Michael S. Heiser's Blog, page 66

Biblical Theology, Poverty, and Social Justice, Part 5

In the last installment of this series, I directed readers to the short essay by J. Levenson, “Poverty and the State in Biblical Thought” (13 pp). Levenson is a Jewish biblical scholar and a favorite of mine. I think the article is important for helping us think about the relationship of the Israelite state to poverty as it’s discussed in the Hebrew Bible. I concluded in Part 4 that it’s evident that some of the oppression derided by the prophets (and so, God) involves political and judicial authorities cheating and abusing the poor. This article can help us think about how we might relate biblical thinking on social injustice to our own contemporary context.

Levenson begins his essay (p. 230) by asking some straightforward questions:

Was there, in biblical Israel, anything analogous to modern development called the welfare state? If so, what were the assumptions that underlay it, and how do they differ from those of the contemporary democratic socialist one? What was the place of this biblical “welfare state” within the structure of religious tradition of ancient Israel? Finally, what limitations do these structural concerns impose upon efforts in our day to argue from biblical society to our own situation?

Levenson makes it a point throughout his article to insist that what the Hebrew Bible says about social justice and poverty must be understood in its own context to be correctly comprehended. A hermeneutic that seeks to use the Hebrew Bible to legitimize any modern welfare system by simply quoting material outside the historical context of that material is misguided. In light of this emphasis, I want to track through the essay a bit, highlighting some of what Levenson says and then adding my own commentary.

Levenson spends a few pages detailing how sympathy for the downtrodden revealed in the Hebrew Bible was connected by the biblical writers to Israel’s own experience of bondage and oppression at the hands of Egypt. He is clear that this concern was personal and individual, and so the biblical teaching is overwhelmingly focused on individual responsibility, not state or political responsibility. Here are a few telling excerpts of importance (emphasis mine in italics):

The people Israel, then, not only lacked a state, but lived in a certain tension with the structures of statehood, which they saw as transient and without soteriological significance; they could not save. This is not to say that Israel was other-worldly or a-political. On the contrary, the covenant itself is an idea adopted from the world of diplomacy, where its closest formal analogues are to be found . . . Israel’s theology is intensely political, or, I should prefer to say, theopolitical, for, in Israel’s case alone, the act of accepting the covenant was an acclamation of God’s kingship.” (233)

And when the Israelites, disgusted with their unique theopolitical situation, demand a king “like all the nations” (1 Sam 8:5), God comforts a spurned and disheartened Samuel by telling him: “They have not rejected you; they have rejected me from being their king” (1 Sam 8:7). The idea is simple, but pregnant with meaning for the future of Israel’s thought; in fact, for the future of the whole West. Divine kingship and human kingship are incompatible. Human statehood is an affront to divine rule, an act of rebellion against the sovereign with whom Israel in in covenant. Now do you see why the laws of Israel are addressed to the individual or the clan, but almost never to the bureaucrat or king distinctively? (234)

The laws which protect the poor, then, are addressed to the individual and the clan, the local, highly organic unit of social organization. These laws are, thus, religious commandments, rather than state policy. They are obligations established by God and owed directly to the poor and not to the government as a mediator between rich and poor. (235)

To be sure, biblical thought, too, hopes that the earthly ruler will be just and compassionate, while the prophets praised those who were so and condemned those who were not (e.g., Jer 22). In fact, it may well have been customary for the king, perhaps at his coronation, formally to promote just behavior (Psa 101). Still, biblical thought does not tend toward optimism about earthly governments. (235-236)

Biblical thought mandates, but does not expect, the abolition of poverty within history. Instead, it expects these commandments of generosity will continue in force, that they will triumph over the need for them. . . . The existence of poverty, then, is not due simply to the negligence of one generation, It is systemic. Even the best mortal government will not eliminate it. Something in human nature, something in the way that men relate to each other in their collectivities, produces poverty, even where intentions are the best. . . . although we cannot eliminate poverty, we can diminish it; we can help the poor man get by, perhaps not for his lifetime, but at least for a day, or for one meal, or for part of one meal. (236)

When commenting on the Song of Hannah (1 Sam 2:4-8), Levenson notes that some would see an analogy with Marxist thinking. He notes it does sound like “Marxist eschatology,” be quickly adds his thoughts as to how this would be misguided, as Scripture’s solution to poverty is God and God acting through his people who are obedient to His commands of compassion for the poor, not the state:

. . . [W]e must not lose sight of the theistic nature of Hannah’s hymn. It does not speak of a practical political program. The transformation it describes is not effected through any human agency. There is apparently no social group whose hands are so clean that it can accomplish a final and complete victory of justice … (237)

Elsewhere Levenson comments on biblical laws and the state:

Until the meek inherit the earth (Psa 137:10-11), they must be protected from the rich and powerful. The laws of charity and of employment . . . provide some protection from the rich. What about protection from the powerful, principally, the central government? This (as well as protection from the rich) is afforded in the laws of the inalienability of land, which prohibit the final sale outright (Lev 25:23-24). Such laws served to limit the expanse of government at the expense of the governed. . . . To circumvent such strictures, the government had to resort to confiscatory taxation, something which the traditionalist had good reason to fear. His fear, in fact, is seen quite clearly in Samuel’s speech to the people as they demand a king, and he cites the greediness of the central royal administration as one reason to retain the old way: “Your fields, vineyards, and good olive orchards he will take to give to his aides” (1 Sam 8:13). This resistance to a centrally dictated taxation as a means of redistributing wealth played a significant role in Israelite history a few generations after Samuel’s prescient admonition when Solomon’s tactless son, Rehoboam, refused to relent on the issue of the amount of corvee owed by the North (1 Kings 12), thus bringing about the secession of the northern tribes. Later, this refusal to grant supreme economic hegemony to the royal administration was a major factor in sustaining the prophetic movement. In large measure, prophetic critique of the state depended upon the existence of private property. (238)

Anyone who would seek to apply Scripture should take note of these context-driven assessments. Many who comment on social justice today prooftext the Bible without these contextual signposts, in effect baptizing a preferred political model without concern for them.

Levenson is pessimistic that the biblical ideals can translate well to modern times since biblical thoughts on poverty and economics were linked to the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel. A biblical theology of poverty is therefore theopolitical and individual (239-240). But these pessimistic thoughts are related to political application on a state level. Still, for the Christian, this seems less of an obstacle since believers (corporately and individually) are a new Israel, a new circumcision-neutral people of God. Believers in Christ are in fact in covenant relationship with God. Since a biblical theology of social justice is heavily stilted toward the individual and viewed the state as, at best, a transient and necessary evil, Christians can and must live out the biblical-theological notion that poverty must be diminished wherever possible. Obedience in these areas is not to be handed off to the state — or taken away by the state for its own manipulation and power.  A welfare state should (for the Bible-believer) be viewed as a sign of the failure of the Church, not as a clever and useful creation of the human state so the Church can move on to more “spiritual” pursuits. As a consequence, the question becomes what Christians should strive for and support. What is “biblical social justice”? Is it the act of blessing the operation and growth of the welfare state as a solution to poverty, or is it the a response of individuals, motivated by compassion and a desire to obey the commands of God (given as they were to individuals, not the state) to take care of the poor?  Put another way, which alternative reflects a biblical theology – the growth of the state, or the acquiescence or shrinkage of the state’s involvement in social justice in the wake of unrelenting charity on the part of believers (or simply individuals)? It is clearly the latter. We can all see, though, that the condition of the heart puts the poor in danger. I speak here of what we ought to strive for, not what is in place, or what is easily put in place. If the question is what is a biblical theology of the care for poor, the answer is the individual, or individuals operating as a like-minded group, under the guidance of biblical revelation from a God who hates poverty and injustice. The answer is not the empowerment of a corruptible state. That is the secular God-less answer. We ought not baptize the secular answer to make it appear biblical; that is a deceit. Lastly, it is quite inconsistent for activists, politicians, or anyone else to prooftext biblical material to prop up any view of social justice or of a welfare state and then simultaneously reject biblical statements (which have the same theopolitical context) on other points of morality and social responsibility. That’s just hermeneutical hypocrisy.

Until next time.

 

Technorati Tags: Bible, Hebrew Bible, Israel, Old Testament, poverty, social justice, taxation, theology

MEMRA Module 1 Deadline Approaching

Just a reminder.

Registration ends in just over two weeks (Feb 24) for ancient language courses for Module 1 (Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Greek, Ugaritic). Clear here for the courses being offered and registration. Click here for course descriptions.

