how many chapters do correspond with the Masoretic divisions of petuḥah, setumah, and seder. While differences between Masoretic sectional divisions and the chapter divisions have often been noticed, what has not been widely realized is that there are a number of differences among the chapter divisions themselves. In modern Hebrew printed editions only two alternate chapter divisions are noticeable. One is at Genesis 32, where the standard chapter division starts with וַיַּשְׁכֵּמ לָבָנ בַּבֹּקֶר “Laban rose early in the morning,” but an alternate chapter division starts with וְיַעֲקֹב הָלַכְ לְדַרְכּוֹ “Jacob went on his way.” The other is at Numbers 26 where the standard chapter division starts with the words וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה “God spoke to Moses,” whereas an alternate chapter division starts with the preceding three words וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הַמַּגֵּפָה “after the plague.” Many more alternate chapter divisions can be seen in modern Vulgate and Septuagint printed editions, and in modern English translations. In the Pentateuch alone there are ten chapters in which alternate chapter divisions are preserved either in Hebrew printed editions, or in the printed editions of the major versions. Masoretic sectional divisions sometimes coincide with the standard chapter division (Numbers 13), sometimes with the alternate chapter division (Gen 6), and sometimes with both (Deut 29). The existence of these alternate chapter divisions has practical consequences for modern students of the Bible. One is the obvious fact that since different chapter divisions will produce different enumeration of verses the different divison can lead to confusion in citing references. Another is the fact that by starting the chapter at a different place the parameters of the text are then changed and so a different hermeneutic may be produced.
In the Leningrad Codex and BHS, Ps 24:4 has a reading of napšī “my soul” in a context that logica... more In the Leningrad Codex and BHS, Ps 24:4 has a reading of napšī “my soul” in a context that logically demands a reading of napšō “his soul.” In several mss. and in the Rabbinic Bible, there is a qere of napšī “my soul” as well as a ketiv of napšō “his soul.” Some prominent neo-Massoretes such as Elijah Levitas and Solomon Norzi have rejected this qere reading by suggesting that the yod of napšī is the result of a scribal error, and that it really represents a minuscule waw. This paper will survey the history of this debate, examine the nature of the minuscule letters, and suggest that the minuscule waw might have originated from a misunderstood abbreviation of the Tetragrammaton.
Cahiers de la Revue Biblique : La Bible en face. Études textuelles et littéraires offertes en homage à Adrian Schenker à l’occasion de ses quatre-vingts ans, 2020
One of the main characteristics of the Masorah of the Leningrad Codex (= ML) is that it exhibits ... more One of the main characteristics of the Masorah of the Leningrad Codex (= ML) is that it exhibits a certain consistency.The Masorah of the books of the Torah are typologically the same as the books of the Prophets and the same as the books of the Writings. Thus it is no surprise that the Masoretic notes in the book of Daniel conform to the nature of their counterparts in the other books. However, this conformity is not found in the Aramaic section of Daniel (2:4b-7:28). There the Masoretic notes exhibit differences that are not found in notes on other parts of the Bible. The differences are seen in four areas: (1) in notes that indicate differences between Hebrew and Aramaic forms; (2) in notes that indicate differences of forms within Aramaic; (3) in the occurrence of a preponderance of collative notes indicating hapax legomina; and (4) in the occurrence of mnemonics based on Aramaic words.
This paper discusses a detail in the Epic of Gilgamesh where it is believed that the Biblical flo... more This paper discusses a detail in the Epic of Gilgamesh where it is believed that the Biblical flood story can shed light on some questions in the Akkadian text. The pertinent Akkadian lines occur in that part of the story when Utnapishtim in anticipation of the forthcoming deluge boards his gigantic ship. According to the standard English translations Utnapishtim entrusts his ship to Puzur-amurru the boatman for the purpose of caulking it. But these renderings are shown to be faulty on lexical and syntactical grounds. First, the word translated as “ship” is really a palace (ēkallu) and this word never denotes in Akkadian a ship or boat. Second, the phrase ana pe-ḫe-e ša elippi cannot be interpreted as as infinitive in a purpose clause (“to seal the boat”) because the object of the infinitive in Akkadian does not take the relative pronoun ša. Rather the phrase is to be explained as a nominal one meaning “to the pēḫû, that is, to the caulker, of the ship,” and it to the caulker of the ship, to Puzur-Amurri, that Utnapishtim gave his palace together with its contents. Since caulking can be done both inside and outside a boat the biblical account which has a similar sequence of events as the Gilgamesh passage helps clarify the Akkadian text. The biblical account states that the Lord shut Noah in (wayyisgōr YHWH ba’adô Gen 7:16), that is, the Lord caulked Noah in from the outside, so it likely that in the Gilgamesh narrative the caulker (Puzur-Amurri) worked from the outside. Thus Puzur-Amurri is not the navigator of the boat, and does not accompany Utnapishtim. Rather he is the caulker of the boat, the one who seals Utnapishtim in. As a reward for his work, Puzur-Amurri is given Utnapishtim’s palace and its furnishings.
A study of the animal similes used in the Assyrian royal inscriptions starting from Shalmeneser I... more A study of the animal similes used in the Assyrian royal inscriptions starting from Shalmeneser I (1274-45) till the time of Assurbanipal (668-27). These similes were used as literary devices to relate movements on and off the battlefield, to portray actions of the king, his army and his foes. The animals are classified according to the following categories: a) wild animals, b) domestic animals, c) birds, and d) insects, reptiles, and fish. The usage of these similes in context is studied and the symbolic significance for each animal is discussed. In analyzing the structure of these similes it is observed that certain animals usually appear together with certain verbs (e.g. “raging [nadāru] like a lion [labbu] or trampling [dâšu] like a wild bull [rēmu]). This finding can on occasion be helpful in translating difficult passages (so the simile kīma šūbe ušna’’il cannot be translated “I cut down like sheep,” rather “I cut down like emmer”). The similes occur in fixed patterns, using either a noun with the adverbial iš or āniš (e.g. labbiš “like a lion”) or a noun with the preposition kî or kīma (e.g kīma labbi “like a lion”). Animals occurring with iš endings immediately precede or follow verbs (e.g. asliš unakkis or unakkis asliš “I cut down like lambs”). Similes in kīma-clauses, which represent over 80% of the similes, occur in three syntactic patterns: a) kīma-clause, phrase, verb; b) phrase, kīma-clause, verb; and c) kīma-clause, verb, phrase. It is extremely rare for a kīma-clause to end a sentence. The relative consistency of these patterns can serve as a tool for textual interpretation, and examples are illustrated from the annals of Tiglath-Pileser I (1114-1076) and from the annals of Sennacherib (704-681).
A new transcription, translation and detailed commentar... more A new transcription, translation and detailed commentary of the Akkadian inscription of Idrimi, king of Alalah in Syria dated to the middle of the second milllennium B.C.E. To help with difficult readings semantic parallels are drawn with other similar inscriptions. The influences of the scribe’s native West Semitic are shown in many areas such as the independent pronoun anāku opening the inscription, commencing clauses with verbs, the use of the stative as the West Semitic perfect, and in terms such as bīt abīya (= Heb bêt ‘āb) in the sense of “ancestral home”, of ašābu (= Heb yāšab) in the sense of “to be situated” and kīma ištēn awēli (= Heb ke’îš ‘eḥād) for “like one man.” Literary parallels are drawn with episodes in biblical narratives such as the stories of Jephthah and David, and semantic parallels are noted for biblical themes such as “heaping up of corpses” and “measuring with a rope” = “to execute.”
Volume 3, A Companion to Textual Criticism, Volume Editors Russel E. Fuller and Armin Lange, cons... more Volume 3, A Companion to Textual Criticism, Volume Editors Russel E. Fuller and Armin Lange, consists of the following subvolumes: Volume 3A History of Research edited by Armin Lange and Russell E. Fuller surveys the history of research on the textual criticism and textual history of the Hebrew Bible and its versions in both Judaism and Christianity from its ancient beginnings until today for all of its important versions. Volume 3B Modern Printed Editions of the Jewish Bible and its Christian Versions edited by Richard D. Weis †, Armin Lange, and Russell E. Fuller, provides a comprehensive discussion of the printed editions of the Jewish Scriptures in all of the languages covered in THB 1 and 2 starting from the advent of the printing press in the West. Volume 3C Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism edited by Mika S. Pajunen will address in one place technical terminology, genres and media transmitting biblical texts, the practice of textual criticism, translation theory and translation technique, and theories of textual transmission. Volume 3D Science and Technology edited by Marilyn J. Lundberg brings together information on the science and technologies that increasingly impact and influence not only the decipherment, study and conservation of ancient manuscripts of all types but also the textual criticism of biblical texts itself. Issues of manuscript conservation, analytical tools, and (virtual) manuscript enhancement are thus as much discussed as electronic databases of biblical texts or digital online repositories of biblical manuscripts.
Of the approximately fifteen hundred personal names in the Bible the Masorah designates only nine... more Of the approximately fifteen hundred personal names in the Bible the Masorah designates only ninety or so with a notation that they are personal names. The reason why the Masorah selects these ninety names for special mention is because they are all homonyms. They have the same form, same consonants and vowels as other words, and thus are liable to be confused with those words. This article will survey the usages of Masoretic personal name notations, examine the type of names covered by these notations, explore names that are selected because of specific accents or spelling. One of the surprising results of our analysis of the Masoretic personal naming notes is the discovery that the Masoretes had identified a name that has been ignored by modern scholarship.
Although the Bible knows of some cases where fathers name children, normally when a mother is de... more Although the Bible knows of some cases where fathers name children, normally when a mother is described as having given birth to a child (וַתֵּלֶד בֵּנ) it is she who names the child, not the father. This rule is explicitly stated in a Masoretic note which also points out three notable exceptions, with Er (Gen 38:3), Gershom (Exod 2:22), and Beriah (1 Chr 7:23). In all three cases both ancient and modern scholars read differently and emend the text, but the Masorah, by its note, cautions against any such change. Thus, according to the Masorah, it was Judah who named Er, it was Moses who named Gershom, and Ephraim who named Beriah.
In the Hebrew Bible there are many verses and phrases which are paralleled elsewhere with only mi... more In the Hebrew Bible there are many verses and phrases which are paralleled elsewhere with only minor changes. 1 In accordance with their goal of accurately transmitting the text of the Hebrew Bible the Masoretes assembled numerous lists detailing these variants. Frequently in these lists they employed mnemonic devices to help insure that these variants would be remembered and recorded properly. One of the most interesting of these mnemonic devices was termed by them סימן פסוק ,אחד 2 which literally means "one verse is the siman.
This article describes how the author introduces Masoretic notes in a classroom by means of a mne... more This article describes how the author introduces Masoretic notes in a classroom by means of a mnemonic called PAGIC. The mnemonic provides a framework for understanding the reasons for the vast majority of Masoretic notes and serves to reinforce the students' knowledge of Hebrew grammar as well as helping them appreciate the structure of the biblical text.
The Text of the Hebrew Bible. From the Rabbis to the Masoretes, 2015
In various sessions of the IOMS meetings at the SBL there have been pleas to try and integrate th... more In various sessions of the IOMS meetings at the SBL there have been pleas to try and integrate the Masorah into biblical studies. There have, of course, been many studies on the importance of the Masorah in the area of biblical Hebrew grammar, as well as a few articles showing how the Masorah can be helpful in the interpretation of some biblical passages, but these articles have usually focused on isolated examples. It is the intention of this paper to show that the Masorah can be used as a supplementary tool for elucidating a unified Hebrew text. I will demonstrate my argument by taking as my example the well-known story of Samuel’s birth that occurs in the first chapter of the Book of Samuel.
In the past, there have been many studies on the importance of the Masorah in the area of biblic... more In the past, there have been many studies on the importance of the Masorah in the area of biblical Hebrew grammar, as well as a few articles showing how the Masorah can be helpful in the interpretation of some biblical passages, but these articles have usually focused on isolated examples. This paper will attempt to show that the Masorah can be used as a supplementary tool for elucidating a unified Hebrew text as in the well-known story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife that occurs in chapter 39 of the Book of Genesis. I will endeavor to show that the Masorah can assist the elucidation of this text by determining its parameters, by paying attention to its accents, by pointing out its connectiveness to other texts, and by implicitly pointing out the literary structure of the text.
A New Perspective on Ezra-Nehemiah: Story and History, Literature and Interpretation, 2012
One of the features of the new BHQ is the inclusion on every page of both the Masorah parva and m... more One of the features of the new BHQ is the inclusion on every page of both the Masorah parva and magna of the Leningrad Codex. Only the Masorah parva (Mp) had been published in previous editions of Biblia Hebraica, a diplomatic representation in BHK3, and a revised edition by Gérard E. Weil in BHS. While preparing the fascicle of Ezra-Nehemiah for BHQ, the author noted that some Mp material written in the margins of the Codex had never been published, neither in BHK3 nor in BHS. These are catchwords which are attached to many Mp doublet notes. Most Mp doublet notes are simply marked by the numeral “two,” which indicates that an identical word or phrase occurs somewhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The reader is given no indication as to where that parallel doublet might occur. However, a special group of doublets has catchwords attached to the numeral indicating in what specific verse the parallel doublet occurs. In effect, the catchwords serve as memory aids explicitly reminding the reader where the second form of the parallel doublet is to be found. Examples will be given to show how texts outside of Ezra-Nehemiah were used by the Masoretes to elucidate elements in the text of Ezra-Nehemiah, and examples of the reverse, where the text of Ezra-Nehemiah was used to elucidate parallels in the texts outside of Ezra-Nehemiah. This article will also suggest how these catchwords can be used as a tool for exegesis for the modern biblical scholar.
Essays in Education and Judaism in Honor of Joe Lukinsky, 2002
This paper examines how chapter divisions compare with the parashiyyot, the weekly Synagogue lect... more This paper examines how chapter divisions compare with the parashiyyot, the weekly Synagogue lectional readings and in particular with one test case, parashat וארא. The origin of chapter divisions is traditionally associated with Stephen Langton (13th century). The original impetus of the chapter divisions seems to have been to divide the text into units of sense and into divisions of reasonable length. Chapters often signal time breaks (often introduced by וַיְהִי “and it came to pass”) and many begin with expressions such as (יֹּאמֶר/וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה “The Lord said/spoke to Moses”). When the chapter divisions ignore the Masoretic divisions of petuchot and setumot, particularly those in close proximity to the beginning of a chapter, this must be the result of a different exegesis. The test case analyzed here of parashat Wa’era’ is an example of a Masoretic sectional division which does not correspond with the beginning of a chapter. It is argued that the Masoretic division is to be preferred over the chapter division. Firstly, because the Masoretic division enables the previous parashah to end on a note of hope and encouragement. Secondly, it allows the new parashah to highlight God’s reaffirmation of the בְּרִית between God and the patriarchs. Thirdly, the Masoretic division respects the distinctiveness of the literary unit which starts at verse two of chapter six and continues to verse eight. Finally, the Masoretic division avoids two problems which is produced by the current chapter division. It avoids the problem of the repetition of God speaking in two successive verses without Moses replying, and it avoids the problem of God speaking with two different names.
The form מַנ in the prayer for the king in Psalm 61 verse 8 has constituted an old crux. It has t... more The form מַנ in the prayer for the king in Psalm 61 verse 8 has constituted an old crux. It has traditionally been taken as a piel apocopated imperative from the verb מנה meaning “appoint!”. The ancient versions took it as akin to the Aramaic interrogative מַנ and translated it as “who?”. Because it interrupts the natural grammatical and poetic sense of the verse many suggestions have been made either to emend it or omit it as a gloss. One tantalizing suggestion, revived by Weingreen and Fishbane, is that מַנ represents a proto-Masoretic gloss standing forמָלֵא נוּנ to indicate that the following form יִנְצְרֻהוּis written with the letter nun. A number of objections may be made against this suggestion. One that the earliest we can date Masoretic notations is in the 6th century so the likelihood of such a pre-Masoretic notation going back to before the time of the Greek translation of the Bible is pretty slim. Two, that in our extant Masorahs Masoretes do not comment on the presence or absence of a nun in initial nun verbs. Three, that in these Masorahs the Masoretes themselves not only are unaware that the formמַנ represented an original Masoretic type note but that they themselves apply a different note toמַנ . Finally, it is demonstrated that the form of this putative note does not conform to any other similar Masoretic note since the termמָלֵא is never used to indicate the presence of a consonant but only of a vowel. When the Masorah wishes to indicate a superfluous nun the ketiv and qere notations are used instead. Thus if מַנ represents a Masoretic note it would be the first example of its type.
In certain sections of the Masorah magna of Codex Leningradensis (L) the usual Hebrew simanim, no... more In certain sections of the Masorah magna of Codex Leningradensis (L) the usual Hebrew simanim, normally given as catchwords representing the verses in which the form of the lemma occurs, are replaced by Aramaic mnemonics. This paper describes these mnemonics (of which over forty are preserved in L), explains the problems in their identification, and shows the use that modern scholars may make of these mnemonics. The length of the Aramaic mnemonics in L varies. The vast majority, over two-thirds, consist of three to five words. A sample mnemonic is עבר עבדא ואשׁתבע “the servant passed by and swore” where each Aramaic word of the mnemonic corresponds in some fashion with a Hebrew word in the verse it is representing. The contents of the Aramaic mnemonics are quite diverse. Most consist of amusing and often asyndetical sentences of the type סימנ שׁמעת קרית וכעסת “you heard a sign, you read, and you were angry.” As befits wisdom literature in general, a number of the mnemonics promote wisdom, good conduct and pious behavior as for example: אינתתא עצת והיבת לגברא סיפרא “the wise woman gave a book to the man.” Identification of the mnemonics with their associated biblical verses is sometimes complicated by the fact that part of an Aramaic mnemonic may refer to a section rather than a specific verse. A second problem is that sometimes there are not enough parts of the mnemonic to represent all the verses which the mnemonic is supposed to illustrate. A third problem with the Aramaic mnemonics is that it is not always easy to identify which parts of the mnemonic go with particular biblical verses. Sometimes these type of catchword problems in L may be explained by checking different forms of the mnemonic in other Masorahs.
The form F~ in the prayer for the king in Psalm 61 is an old crux interpretum. It has traditional... more The form F~ in the prayer for the king in Psalm 61 is an old crux interpretum. It has traditionally been taken as api'el apocopated imperative from the verb i1~ 9 meaning "appoint!" The ancient versions took it as akin to the Aramaic interrogative F~ and translated it as "who?" Because the form interrupts the natural grammatical and poetic sense of the verse, many suggestions have been made to emend it, and the form has often been regarded as a gloss without which the verse would read more smoothly. In this paper we will examine the tantalizing suggestion that F~ represents a proto-Masoretic gloss standing for 1' 1 J ~ ' ? 9 to indicate that the following form ' 1 i11 ¥ ~' is written with the letter nun. We raise a number of objections to this proposal and demonstrate that if 1~ represents a Masoretic note it would be the first example of its type.
Although the division of the biblical text into chapters was done on the basis of the Latin Vulga... more Although the division of the biblical text into chapters was done on the basis of the Latin Vulgate it is remarkable how many chapters do correspond with the Masoretic divisions of petuḥah, setumah, and seder. While differences between Masoretic sectional divisions and the chapter divisions have often been noticed, what has not been widely realized is that there are a number of differences among the chapter divisions themselves. In modern Hebrew printed editions only two alternate chapter divisions are noticeable. One is at Genesis 32, where the standard chapter division starts with וַיַּשְׁכֵּמ לָבָנ בַּבֹּקֶר “Laban rose early in the morning,” but an alternate chapter division starts with וְיַעֲקֹב הָלַכְ לְדַרְכּוֹ “Jacob went on his way.” The other is at Numbers 26 where the standard chapter division starts with the words וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה “God spoke to Moses,” whereas an alternate chapter division starts with the preceding three words וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הַמַּגֵּפָה “after the plague.” Many more alternate chapter divisions can be seen in modern Vulgate and Septuagint printed editions, and in modern English translations. In the Pentateuch alone there are ten chapters in which alternate chapter divisions are preserved either in Hebrew printed editions, or in the printed editions of the major versions. Masoretic sectional divisions sometimes coincide with the standard chapter division (Numbers 13), sometimes with the alternate chapter division (Gen 6), and sometimes with both (Deut 29). The existence of these alternate chapter divisions has practical consequences for modern students of the Bible. One is the obvious fact that since different chapter divisions will produce different enumeration of verses the different divison can lead to confusion in citing references. Another is the fact that by starting the chapter at a different place the parameters of the text are then changed and so a different hermeneutic may be produced.
In the Leningrad Codex and BHS, Ps 24:4 has a reading of napšī “my soul” in a context that logica... more In the Leningrad Codex and BHS, Ps 24:4 has a reading of napšī “my soul” in a context that logically demands a reading of napšō “his soul.” In several mss. and in the Rabbinic Bible, there is a qere of napšī “my soul” as well as a ketiv of napšō “his soul.” Some prominent neo-Massoretes such as Elijah Levitas and Solomon Norzi have rejected this qere reading by suggesting that the yod of napšī is the result of a scribal error, and that it really represents a minuscule waw. This paper will survey the history of this debate, examine the nature of the minuscule letters, and suggest that the minuscule waw might have originated from a misunderstood abbreviation of the Tetragrammaton.