Anti-Semitic Bible Study

I often get asked about the “true pronunciation of the divine name” or “the authentic meaning of YHWH, the Tetragrammaton.” I’ve often wondered why people care — why is it that they can’t be content with the scholarly convention of “Yahweh” in this regard, especially if they aren’t scholars, the people who typically argue about such things. I got at least one answer to this question this week as a guest on an internet podcast, and it turned my stomach. I’d normally reserve a post like this for my other blog, PaleoBabble, but since this story involves explaining the Tetragrammaton, I’m posting it here. Please bear with me; I know this is unfamiliar fodder for this blog.

Anti-Semitic Conspiracy as a Hermeneutic

I was guest this week on a blog talk radio show called “Search Engine International.” It’s apparently out of the UK. The hosts were two men who referred to themselves as “Elder Rawchaa” and “Brother Gaja”. The show is ostensibly some sort of Christian broadcast, but these two are committed to anti-Semitic thinking. I know this is going to sound crazy, but I was basically on the show so they could teach me the great truth that the name “Yahweh” had been inserted into the Old Testament by some sort of ancient demonic conspiracy, and that this name actually pointed to Baal. Consequently, Yahweh is a false god, and so the Jews are worshipping an evil entity and, presumably, are therefore evil. The “real” name of God was “Ahyah” (this pronunciation tells you they couldn’t read the biblical Hebrew text, but bear with me). I know some of you will think this is just Gnosticism, but it’s more complicated (or dumber) than that. The hosts danced around their nutty idea for about 40 minutes of the hour interview (that alone tells you something — why try to be coy if what you think is legitimate?), but as soon as Elder Rawchaa quoted from a book by Henry Makow, I knew where they were headed. Henry Makow is the force behind a website that promotes the “truth” of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic propaganda hoax that promotes the idea of a Jewish plan for global control. Wikipedia is worth a quick reference here for those to whom The Protocols is new: “It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century. Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the US in the 1920s.”

I nearly ended the interview by signing off with a “Heil Hitler,” but only refrained from doing so because it was recorded — no telling what people whose minds are so poisoned might do with that. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a well-known, demonstrable hoax. My hosts of course denied this.  As David Redles notes in his scholarly work, Hitler’s Millennial Reich: Apocalyptic Belief and the Search for Salvation (NYU Press, 2005):

“The Protocols is, of course, a hoax. But it was, and for some anti-Semites, still is, a believed hoax. The forgery, a concoction of the Czarist secret police, the Okhrana, combined an obscure nineteenth century anti-Napoleon III satire, Maurice Joly’s Dialogue aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu (1864), with The Rabbi’s Speech, a portion of a novel by Hermann Goedsche titled Biarritz (1868). The Rabbi’s Speech is a millennial, with references to the imminent coming of the Jewish messianic age that will see the House of David assume leadership of the world in fulfillment of the covenant of Jehovah. The covenant is realized by Jews through manipulation of the evils of modernity,  including capitalism, which is portrayed as centralizing wealth and power in the hands of the Jews, and both democracy and socialism . . . The Protocols became a key element in Hitler’s conspiratorial thinking, for it was used to explain the apocalyptic chaos (of the Weimar Republic — MSH). The international Jewish bankers, he argued, had created the hyperinflation that had forced Germans into epidemic hunger, making them pliant in the face of a Jewish -Bolshevik type revolution and thereby taking another step toward the creation of the Jewish millennial paradise of world domination. Hitler’s conspiratorial mentality, and its peculiar logic, is also seen in his reaction to the disclosure that The Protocols were a fake. He charged that, since the press was controlled by the Jews (part of the plan revealed in The Protocols), the accusations of forgery by the press only proved that The Protocols were true” (pp. 55, 58).1

Hitler of course talks about The Protocols in Mein Kampf.  A detailed scholarly analysis of The Protocols was published by Hadassa Ben-Itto, a lawyer and judge in Israel for over thirty years. Her work is called The Lie that Wouldn’t Die: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Vallentine-Mitchell, 2005). I would also recommend The Paranoid Apocalypse: A Hundred-Year Retrospective on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (ed. Richard Landes and Steven T. Katz, NYU Press 2012). This book is a collection of scholarly essays on The Protocols  and the subsequent academic focus on the hoax. It’s a wonderful academic investigation into Jewish conspiracy thinking. For those who follow my fiction, one of the essays (by Michael Barkun) will be of special interest: “Anti-Semitism from Outer Space: The Protocols in UFO Subculture.” How about that?