Cahiers de la Revue Biblique : La Bible en face. Études textuelles et littéraires offertes en homage à Adrian Schenker à l’occasion de ses quatre-vingts ans, 2020
One of the main characteristics of the Masorah of the Leningrad Codex (= ML) is that it exhibits ... more One of the main characteristics of the Masorah of the Leningrad Codex (= ML) is that it exhibits a certain consistency.The Masorah of the books of the Torah are typologically the same as the books of the Prophets and the same as the books of the Writings. Thus it is no surprise that the Masoretic notes in the book of Daniel conform to the nature of their counterparts in the other books. However, this conformity is not found in the Aramaic section of Daniel (2:4b-7:28). There the Masoretic notes exhibit differences that are not found in notes on other parts of the Bible. The differences are seen in four areas: (1) in notes that indicate differences between Hebrew and Aramaic forms; (2) in notes that indicate differences of forms within Aramaic; (3) in the occurrence of a preponderance of collative notes indicating hapax legomina; and (4) in the occurrence of mnemonics based on Aramaic words.
This paper discusses a detail in the Epic of Gilgamesh where it is believed that the Biblical flo... more This paper discusses a detail in the Epic of Gilgamesh where it is believed that the Biblical flood story can shed light on some questions in the Akkadian text. The pertinent Akkadian lines occur in that part of the story when Utnapishtim in anticipation of the forthcoming deluge boards his gigantic ship. According to the standard English translations Utnapishtim entrusts his ship to Puzur-amurru the boatman for the purpose of caulking it. But these renderings are shown to be faulty on lexical and syntactical grounds. First, the word translated as “ship” is really a palace (ēkallu) and this word never denotes in Akkadian a ship or boat. Second, the phrase ana pe-ḫe-e ša elippi cannot be interpreted as as infinitive in a purpose clause (“to seal the boat”) because the object of the infinitive in Akkadian does not take the relative pronoun ša. Rather the phrase is to be explained as a nominal one meaning “to the pēḫû, that is, to the caulker, of the ship,” and it to the caulker of the ship, to Puzur-Amurri, that Utnapishtim gave his palace together with its contents. Since caulking can be done both inside and outside a boat the biblical account which has a similar sequence of events as the Gilgamesh passage helps clarify the Akkadian text. The biblical account states that the Lord shut Noah in (wayyisgōr YHWH ba’adô Gen 7:16), that is, the Lord caulked Noah in from the outside, so it likely that in the Gilgamesh narrative the caulker (Puzur-Amurri) worked from the outside. Thus Puzur-Amurri is not the navigator of the boat, and does not accompany Utnapishtim. Rather he is the caulker of the boat, the one who seals Utnapishtim in. As a reward for his work, Puzur-Amurri is given Utnapishtim’s palace and its furnishings.
A study of the animal similes used in the Assyrian royal inscriptions starting from Shalmeneser I... more A study of the animal similes used in the Assyrian royal inscriptions starting from Shalmeneser I (1274-45) till the time of Assurbanipal (668-27). These similes were used as literary devices to relate movements on and off the battlefield, to portray actions of the king, his army and his foes. The animals are classified according to the following categories: a) wild animals, b) domestic animals, c) birds, and d) insects, reptiles, and fish. The usage of these similes in context is studied and the symbolic significance for each animal is discussed. In analyzing the structure of these similes it is observed that certain animals usually appear together with certain verbs (e.g. “raging [nadāru] like a lion [labbu] or trampling [dâšu] like a wild bull [rēmu]). This finding can on occasion be helpful in translating difficult passages (so the simile kīma šūbe ušna’’il cannot be translated “I cut down like sheep,” rather “I cut down like emmer”). The similes occur in fixed patterns, using either a noun with the adverbial iš or āniš (e.g. labbiš “like a lion”) or a noun with the preposition kî or kīma (e.g kīma labbi “like a lion”). Animals occurring with iš endings immediately precede or follow verbs (e.g. asliš unakkis or unakkis asliš “I cut down like lambs”). Similes in kīma-clauses, which represent over 80% of the similes, occur in three syntactic patterns: a) kīma-clause, phrase, verb; b) phrase, kīma-clause, verb; and c) kīma-clause, verb, phrase. It is extremely rare for a kīma-clause to end a sentence. The relative consistency of these patterns can serve as a tool for textual interpretation, and examples are illustrated from the annals of Tiglath-Pileser I (1114-1076) and from the annals of Sennacherib (704-681).
A new transcription, translation and detailed commentar... more A new transcription, translation and detailed commentary of the Akkadian inscription of Idrimi, king of Alalah in Syria dated to the middle of the second milllennium B.C.E. To help with difficult readings semantic parallels are drawn with other similar inscriptions. The influences of the scribe’s native West Semitic are shown in many areas such as the independent pronoun anāku opening the inscription, commencing clauses with verbs, the use of the stative as the West Semitic perfect, and in terms such as bīt abīya (= Heb bêt ‘āb) in the sense of “ancestral home”, of ašābu (= Heb yāšab) in the sense of “to be situated” and kīma ištēn awēli (= Heb ke’îš ‘eḥād) for “like one man.” Literary parallels are drawn with episodes in biblical narratives such as the stories of Jephthah and David, and semantic parallels are noted for biblical themes such as “heaping up of corpses” and “measuring with a rope” = “to execute.”
After the death of Sargon II (721-705) a revolt was staged against the king of Ashkelon by Sidqa.... more After the death of Sargon II (721-705) a revolt was staged against the king of Ashkelon by Sidqa. When Sennacherib (704-681) put down this uprising he deported Sidqa and placed Sarruludari on the throne. This paper addresses the question of which king Sida overthrew: Sharruludari or his father Rukibtu? The problem arises because of an assumed ambiguity in the Akkadian text of the annals of Sennacherib which is our only source of information. There it is stated that Sennacherbib restored Sharruludari, son of Rukibtu, their former king (šarrašunu maḫrû). But who was the former king: Shaurrludari or Rukibtu? The problem is solved by the application of the well-known rules of attribution in Akkadian whereby an adjective agrees with its noun in number, gender and case. Because it preserves case endings Akkadian is able to avoid difficulties in allocation of attributes which Biblical Hebrew sometimes cannot, although on many occasions the Massoretic accents are often very helpful. In this case, the rules of attribution clearly show that it was Sharruludari who was the former king. It was Sharruludari against whom Sidqa revolted and it was Sharruludari whom Sennacherib restored to the throne of Ashkelon.
Rib Haddi, prince of Byblos, was one of the most prolific writers reporting to the Egyptian court... more Rib Haddi, prince of Byblos, was one of the most prolific writers reporting to the Egyptian court during the Amarna period. Sixty-nine of his letters are extant and they constitute the largest single corpus found at Amarna. In his letters he uses two famous analogies. One “like a bird in a birdtrap/cage, so am I in Byblos” is used to describe his forced confinement in Byblos. The other “my field, for lack of plowing, is like a woman without a husband” illustrates the dire straits Byblos was in as a result of the Hapiru incursions. Rib Haddi’s point is that because of enemy activity conditions around Byblos were so dangerous that the fields could not be properly cultivated. This article discusses the Sumerian and Akkadian forerunners to this analogy and analyzes in detail the Amarna text. It is shown that, just as is true of the Byblian dialect as a whole, so also this analogy is heavily influenced by the scribe’s native Canaanite.
An analysis of G. R. Driver’s claim that the Hebrew waw consecutive may be explained on the basi... more An analysis of G. R. Driver’s claim that the Hebrew waw consecutive may be explained on the basis of a conflation of East Semitic (Akkadian) and West Semitic (Aramaic) verbal forms within Hebrew. In particular it examines Driver’s contention that the Akkadian stative fom (paris) can help explain the Hebrew perfect consecutive form (weqātal) because the stative has a universal meaning of past, present or future. Driver cited eight examples of Akkadian stative forms allegedly having a future meaning but only one of these is shown to have such a meaning. The writer concludes that Driver has not made his case and that the stative in Akkadian does not have a future meaning so that it cannot be used to explain the Hebrew waw-consecutive construction.
The familiar cases of royal abuses in the Ahab-Naboth incident (1 Kings 21) and the David-Bathshe... more The familiar cases of royal abuses in the Ahab-Naboth incident (1 Kings 21) and the David-Bathsheba affair (2 Samuel 11) are used as illustrations of the limits of royal power in ancient Israel. In both cases kings were rebuked by prophets and admitted their guilt. Kings in Israel were not exempt from civil law and did not have the right to expropriate property of their citizens nor engage in adulterous affairs with their wives. A similar situation is found in Mesopotamia. Kings who wished to acquire property had to go through legal formalities just like any other citizen and could not increase their holdings by simple requisition or expropriation. Neither was it likely that a Mesopotamian king would have regularly engaged in adulterous relationships with the wives of his subjects. In the first place, all known Mesopotamian legal compilations treat even consentive adultery most severely and there is no reason to believe that the king was not bound by these laws. Second, the Mesopotamian king was very closely guarded making casual social intercourse almost impossible. Thirdly, most Mesopotamian kings had such large harems that they had no need to recourse to married women outside the harem. Finally, throughout the ancient Near East a married or bethrothed woman was considered a man’s property. Since one of the inalienable rights of a Mesopotamian was that of holding property there is no reason to believe that the king could, if he so desired, take possession of another man’s wife with impunity. In both Israel and Mesopotamia the law was impersonal and supreme and in both societies kings were subject to the law. Thus by restricting the authority of the ruler the rights of the individual in both societies were protected.
JSOT SuppSer 273: Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon, 1997
Support is offerred for the suggestion made by Frank Zimmermann that the book of Nehemiah was tra... more Support is offerred for the suggestion made by Frank Zimmermann that the book of Nehemiah was translated from Aramaic. The evidence includes external factors, such as the fact that the Jews who returned from Babylonia during the Persian period spoke Aramaic, and that parts of the book of Ezra (which in antiquity was considered together with Nehemiah as one book) are actually extant in Aramaic (suggesting that other parts of the book may also have been written in Aramaic but were later translated), and that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah do not have a Targum (which would have been unnecessary if the books were originally written in Aramaic). Within the book itself it can be shown that there are not only many late biblical Hebrew constructions but that there are many which are demonstrably Aramaic and often called calques. Calques are Hebrew forms which occur in a manner expected of Aramaic morphology and syntax, but not that of biblical Hebrew (e.g. “long live the king!” is normally expressed in Hebrew asיְחִי הַמֶּלֶכְ but it occurs it Nehemiah as הַמֶּלֶכְ לְעוֹלָמ יִחְיֶה reflecting Aramaic מַלְכָּא לְעָלְמִינ חֱיִי). A further clue to a possible translation can be seen in the examples of bad or mistranslations. These are cases where a Hebrew translator misunderstood the intent of the author’s written Aramaic (e.g. the prophet Noadiah is termed הַנְּבִיאָה a misunderstanding of the original Aramaic form נְבִיָּא which the translator thought was a feminine absolute form rather than a masculine emphatic). Finally, support for the translation theory is to be found in the Peshitta version, which preserves in its extant text the original forms from which the mistranslations occurred and thus can corroborate the original Aramaic from which the translator mistranslated.
Visions of Life in Biblical Times: Essays in Honor of Meir Lubetski, 2015
Because the Aramaic versions are written in a language cognate to Hebrew they can help elucidate ... more Because the Aramaic versions are written in a language cognate to Hebrew they can help elucidate problematic Hebrew texts. One way is by using different grammatical forms than those used in Hebrew, and another is by choice of lexicon, especially the use or non-use of Hebrew cognates. By using different grammatical forms the Aramaic versions can often help us better understand the syntax of a verse and, by avoidance of Hebrew cognates, these versions can often implicitly inform us to the presence of paronomasia in the Hebrew text. A good example of how the Aramaic versions help in these two areas may be seen in the burning bush episode in Exod 3:1-4, where there are two interpretive problems in the Hebrew text. One has to do with the analysis of the formאֻכָּל in the phrase וְהַסְּנֶה אֵינֶנּוּ אֻכָּל “the bush was (not) being consumed,” and the other has to do with resolving what appears to be a contradiction involving the burning bush itself.
Hidden Treasure: Doublet Catchwords in the Leningrad Codex, 2019
2019. Hidden Treasure: Doublet Catchwords in the Leningrad Codex. Texts and Studies. Piscataway:... more 2019. Hidden Treasure: Doublet Catchwords in the Leningrad Codex. Texts and Studies. Piscataway: N.J., Gorgias Press.
Scribal Wit: The Aramaic Mnemonics of the Leningrad Code, 2014
2014. Scribal Wit: The Aramaic Mnemonics of the Leningrad Code. Texts and Studies. Piscataway: N... more 2014. Scribal Wit: The Aramaic Mnemonics of the Leningrad Code. Texts and Studies. Piscataway: N.J., Gorgias Press
The Masorah of the Former Prophets in the Leningrad Codex:, 2017
The Masorah of the Former Prophets in the Leningrad Codex: Vols. 1-5. Introduction and Joshua, ... more The Masorah of the Former Prophets in the Leningrad Codex: Vols. 1-5. Introduction and Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings. Texts and Studies 14. Piscataway: N.J., Gorgias Press.
This book is designed to introduce students to the morphology and syntax of Babylonian Jewish Ara... more This book is designed to introduce students to the morphology and syntax of Babylonian Jewish Aramaic (= Talmudic Aramaic). The method adopted is the inductive one whereby grammar is learnt directly as it is encountered in the text. The texts used are mainly aggadic, thus enabling the student to concentrate more fully on their linguistic aspects. Halachic texts are, of course, not ignored, but are left to later sessions when the student is more able, from a grammatical point of view, to deal with them. The book is aimed at enabling beginning students to utilize the standard printed Talmud editions with the aid of Jastrows’s or Sokoloff’s Dictionary.
Jephthah and His Vow
This book challenges the widespread opinion that Jepthah literally put his... more Jephthah and His Vow
This book challenges the widespread opinion that Jepthah literally put his daughter to death. It maintains that the almost unanimous support this opinon has received in recent years is not justified and that the alternate conclusion that the daughter was not put to death but had to remain a virgin, consecrated to God, for the remainder of her life has equal, if not more, validity. Marcus demonstrates that the Hebrew text of the story is often ambiguous and is open to different interpretations. He analyzes the history of the exegesis, the original intent of the vow, as well as biblical and non-biblical literary parallels. Marcus concludes that the evidence is such that both conclusions for the fate of Jephthah’s daughter are equally possible, and that this very ambivalence was in fac the original intention of the narrator.
1990. J. C. de Moor, and Klass Spronk. A Cuneiform Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. Re... more 1990. J. C. de Moor, and Klass Spronk. A Cuneiform Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. Reviewed in JAOS 110:761-62.
Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, 2004
2004. Edward D. Herbert, and Emanuel Tov, The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean De... more 2004. Edward D. Herbert, and Emanuel Tov, The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Reviewed in Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 98/2:233-34.
2002. Mark S. Smith, M., Untold Stories. The Bible and Ugaritic Studies in the Twentieth Century.... more 2002. Mark S. Smith, M., Untold Stories. The Bible and Ugaritic Studies in the Twentieth Century. Reviewed in JAOS 122:87-88
2002. Herbert Chanan Brichto, The Names of God: Poetic Readings in Biblical Beginnings. Reviewed... more 2002. Herbert Chanan Brichto, The Names of God: Poetic Readings in Biblical Beginnings. Reviewed in AJS Review 26.2:349-50.
2000. Stefan C. Reif, Hebrew Manuscripts at Cambridge University Library. Reviewed in JNES 59:13... more 2000. Stefan C. Reif, Hebrew Manuscripts at Cambridge University Library. Reviewed in JNES 59:131-32.
1999. Timothy G. Crawford, Page. H. Kelley, and Daniel S. Mynatt, The Masorah of Biblia Hebraic... more 1999. Timothy G. Crawford, Page. H. Kelley, and Daniel S. Mynatt, The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Review of Biblical Literature. http://www.bookreviews.org/rblSearch.asp
1997. Marth Roth, T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Reviewed in JSS 42/2:361-... more 1997. Marth Roth, T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Reviewed in JSS 42/2:361-62.
1995. Samuel E. Loewenstamm, From Babylon to Canaan: Studies in the Bible and its Oriental Back... more 1995. Samuel E. Loewenstamm, From Babylon to Canaan: Studies in the Bible and its Oriental Background. Reviewed in JAOS 115/3:52
1993. Shalom David Sperling, Students of the Covenant: A History of Jewish Biblical Scholarship ... more 1993. Shalom David Sperling, Students of the Covenant: A History of Jewish Biblical Scholarship in North America. Reviewed in Critical Review of Books:180-81.
1992. M. C. A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugarit and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. Revie... more 1992. M. C. A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugarit and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. Reviewed in AJS Review 17/2:279-81.
1991. Edward M. Cook, ed. Sopher Mahir: Northwest Semitic Studies Presented to Stanislav Segert.... more 1991. Edward M. Cook, ed. Sopher Mahir: Northwest Semitic Studies Presented to Stanislav Segert. Reviewed in Hebrew Studies 32:84-88.
1990. J. C. de Moor, and Klass Spronk. A Cuneiform Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. Re... more 1990. J. C. de Moor, and Klass Spronk. A Cuneiform Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. Reviewed in JAOS 110:761-62.
JANES: Near Eastern Studies in Memory of M. M. Bravmann, 1981
The use of euphemisms as a linguistic device was used by all Semitic speaking peoples to avoid in... more The use of euphemisms as a linguistic device was used by all Semitic speaking peoples to avoid infelicitous or offensive concepts such as death, urination, and excretion. A special type of euphemism is called antiphrastic in which a term connotes the opposite of its literal meaning (e.g. ‘brave’ said of a coward). What distinguishes an antiphrastic euphemism from irony or sarcasm is that the latter depends on the context in which the word is employed and may have its normal meaning in other context whereas once a term has gained acceptance as an antiphrasis it is not used again in its literal sense. For example the Hebrew phrase me’ôr ‘ênayim lit. “light of eyes” is an antiphrasis denoting a blind man but the components of this antiphrasis will not revert to their original meanings (‘light’ and ‘eyes’) unless they are outside of the antiphrasis construction (construct-genitive). The construct-genitive nature of antiphrasis euphemisms is attested in other Semitic languages such as Akkadian damqa īni and Aramaic saggî nāhôr both terms also denoting blindness. A dysphemism is the antonym of a euphemism but unlike a euphemism which substitutes a wholesome expression for a distasteful one (‘beautiful’ for ‘ugly’) a dysphemism does the opposite (substitutes ‘ugly’ for ‘beautiful’). One noted antiphrastic dysphemism in Hebrew is ‘aqeret habbayit lit. “barren of the house” which comes to denote a housewife (with children). This article rejects the interpretation that ‘aqeret in this idiom is a homonym or should be repointed to ‘iqqeret. The phrase is an antiphrastic euphemism which when it gained acceptance was never used again to denote a barren woman (rather ‘aqārā was then only used). The origin of the antiphrasis is midrashic and the phrase was associated by the Rabbis with ‘iqqār ‘chief thing.’ Rachel who was an ‘aqārā is described as an ‘aqeret habbayit because she was the ‘iqqār ‘chief’ of Jacob’s household. Hence the phrase ‘aqeret habbayit was popularly used to denote a housewife and was not used again to denote a barren women.
Four Akkadian terms with similar forms and meanings are held to be antiphrastic euphemisms for a ... more Four Akkadian terms with similar forms and meanings are held to be antiphrastic euphemisms for a blind person. Arguments are based on the synonymity of these terms and their associations with other terms for a blind person, on the fact that Akkadian is apparently deficient in terms for expressing a blind person, and on the fact that the forms have parallels in antiphrastic constructions and meanings in other Semitic languages.
This article is another study in “semantic lexicography”, a study of how the Semitic languages ex... more This article is another study in “semantic lexicography”, a study of how the Semitic languages express a term or concept in contrast to the usual lexicographic articles concentrating on etymologies or comparison of roots. It examines how the Semitic languages render the term “chin,” one of the least commond words to express parts of the face. Unlike many other facial parts the chin is usually not found in idioms nor in metaphorical expressions, although it may be used figuratively in Akkadian for “dung,” “dung beetle,” or “scarab.” It has often been thought that since the chin is the place where the main part of the beard grows that the term for chin is the same as that for beard. This study shows that only Ugaritic uses the same term (dqn) for both chin and beard. Akkadian, Syriac, Late Hebrew, and Classical Arabic have separate words for chin and beard, while Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic have words for beard but none for chin. All the Semitic languages except Classical Arabic have the same word for beard (Akkadian ziqnu, Ugaritic dqn, Biblical Hebrew zāqān, Aramaic-Syriac da/iqnā’, but Arabic liḥya). This can also be demonstrated by a perusal of how the plant tragopogon (lit. “goat’s beard”) is distributed in the Semitic languages (Akk. ziqin enzi, Heb zeqan hattayiš, Syr. daqnā’ de tayšā’, Arab. liḥyat attays). The words for chin vary. Akkadian uses s/zuqtu and kan/mzūzu, Ugaritic dqn, Late Hebrew sanṭēr, Syriac zanqā’ and kalzūzā’, and Arabic ḏa/iqan. However, three of these words are probably loan words Late Hebrew sanṭēr [from Greek], Syriac zanqā’ [from Persian] and kalzūzā’ [from Akkadian] illustrating again the paucity of terminology for the word “chin” in the Semitic languages.
This article is a study in “semantic lexicography,” a study of how the Semitic languages express ... more This article is a study in “semantic lexicography,” a study of how the Semitic languages express a term or concept in contrast to the usual lexicographic articles concentrating on etymologies or comparison of roots. The case examined here is how the Semitic languages render the term “coffin.” Despite much material evidence for the existence and use of coffins in the ancient Near East terms for ‘coffin’ are porly attested in the Semitic languages. This is especially true for Akkadian considering that the archaeological evidence shows that so many different type of actual coffins were in use yet we have only one text where the term coffin is attested. To denote a coffin many of the Semitic languages use a term for box or use loanwords. The distribuition of the term ‘coffin’ in the Semitic languages is as follows: Akkadian (arānu), Phoenician ‘rn/ḥlt, Hebrew ‘ārôn, Aramaic ‘arônā’//ḥlt’/gelôsqemā’ (a Greek loanword), Syriac dūpnā’/gelûsqemā’ (a Greek loanword), Arabic tābūt (an Egypytian loanword)/nāwūs (a Greek loanword). Because there does exist in Ugaritic a word arn meaning ‘box’ it is reasonable to assume that this would also have been the term used to express ‘coffin’ in Ugaritic. The short text in which the Ugaritic word arn occurs (UT 118) is held to be a list of equipment of a craftsman called Kurwa who was most possibly a jeweller by trade.
Epigraphy, Iconography, and the Bible. Meir Lubetski ed. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press., 2021
This paper challenges the prevailing point of view among modern commentators about Gideon’s famo... more This paper challenges the prevailing point of view among modern commentators about Gideon’s famous requests in Judges 6 for signs of assurance from God that he was to be the promised savior of the Israelites. Gideon asked for dew on the fleece and dryness on the surrounding land, and then for the reverse, dryness on the fleece and wetness on the surrounding land. Contrary to the prevailing opinion, it will be argued that everything that Gideon requested proved to be significant in order to provide him with signs of assurance. Gideon’s requests belong to a mantic type of revelation found elsewhere in the Bible and the Ancient Near East called reversible signs. Gideon’s signs also closely parallel the story of Abraham’s servant on his mission of finding a wife for Isaac. Both of these stories have a number of structural and linguistic correspondences with each other and fit a pattern for a certain type of test of assurance. In this pattern an individual calls on God for a sign which will take the form of a two-part test. It is necessary for both parts of the test to come to fruition to reassure the petitioner.
The Man and His Mission Ezra whose name means "help" (possibly a shortened form for ָה ְי ַר... more The Man and His Mission Ezra whose name means "help" (possibly a shortened form for ָה ְי ַר ֲז ע "The Lord has helped," the name of two of his ancestors (7:1, 3)) was, along with Nehemiah, one of the two notable figures of the post-exilic community in Judah (sixth-fifth century B.C.E.). His work is known from the last three chapters (7-10) of the book that bears his name, and from chapter 8 of the book of Nehemiah (see *Ezra and Nehemiah, Book of). Ezra was both a priest, whose ancestry is traced back to Aaron (7:1-5), and a scribe "well versed in the law of Moses" (v. 6, 11). Just as another Persian king, *Cyrus , had done in his time (538), so also one of his successors, *Artaxerxes I (465-424), issued a royal edict to Ezra granting permission for Jews to go with him to Jerusalem. Ezra was permitted to bring with him gold and silver donations from other Jews, and regular maintenance expenses of the Temple were to be provided from the royal treasury. Ezra's mission was "to expound the law of the Lord" and "to teach laws and rules to Israel" (v. 10). For this purpose he was granted not only a royal subsidy, but he was also empowered to appoint judges, enforce religious law, and even to apply the death penalty. In response to critics who argue that such a concern by a Persian king for a foreign cult would be unlikely, the Passover papyrus issued by *Darius II in 419/18 to the Jews at Elephantine in Egypt regarding the date and method for celebrating the Passover (Porten) has often been cited. Nevertheless, the question of imperial authorization of Jewish law by the Persian Empire continues to be a subject of debate (Watts).
BOOKS OF, two books in the Hagiographa (i.e., the Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah), which w... more BOOKS OF, two books in the Hagiographa (i.e., the Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah), which were originally a single work. The Masoretic tradition regarded the books of Ezra and Nehemiah as one book and referred to it as the Book of Ezra. This was also the Greek tradition, and the same Greek name, Esdras, was given to both books (see below). The division into separate books does not occur until the time of Origen (fourth century C.E.) and this division was transferred into the Vulgate where the books are called I Esdras (Ezra) and II Esdras (Nehemiah). It was not until the 15 th century that Hebrew manuscripts, and subsequently all modern printed Hebrew editions, followed this practice of dividing the books. However, there are good reasons (linguistic, literary, and thematic) for the argument that the two books were originally separate works (Kraemer), which were brought together by a later compiler, and are now to be read as a single unit (Grabbe).
Noah’s sending out the raven and the dove are well-known features of the biblical flood narrative... more Noah’s sending out the raven and the dove are well-known features of the biblical flood narrative. However, many modern scholars believe that the raven episode is a later insertion or has been misplaced because it interrupts the literary structure of a three-fold sending out of birds such as is present in the immediately following verses and in other ancient Near Eastern flood narratives such as the epic of Gilgamesh. The mission of the raven is also suspect because it was considered an unsuccessful experiment from which Noah did not learn anything. The Rabbis of the Talmud and the Church Fathers were both in agreement that the raven did not complete its mission (according to the Rabbis the raven never left the ark but flew around it), and this tradition may also be seen in the Septuagint, Peshitta, and some Vulgate translations that interpret the ambiguous phrase in the text (וַיֵּצֵא יָצוֹא וָשׁוֹב “it went out going out and returning”) as though the raven did not return to Noah. However many medieval and modern commentators believe that the raven did perform a vital service for Noah (since it did go out and did return) and that this mission can be deduced from traits belonging exclusively to that bird. However the traits widely cited in modern commentaries (scavenger or its ability to scout for land) would not have been the ones likely to have been useful to Noah. The trait most likely to have helped Noah is the raven’s ability to endure inclement weather conditions. Thus it is concluded that, contrary to the widespread ancient and modern assumptions, the raven’s mission can be viewed as a useful experiment and can be seen as another justification for including Noah on par with other legendary ancient Near Eastern flood heroes to whom extraordinary wisdom was attributed.
"You Shall Not See My Face Unless Your Brother Is With You": Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptiures, 2000
Two major traditional Jewish responses have emerged to address the problem of Jacob’s acquiring h... more Two major traditional Jewish responses have emerged to address the problem of Jacob’s acquiring his father Isaac’s blessing through deception. The first acknowledges that the deception was wrong and holds that Jacob was punished later on for his action according the principle of “measure for measure.” Others attempt to shift the blame for the deception to Rebecca or even to Isaac himself. Rebecca’s motivation is explained on the grounds that she was simply making sure that God’s plan would not be frustrated and that Jacob would receive the blessing promised to him in the womb. If Isaac was complicit in the affair then a number of questions arising in the text might be explained such as why Isaac pretended not to be able to recognize Jacob or recognized Esau’s skin or why he pretended not to notice the switch of domesticated meat for game. A more popular variant of the attempt to shift the blame for the deception from Jacob to Isaac is the one which holds that Isaac misled himself. But this point of view requires that two verses be interpreted homiletically. The second major response to Jacob’s deception was to justify it. One way of doing that was to claim that at the time of the blessing Jacob was the legal Esau since he had acquired the rights of the first born in the pottage episode. Another approach to view the deception in theological terms and that justification for Jacob’s conduct was based on the fact that the blessing had already been prenatally promised by God to Jacob when Rebecca consulted the oracle. Jacob, in doing what he had to do was acting not deceitfully but adroitly. The results of this theological approach where “the goal justifies the means” curiously coincide with many modern views of the narrative which sees Jacob as an ancestral hero employing classic trickster techniques to outdo his rival.
JANES: Semitic Studies in Memory of Moshe Held, 1989
At the beginning of chapter eleven of the book of Judges Jephthah and the elders engage in a dial... more At the beginning of chapter eleven of the book of Judges Jephthah and the elders engage in a dialogue about the conditions under which he would come back and lead Israel against the Ammonite enemy. The standard interpretation is that the elders only wanted Jephthah to be a qāṣîn ‘a commander’ of the army. When Jephthah refused, the elders escalated their offer to that of rô’s ‘governor’ of all Gilead, and it is this offer which Jephthah accepted. This paper demonstrates that the negotiations between Jephthah and the elders did not focus on the level of Jephthah’s appointment, whether he was to be a commander (qāṣîn) or a governor (rô’s). Rather the negotiations centered around a dispute over Jephthah’s disinheritance and the condition on which Jephthah insisted, and to which the elders eventually accepted, was that he be restored to his rightful inheritance. Jephthah’s refusal is couched in a rhetorical question format introduced by maddû’a “why?” which not only underlines his rejection of their offer but indicates his incredulity that, considering what the elders in their capacity as a legalcourt did to him, they would come to him for aid. For their part, the elders couch their recognition of Jephthah’s claim by use of the adverb lāken “very well then” which is used in other contexts to acknowledge an objection. The elders state in effect that they do not disagree, they did disinherit him and as a gesture of reconciliation are now offering him the position of leader. The condition for which Jephthah was willing to go fight the Ammonites was that he be reinstated (‘im mešîbîm ‘attem ‘ôtî), a phrase which is the exact semantic equivalent of Akkadian turra ana “to restore” shown to be also used for reinstatement in a Nuzi adoption contract.
There are a number of similarities and differences between juvenile delinquency in the ancient Ne... more There are a number of similarities and differences between juvenile delinquency in the ancient Near East and modern times. The first difference is that in modern times a juvenile delinquent is defined as one below a certain age, whereas in ancient times delinquency was not defined by age but by the fact that the child committed anti-social acts while still under the parents’ authority, presumably while still living in the parents’ home. The second difference is that truancy, a social problem in our day and constituting delinquency, was not a problem in ancient times because there was no universal education. The third and sharpest difference is in the area of criminal law. Contrary to modern policy there was no special protection granted to juveniles in criminal cases. The similarities are in the area of civil or status offenses. Much of our evidence from Mesopotamia comes from adoption contracts which spell out in detail the expected duties of the adoptee and it can reasonably be assumed that the situations described in these tablets reflect similar situations with respect to natural parents as well. In all cases of juvenile delinquency one or both parents had to go to court indicating that the concept of patria potestas did not prevail in the Ancient Near East. Also an examination of cases from Mesopotamia and the Bible shows that a type of First Offender’s Act was known. A common denominator of juvenile delinquency in most of the cases is that of contempt to parents which could take a number of forms including willful and repeated disobedience of parents and completely rejecting their authority, running away or not providing a parent with proper maintenance. This type of contempt is also reflected in legal sections of the Hebrew Bible in the use of the verb leqallēl “to disrespect” which is the antonym of lekabbēd “to respect.” The classic case of juvenile delinquency in the Bible is with that of the incorrigible son of Deuteronomy 21 where the delinquent is termed a sôrēr umôreh lit “recalcitrant and rebellious” and also accused of being a zôlēl wesōbē’ “a glutton and drunkard” which may epitomize the dissolute manner a juvenile delinquent was thought to act. Elisha’s cursing of the rude boys of Bethel (2 Kings 2:23-25) can be interepreted in the light of concepts of respect to parents and authority figures.
Early in his career Jephthah was the victim of fraternal rivaly and had to suffer the indignity o... more Early in his career Jephthah was the victim of fraternal rivaly and had to suffer the indignity of being driven out of his ancestral home by his younger half-brothers. Since Jephthah was a gibbôr ḥayil “able warrior” his brothers could not have driven him out by force but they must have done so through a legal process. His disinheritance cannot have been, as is often assumed, because he was the son of a prostitute (‘iššāh zônāh) because in ancient Israelite law the inheritability of children depended not on the mother, but on the father, and in ancient near eastern law there was no reason why a son of a prostitute could not inherit. This article demonstrates that Jephthah had originally been legitimated (adopted) by his father Gilead. Although he was Jephthah’s natural father Gilead also legitimated (adopted) him to remove all doubt (which was possible considering his wife’s former profession) about the paternity of Jephthah. When Gilead died, Jephthah’s half brothers challenged his adoption and they succeeded in having his adoption revoked by the elders. As a condition for going to fight for Israel, Jephthah insisted on being reinstated as a legitimate son and having his legal rights restored to him. That Jephthah was adopted is demonstrated by the legal terminology used his dialogue with the elders trying to persuade him to enlist his help. Jephthah uses terms which in Mesopotamian texts indicate revocation (śānē’ lit “to hate” = Akk zêru) and annulment (gērrēš lit. “to drive out” = Akk ṭarādu) of adoption agreements. Jephthah’s condition to be reinstated is formulated in a legal phrase (lehāšîb ‘et lit. “to return) which is the semantic equivalent of Akk turra ana, which in the context of adoption contracts means to “reinstate”. Jephthah’s use of these legal phrases having to do with revocation, disinheriting, and restoration provide additional corroboration of the existence of adoption in ancient Israel. Jephthah succeeded in obtaining a reversal of the elders’ ruling and was reinstated as legitimate son with legal rights to his father’s estate
The function of deception in the Bible has been explained as a narrative technique to reveal char... more The function of deception in the Bible has been explained as a narrative technique to reveal character, add humor, create suspense, or, in a military context, help the weaker party in a conflict. The longest continuous story in the Bible, that of King David, abound in deception and intrigue. Throughout the story David himself is involved in many acts of deception. Some he initiates as deceiver and with some he is on the receiving end as dupe. There are two major trends. When David is young, commencing his career, both his attempts at initiating deception and countering deceptive acts against him are successful. After the Bathsheba incident his fortunes in this area change. In these stories one also finds a pattern of “measure for measure.” Observing this pattern is especially helpful in understanding Uriah’s actions in the Bathsheba story and in understanding the events described in 1 Kings 1. Uriah’s refusal while on furlough to go home to Bathsheba is held to be a strategem to avoid the paternity of David’s child being attributed to him. David is duped by Nathan and Bathsheba into proclaiming Solomon his successor.
The story related towards the end of the book of Judges about the migration of the tribe of Dan t... more The story related towards the end of the book of Judges about the migration of the tribe of Dan to the north and their unlawful appropriation of Micah’s cult objects and priest is a satire against the sanctuary considered illegitimate by the Judean author. Most scholars assume that another element of illegality occurs at the beginning of the story in connection with Micah’s molten image. It is thought that this image was financed with stolen money and that the thief was none other than Micah himself. Micah had stolen money belonging to his mother and she, unaware that he was the thief, cursed the thief in Micah’s presence. Micah then admitted to the theft brought her back the money after which his mother, in order to neutralize the curse, blesses him. She then dedicated this money to God by having an molten image made which was placed in Micah’s shrine. This article takes issue with this interpretation for the following reasons. One, that the general assumption that blessings can neutralize or nullify a previous course is unfounded. Two, that the blessing that Micah’s mother addressed to him ( בָּרוּכְ בְּנִי לַיהוָה “blessed of the Lord be my son”) is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only as a blessing for some act of goodness performed or as a greeting. Hence it was given not to offset a previous curse but because Micah has performed a meritorious deed. Three, the assumption that Micah admitted to stealing the silver is mistaken. The clause לֻקַּח־לָכְ, used to describe the silver, does not mean, “(silver that) was taken from you,” but rather “set aside for you.” Four, the form (אָלִית) does not mean “you cursed,” but “you made an oath.” Thus, the verse does not indicate that Micah’s mother had pronounced a curse on someone who had taken the money, but rather describes the silver as having been dedicated to Yahweh. Finally, the verbal form that was thought to mean that Micah to his mother returned her stolen money (וַיָּשֶׁב) can have a much more neutral meaning. Micah is simply bringing the dedicated silver to his mother for disposition. Indeed the same verb (אֲשִׁיבֶנּוּ “I will return it”) is attributed in the following verse to Micah’s mother and she can hardly have stolen her own money.
The Book of Lamentations has long been known to contain many compositional techniques. These rang... more The Book of Lamentations has long been known to contain many compositional techniques. These range from the acrostic structures, use of the qinah metre, repetition of key words and phrases, parallelism, assonance, paronomasia, and chiasms. This paper identifies another rhetorical device in the Book: the use of non-recurring doublets, that is, the use of words or phrases that occur just twice in the book. These doublets, some forty percent of which involve phrases, may recur in either identical or slightly modified form. Some 183 of these doublets are identified which are cited, verse by verse, in a ten-page itemized list. The occurrence of these doublets is so frequent (some nearly every verse of the book contains a nonrecurring doublet) and so distributed between and across chapters as to caution against extensive textual emendation and to support the view that the entire book is the work of a single hand.
This paper examines how a word play in the Hebrew Bible should best be translated: either literal... more This paper examines how a word play in the Hebrew Bible should best be translated: either literally, to convey the presence of the word play, or idiomatically, to convey its meaning to a modern audience. The word play investigated is the phraseנשׂא ראשׁ which occurs three times in the story of Joseph in Genesis chapter 40. One time the phrase occurs with the prepositionמעליכ “from you” and so must be taken literally as when Joseph predicts that the baker will be executed Pharaoh will “lift up your head from you” (that is, literally take off his head, have him killed). The other two times the phrase must be taken idiomatically as when Joseph announces to the royal butler that in three days Pharaoh will “lift up your head” and later when the fulfillment of the prophecies take place and Pharaoh “lifted up the head of the chief cupbearer and the head of the chief baker.” The idiomatic meaning of the phrase is clarified by a comparison with Jeremiah 52:31 and 2 King 25:27 where the phrase also has a juridical sense and refers to the king reviewing the case of a prisoner. This interpretation is supported by Akkadian rēeša našû “to be mindful of” and by the translation of some of the versions which also render the phrase here by “to be mindful.” It is of significance that the Peshitta, being an Aramaic dialect, is normally capable of representing Hebrew word plays yet does not do so here. It does translate the Hebrew phrase idiomatically but it operates with its own word play, highlighting the concept of remembering, which connects vv 12, 19 and 20 with v 14, and with Gen 41:9 as well. To the question of how the phrase נשׂא ראשׁ should then be translated an annotated translation is proposed: the phrase should be translated literally which will retain the plays of the Hebrew but the idiom or figurative meaning should be indicated in the notes.
One interesting literary feature of the short book of Joel (only seventy-three verses) is its gre... more One interesting literary feature of the short book of Joel (only seventy-three verses) is its great number of correspondences with other biblical writings. There are forty direct parallels of phraseology with twelve other biblical books of which some like “the Lord will roar from Zion, and shout aloud from Jerusalem” (= Amos 1:2) and “who knows but he may turn and relent” (= Jonah 3:9) are very well-known. This article examines another literary feature in the book of Joel, that of nonrecurring doublets which are words or phrase which occur only twice in the entire book. Nonrecurring doublets differ from key words (leitwörter) with respect to the number of their occurrences (they only occur twice) and with respect to their function (they don’t just emphasize main ideas but underscore previously mentioned thoughts). Nonrecurring doublets may occur as single words or phrases but most of the forty-seven doublets occurring in Joel are combinations of two to five words. These doublets are part of the author’s deliberate rhetorical strategy. They are used to highlight complementary ideas, to illustrate reversals, or to link sections by allusion. Their presentation is quite varied, for example, they can appear in exactly the same form, be slightly modified or be reversed. The doublets can serve as an aid in textual criticism offering protection agains suggested emendation of parts of doublets. Finally, the presence of doublet phrases in all four chapters contributes significantly to the question of the unity of the book since the fact that all four chapters are interconnected with nonrecurring doublets strengthens the argument for the unity of the book.
Bringing the Hidden to Light: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Gellert, 2007
This paper shows how the literary technique of prolepsis (anticipation) is used as a rhet... more This paper shows how the literary technique of prolepsis (anticipation) is used as a rhetorical feature in the story of Rahab and the spies (Josh 2). Prolepsis is seen in the introduction of the leading characters, Joshua, Rahab, and the spies by their names, descriptions, and epithets. These names and epithets all have relevance for the story and proleptically raise expectations about the roles of the characters. The paper examines three examples of proleptic acts which are said to have taken place before they actually happen. The first example is when Rahab hides the spies while the king’s men are at her doorstep. The prolepsis serves both to ease the reader’s fears about the spies’ safety and to emphasize the brave act of Rahab in countering the king’s demand. The second example is when Rahab lets the spies down before she actually does so. This proleptic statement serves to emphasize the fact that Rahab’s house had a window facing outside of the city which not only aided the spies escape but also would later provide a means of ingress for the invading Israelites. In the last example, Rahab proleptically ties a crimson cord in advance of her actually doing it. This prolepsis thus serves both to emphasize Rahab’s fulfillment of her obligation under the oath and to indicate the importance of the cord as a means of signalling the Israelites during the invasion. Finally, the suggestion that a further prolepsis is to be found in the phrase וַיִּשְׁכְּבוּ־שָׁמָּה of v 1 is shown not to be credible. Because one of the essential characteristics of prolepsis is that an act said to be completed now must actually be completed later on, and it is most unlikely that the spies every slept during that fateful night in Jericho.
On the Way to Nineveh: Studies in Honor of George M. Landes, 1999
This paper takes issues with the common belief that the phrase מַהֲלַכְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִימ “a three d... more This paper takes issues with the common belief that the phrase מַהֲלַכְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִימ “a three days’ walk” in the Book of Jonah is another description of the enormity of the city of Nineveh. On the contrary, it is argued that the phrase does not refer to the dimensions of Nineveh but rather to the distance that Jonah has to travel in order to reach Nineveh. The standard interpretation is difficult to maintain on historical grounds (Nineveh was never that large and could always be traversed in a few hours) and is difficult to fit it with the first phrase of the following verse (מַהֲלַכְ יוֹמ אֶחָד “a one day’s walk”). In both biblical Hebrew and in Akkadian “a three days’ walk” may be used figuratively to indicate a journey involving a long period of time and similarly “a one day’s walk” may also be used figuratively to indicate a journey involving a short period of time. Similarly distance can be described by the amount of territory one can travel in a day. Nineveh is very far away: it is so distant that it requires a מַהֲלַכְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִימ“a three days’ walk” to reach it, nevertheless, Jonah can cover this great distance in an exceptionally short amount of time, namely in a מַהֲלַכְ יוֹמ אֶחָד “a one day’s walk.” This interpretation fits not only the context but also fits in with our overall reading of the book as a satire. It has often been noted that Jonah is burlesqued by being presented as a caricature of the story of Elijah in Beersheba in 1 Kgs 19. There Elijah had to flee for his life from Jezebel and, he too, made a journey in a very short amount of time (דֶּרֶכְ יוֹמ, “a day’s journey”). In a parodic emulation of Elijah’s feat, Jonah manages to cover over 600 miles מַהֲלַכְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִימ in just one day מַהֲלַכְ יוֹמ אֶחָד
Maarav: Let Your Colleagues Praise You: Studies in Memory of Stanley Gevirtz, 1993
This article argues that the shibboleth test in Judges 12:6, where retreating Ephraimites were as... more This article argues that the shibboleth test in Judges 12:6, where retreating Ephraimites were asked to say the word šibbōlet but could not and instead said sibbōlet, is not as generally thought an example of dialectal differences in early Israel. None of the previously advanced linguistic arguments (that the samech and shin had merged into one in the Ephraimite dialect or that the Ephraimites pronounced shin differently, or that what was involved in the test was the interdental spirant thau) can stand serious scrutiny. There is no evidence elsewhere that the Ephraimites pronounced a shin differently than other Israelites. No dialectal solution is possible because of the way in which the test was conducted (the Ephraimites were only asked to repeat a word which they most certainly could have done). This article demonstrates that the linguistic test is satirical ridiculing the Ephraimites who cannot even repeat a test-word spoken by the Gileadite guards. The satirical nature of the test is shown by the phrase following the announcement of the test (which is possible to interpret as indicating lack of preparation, inattention, or inability all demonstrating incompetence of the Ephraimites), by the manner in which the test was conducted (instead of being tested as in other folk-linguistic parallels at the point of a sword they are asked to take the test most politely), and by the place of the test in the story as a whole (where the Ephraimites are ridiculed throughout). The Ephraimites are portrayed as blatantly opportunistic by being willing, in order to save their own skins, to deny their own tribe and pass themselves off as non-Ephraimites. The shibboleth episode is thus part of the satire indicating that the high and mighty Ephraimites cannot “speak the queen’s English.”
Procedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1994
This paper suggests that the story of the lying prophet in 1 Kings 13 is a satire, a sardonic com... more This paper suggests that the story of the lying prophet in 1 Kings 13 is a satire, a sardonic comment on the curious ways and petty concerns of the prophets involved. While the story has all the necessary characteristic features of satire: targets, fantastic situations, ironies, and a variety of rhetorical features this paper focuses on ridicule and parody. All three of the main characters (the king, the man of god, the old prophet) are ridiculed in various ways: the king by being portrayed in a slapstick manner; the man of God by being fooled by the old prophet, by being killed in an ignominious fashion and by his corpse being unable to be retrieved; and the old prophet by been shown to be a liar and for his inordinate concern for his own burial. The parodic elements of story are seen in the parody of the annunciation type scene, and when the old prophet condemns his guest to death for a breach for which he was directly responsible. The satire has many features in common with other anti-prophetic satires: Balaam and his donkey, Elisha and the boys, and the book of Jonah. The significance of identifying this story and the others as satires is twofold. One, if prophets are criticized in the satires then the writers are expressing the view that there has been a grievous falling away from proper standards of behavior and an implied wish that the proper standards be restored. Two, the prevalence of these satiric works in the Bible indicates that the ancient Israelites were not as often been maintained “a humorless lot.” On the contrary, they must have appreciated this form of literary entertainment and these satires are proof that humor was very much a part of their lives.
Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Receptionl , 2014
“Theodor Gaster” in Hans-Josef Klauck et al., eds. Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception. ... more “Theodor Gaster” in Hans-Josef Klauck et al., eds. Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception. Vol. 10. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Online.
2015. “Robert Gordis” in Hans-Josef Klauck et al., eds. Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Recep... more 2015. “Robert Gordis” in Hans-Josef Klauck et al., eds. Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception. Vol. 11. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Online.
In the Shadow of Bezalel. Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten, 2012
The incorporation of Masoretic type notes has often been suggested by writers dealing with the s... more The incorporation of Masoretic type notes has often been suggested by writers dealing with the subject of glosses in the text of the Hebrew Bible. This article deals with some that have been suggested may be present in the enigmatic phrase שְׁבֻעוֹת מַטּוֹת אֹמֶר that occurs in verse 9 in the psalm of Habakkuk (Hab 3:1-19). The early 20th century classical Greek scholar W. St. John Thackeray was the first to suggest that these words represented catchwords or headings for sections of the Torah which were read on the holyday of Shavuot in the Palestinian triennial cycle of readings. The three words represented glosses that were incorporated inadvertently by a later scribe. Over the years a number of notable scholars such as D. Winton Thomas, G. R. Driver, Sidney Jellico,and M. Delcor have accepted Thackery’s suggestion as most plausible and in the new JPS Commentary on the Haftarot (2002), Thackery’s original proposal has been mentioned as “still suggestive” and a “legitimate possibility.” This paper examines Thackery’s suggestion in detail and concludes that there are numerous factors which cast considerable doubt on Thackeray’s suggestion.
Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Scheker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta, 2006
The major differences between BHQ and previous editions of Biblia Hebraica (and in particular BH... more The major differences between BHQ and previous editions of Biblia Hebraica (and in particular BHS) have been described in detail in the General Introduction to the Megilloth volume. These include format changes such as the layout of the text, the principles for inclusion of collated witnesses, explanation of the critical apparatus, and the rational for including cases in the commentary volume. This article illustrates more specific points of differences between BHQ and BHS as far as the book of Ezra-Neh is concerned. These points are to be seen in the following five areas: (1) availability of new resources; (2) comparison with other Tiberian mss; (3) representation of the Masorah (4) inclusion of 1 Esdras as a constant witness; and (5) the circumscribed use of suggestions for textual emendation.
A stunning carpet page from the Leningrad Codex (1008 C.E.). It is inscribed "Samuel son of Jacob... more A stunning carpet page from the Leningrad Codex (1008 C.E.). It is inscribed "Samuel son of Jacob wrote …this manuscript for the honor of our blessed teacher the priest, ben Yosef the sage, ben Azdak, may the Living One bless him." Surrounding the inscription is a Star of David framed with scripture from Deuteronomy and Psalms. The Leningrad Codex is the base text used by the new edition of Biblia Hebraica (BH) with which the authors of this article are associated.
Volume 3, A Companion to Textual Criticism, Volume Editors Russel E. Fuller and Armin Lange, cons... more Volume 3, A Companion to Textual Criticism, Volume Editors Russel E. Fuller and Armin Lange, consists of the following subvolumes: Volume 3A History of Research edited by Armin Lange and Russell E. Fuller surveys the history of research on the textual criticism and textual history of the Hebrew Bible and its versions in both Judaism and Christianity from its ancient beginnings until today for all of its important versions. Volume 3B Modern Editions of the Text of the Bible in Hebrew and the Ancient Versions (Fifteenth Century to the Present) edited by Richard D. Weis provides a comprehensive discussion of the printed editions of the Jewish Scriptures in all of the languages covered in THB 1 and 2 starting from the advent of the printing press in the West. Volume 3C Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism edited by Mika S. Pajunen will address in one place technical terminology, genres and media transmitting biblical texts, the practice of textual criticism, translation theory and translation technique, and theories of textual transmission. Volume 3D Science and Technology edited by Marilyn J. Lundberg will bring together information on the science and technologies that increasingly impact and influence not only the decipherment, study and conservation of ancient manuscripts of all types but also the textual criticism of biblical texts itself. Issues of manuscript conservation, analytical tools, and (virtual) manuscript enhancement are thus as much discussed as electronic databases of biblical texts or digital online repositories of biblical manuscripts.
This article discusses the form (nastem) which occurs three times in Zechariah 14:5 and which has... more This article discusses the form (nastem) which occurs three times in Zechariah 14:5 and which has been the subject of three different interpretations. The Masoretic text, Vulgate and Peshitta read all three forms as nastem “to flee” meaning that the population of Jerusalem would be able to flee through the newly created valley resulting from the shift of the Mount of Olives described in the previous verbs. The Septuagint reads all three forms as nistam “to block up” which would mean that the major result of the shifting of the Mount of Olives is to block up the adjacent valleys. The third reading, found in the Targum and in some Hebrew manuscripts (Firk 133; Erfurt 3), takes the first occurrence as nistam and the others as nastem. This reading is followed by Rashi and held to be an eastern or oriental reading by other medieval commentators such as Joseph Qara, Ibn Ezra, and David Kimhi. It is also the reading found in some modern commentaries (Nowack, Wellhausen), translations (RSV), and in BHS. It is suggested that the eastern reading represented the original reading and that the different forms may be explained as an ancient paronomasia. The paronomasia enables us to bridge between the two otherwise distinct interpretations (of “fleeing” or of being “blocked up”), the first word can be retrospectively aligned with the previous clause (the valley will be blocked up) while via paronomasia the first word can be proleptically aligned with the following clause (the people will flee). In the course of time the paronomasia was overlooked and smoothed out. In the western normative Hebrew tradition all forms became nastem, in the Greek tradition all forms became nistam, only in the Targum and in eastern manuscripts was the original paronomasia preserved.
was one of the foremost Semitists of the twentieth century. I know there are many in this room wh... more was one of the foremost Semitists of the twentieth century. I know there are many in this room who had the privilege of studying with him. But I had the unique distinction of once having had Ginsberg as a student. Over thirty years ago, in the fall of 1971, he took my Elementary Akkadian class at Columbia University. Ginsberg already knew some Akkadian and had for years used it to great advantage in many of his articles. But he only had a second hand knowledge of the language. It is a measure not only of the courage of the man, but also his thirst for learning, that towards retirement he decided to study Akkadian in a formal setting. He became a student again, joined the mix of undergraduates, graduates, and coeds, in a Columbia classroom, and plunged into his new studies with great enthusiasm and aplomb. Very soon he had out-paced all the rest of the class (some of whom were almost forty years younger than he), and within a few
Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm, 1978
Zechariah 13:7 speaks of a false prophet who is asked about flagellation scars on his body: “What... more Zechariah 13:7 speaks of a false prophet who is asked about flagellation scars on his body: “What are these stripes between your hands?” The area of the body where the prophet was beaten is bên yādêkā lit. “between your hands.” Some scholars take this as the “chest,” others the “back,” and still others just translate “between your hands or arms.” To solve this problem parallels have been proposed from other Semitic languages. The evidence of the Ugaritic cognate phrase bn ydm is shown in context to be equally as ambiguous as the phrase in Zechariah, as both it and its parallel (ktp) could have both frontal or dorsal meaning. Evidence for a meaning from Arabic or Akkadian supporting a meaning of chest is shown to be dubious. The Arabic phrase (bayna yaday “in front of”) never has the meaning of chest which is otherwise expressed by the Arabic terms ṣadr or qaṣṣ, and the Akkadian phrase (birīt/birti aḫī “between the arms” is completely unrelated to chest. The solution to the Zechariah phrase is sought by comparing the Hebrew parallel phrase bên zerō’āyw lit “between his arms” which occurs in 2 Kings 9:24 with an unambiguous meaning of “back”: “(Jehu) shot Jehoram in the back (bên zerō’āyw)” since the arrow emerged from his heart. This semantic parallel lends support for a translation of bên yādayim in both the Zechariah and Ugaritic passages as “back.”
In the absence of vowels the three alephs serve as clues in tracing the original vocalization of ... more In the absence of vowels the three alephs serve as clues in tracing the original vocalization of Ugaritic. They are helpful in establishing the existence of case endings in the noun (e.g., nominative ks’u, accusative ks’a, genitive ks’i) and in vocalizing the tenses of the verb in accordance with the Barth-Ginsberg law where the imperfect of the qal stem has the forms either of yaqtulu or yiqtalu. They are also instructive in distinguishing various moods of the verbs (e.g. durative yaqtulu, emphatic jussive yaqtula, jussive yaqtul) and in indicating that the shift of long a to long o had no yet taken place in Ugaritic (e.g. gā’ān, Hebrewגָּאוֹנ , ‘aḫd = ‘āḫidu, Hebrew אוֹחֵז). Various theories have been proposed to explain the usages of the three alephs. This article tests the validity of H. L. Ginsberg’s theory of the alephs as opposed to other theories especially that espoused by J. Friedrich and Z. Harris. According to Ginsberg, the three alephs only indicate the following never the preceding vowel. When an aleph closed a syllable it is represented by an aleph i. Ginsberg’s theory is tested out on a substantial amount of forms containing alephs in medial and final position and is found to be persuasive.
Unlike Hebrew which does not distinguish morphologically between its various conjugational forms ... more Unlike Hebrew which does not distinguish morphologically between its various conjugational forms of the verb ḥāyāh “to live,” Ugaritic together with Phoenician uses the medial yod only in the qal conjugation (ḥyy). In the derived conjugations it uses a medial waw (ḥwy). This usage is confirmed both by a contextual analysis of the occurrences of the qal and piel forms of this verb and by the quadrilingual list where the Ugaritic word ḫe-ya-ma is glossed with Akkadian balāṭu “to live,” while the Ugaritic word ḫu-wa-u is glossed with the Akkadian word eṭēru “to save” (= bulluṭu, the II form of balāṭu “to live”). The meaning of the qal forms is “to live,” whereas the piel forms have factitive connotations: “to give life,” “to preserve,” “to restore.” Thus the form ḥwt in IVAB 1:20 cannot be translated, as has recently been proposed, “may you live” (which would be ḥyt) but probably denotes a greeting or salutation like the Arabic form taḥiyyatun which itself is derived from a II-conjugation form of ḥyy.
The internal passive verbal construction of the qal conjugation (qutala, yuqtalu) has long been r... more The internal passive verbal construction of the qal conjugation (qutala, yuqtalu) has long been recognized in biblical Hebrew and in other Semitic languages. While it has often been assumed that Ugaritic also has an internal passive in its verbal system that fact has never been demonstrated. This article proposes four means of identification of the qal passive in Ugaritic: (a) where the form corresponds to the use of the N conjugation in a similar context; (b) where the form corresponds to the use of the passive participle in a similar context; (c) where the form cannot be explained as a third person used impersonally; and (d) where the the form cannot be explained as a N conjugation.
This article takes issue with the view of those scholars who claim that there is a usage of the i... more This article takes issue with the view of those scholars who claim that there is a usage of the infinitive absolute in Ugaritic that indicates past time. Nearly all the alleged infinitive absolute forms can be otherwise explained. In particular these forms are most likely third person singular perfects because in Hebrew congruence is not necessary when a verb precedes the subject. Furthermore the comparative evidence adduced from Phoenician and Hebrew is inconclusive because most of these forms may also be explained in a different manner. A telling argument against treating forms such as Phoenician ירדמ or Ugaritic ‘dbnn as infinitive absolutes is the fact that these forms have suffixes which infinitive absolutes by their very nature cannot take. Ugaritic ‘dbnn is thus best explained with H. L. Ginsberg as a first person singular imperfect with a masculine suffix (“I will make him”) from *’’db, with ellision of the aleph before the ayin (‘db).
It has been alleged, particularly by Mitchell Dahood in his Anchor Bible commentaries on the Psal... more It has been alleged, particularly by Mitchell Dahood in his Anchor Bible commentaries on the Psalms, that the Hebrew adverb me’ōd “very” ought to be repointed in many instances to mā’ēd and be rendered “the Almighty” or the Grand One” serving as an epithet for God. This rendering is based on the supposition that there exists in Ugaritic an adjective mid, said to mean “great” or “grand.” This paper analyzes all the occurrences of the Ugaritic root mid and shows that in none of them is a meaning of “great” or “grand” warranted. The meanings associated with the root mid are “many” “much” and “to make many.” On the contrary, the adjective “great” or “grand” is expressed in Ugaritic by the term rb, e.g. mlk rb “great king.” Hence, appeals cannot be made to Ugaritic to support the existence of a Hebrew divine epithet mā’ēd “the Almighty” or “the Grand One.”
De los aproximadamente quinientos nombres propios que aparecen en la Biblia, sólo en noventa caso... more De los aproximadamente quinientos nombres propios que aparecen en la Biblia, sólo en noventa casos hay una anotación masorética que indica que lo son. La razón por la que la Masora selecciona estos noventa nombres es porque todos son homónimos, es decir, tienen la misma forma, las mismas consonantes y vocales que otras palabras y, por lo tanto, pueden ser confundidos con ellas. Este artículo examina los usos de las anotaciones masoréticas sobre los nombres propios, el tipo de nombres que tienen anotaciones de este tipo, y estudia los nombres que se seleccionan debido a su ortografía o a sus acentos específicos. Uno de los resultados más importantes del análisis de las anotaciones masoréticas sobre nombres propios es el descubrimiento de que los masoretas ya habían identificado como tal un nombre que ha pasado desapercibido a los investigadores modernos.
The Masorah of the Former Prophets in the Leningrad Codex
The Masorah of the Former Prophets in the Leningrad Codex: Vols. 1-5. Introduction and Joshua, Ju... more The Masorah of the Former Prophets in the Leningrad Codex: Vols. 1-5. Introduction and Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings. Texts and Studies 14. Piscataway: N.J., Gorgias Press.
... I. The terms damqa(m) ini, b/pal~a lni(m), namra(t) fni, and pati'a inim appear ... more ... I. The terms damqa(m) ini, b/pal~a lni(m), namra(t) fni, and pati'a inim appear to be quite synonymous, being used interchangeably in various lexical lists. ... Thus instead of the normal Ciwwer,28 (awira'29 and suma),30 samya),31 a blind person may be termed me'or Cenayim ...
... 1995. A Hermeneutic of Curiosity and Readings of Psalm 61. Studies in Old Testament Interpret... more ... 1995. A Hermeneutic of Curiosity and Readings of Psalm 61. Studies in Old Testament Interpretation, 1. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. Briggs, Charles Augustus, and Briggs, Emilie Grace 1906-1907. ... Das Buch Ochlah W'Ochlah (Massora). Hannover: Hann'sche. ...
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1977
... Page 2. 54 DAVID MARCUS BASOR 226 ... These can be compared to the types of suqtu listed in t... more ... Page 2. 54 DAVID MARCUS BASOR 226 ... These can be compared to the types of suqtu listed in the same series which are long (GID.DA), short (GUD4.DA), existing (TUK = rais), cleft (paris), and well formed (bunna) (Kraus 1947: 187.11'-13', 15). ...
The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society, 2002
... There are some commentators who believe that the raven, like the dove, was taken back into th... more ... There are some commentators who believe that the raven, like the dove, was taken back into the ark (Bechor Shor; see Yehoshafat Nevo, Perushe Rabi Yosef Bekhor Shor 'al ha-Torah [Jerusalem, 1994], 19); David Kimhi (see Moshe ... Rabbenu Meir Leibush Ben Yechiel Michel. ...
Uploads
Masorah by David Marcus
https://www.ancientjewreview.com/articles/2020/9/11/introduction-to-the-masorah-the-masorah-of-biblia-hebraica-quinta-bhq
Akkadian by David Marcus
https://www.ancientjewreview.com/articles/2020/9/11/introduction-to-the-masorah-the-masorah-of-biblia-hebraica-quinta-bhq
This book challenges the widespread opinion that Jepthah literally put his daughter to death. It maintains that the almost unanimous support this opinon has received in recent years is not justified and that the alternate conclusion that the daughter was not put to death but had to remain a virgin, consecrated to God, for the remainder of her life has equal, if not more, validity. Marcus demonstrates that the Hebrew text of the story is often ambiguous and is open to different interpretations. He analyzes the history of the exegesis, the original intent of the vow, as well as biblical and non-biblical literary parallels. Marcus concludes that the evidence is such that both conclusions for the fate of Jephthah’s daughter are equally possible, and that this very ambivalence was in fac the original intention of the narrator.
http://www.bookreviews.org/rblSearch.asp