The Meaning of the Tetragrammaton for Conspiratorial Anti-Semites

So how did my hosts defend the idea that the name “Yahweh” was forged into the Hebrew Bible as a (believe it or not) demonic/Jewish conspiracy? I’ll trace how my hosts argued their point, but understand up front that it’s a journey to non sequitur land.

1. Their first point was the the real name of God was “Ahyah.” This of course is taken from Exo 3:12, 14, but it’s a mis-transliteration of the Hebrew (= ‘ehyeh = אֶהְיֶה). Since this is the way God pronounced his own name, nothing else is God’s name. The Tetragrammaton (YHWH; יהוה) cannot, therefore, be God’s name. The YHWH word was forged into the Hebrew Bible. I went through the fact that ‘ehyeh (אֶהְיֶה) was simply the grammatical first person of the verbal root h-y-h (hayah; in ancient Semitic also h-w-h since y/w are often interchanged) and that yahweh would be the third person form. It would be expected that when God refers to himself he would use the first person (don’t we?) and when others referred to God’s name using the h-y/w-h root it would be in the third person. This didn’t phase them. They asked me what “translation” I was using to get all this, and I told them it wasn’t a translation and that it was Hebrew grammar — I was using the Hebrew text, known as the Masoretic text. Their response was “ahhhh [play creepy music here] the Masoretic text …”).

2. At this point Elder Rawchaa read a passage from Makow’s book, which, among other things, asserted that the YHWH had been inserted (yes, thousands of times) into the Old Testament by the Pharisees (whom Elder Rawchaa apparently confused with the Masoretes in his comment above about the Masoretic text). This forgery operation was part of a conspiracy (I’m still fuzzy on which motive they preferred) to change God’s name and thus make it lost to history or to honor a demonic god, Baal (who of course was who they worshipped — after all the Jewish Masoretes were enemies of Jesus).

3. After this “teaching point,” Elder Rawchaa proceeded to read me a few more quotations from occult sources (other members of the Jewish global conspiracy – the Illuminati, the Freemasons, Rothschilds, etc.) where the Tetragrammaton was used in occult formulae in connection with Baal and other gods.

4. Elder Rawchaa also referred me to Exod 6:3, where the text says (in most, perhaps all, English translations that the patriarchs did not know God by the name Yahweh, but as El-Shaddai. He also produced several passages like Hos 2:16 (“And in that day, declares the Lord, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal’) to further make his point that the Tetragrammaton was a name for Baal and thus evil.

Everything clear?

Well, let’s think about this just a bit, point by point.

Points 1, 2

In response to the issues of ‘ehyeh (“I am”) versus the form yhwh / yahweh, I’ve written up an explanation of the forms of the word and how they relate on a permanently posted page on this site. You can click through for that. That page contains a link to 17 pages of excerpted portions of three resources for much more technical discussion. I won’t backtrack on the morphology here. Instead, I want to focus on the response of Elder Rawchaa (“ahhhh the Masoretic text …”) and the logical flaws of his view.

First, the Pharisees are not the Masoretes of the Masoretic Text tradition. The Pharisees and scribes of the NT were around before the Masoretic Text was produced (ca. 100 AD). Consequently, the Pharisees did not insert the Tetragrammaton into the Hebrew Bible (HB). The HB was around long before the Pharisees. How do we know? The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). Several of the scrolls include the Tetragrammaton (in paleo-Hebrew or Phoenician-style script, no less), so unless one wants to ignore things like space and time, you’t not getting a Pharisee-led divine name insertion campaign. (But who knows; I’ve learned with these sorts of “thinkers” to expect the unexpected, no matter how bizarre). I managed to point this out to the Elder. That led a bit later on to “other people” committing the forgery — but no surrender of his original point. Other people … like the Moabites? (Yahweh appears in the Moabite Stela / Mesha Stela; 9th century BC) as the god of Israel). The Kuntillet Ajurdu inscriptions? The Khirbet el-Qom inscriptions? (Both from the 8th century BC). I’m guessing the Elder would say these are paganized (or heterodox) inscriptions and so they must support his position. He’d be correct with respect to the former, but not the latter. The point is that the name, associated with Israel, predates the Pharisees. That the divine name is found in texts outside the HB does not mean the HB got it as an import from other cultures. That is a non sequitur. Why couldn’t it be the other way around — that the non-biblical texts were written by people *about* Israel and its national deity? Answer: it could and was, since the name of Israel’s god is known from even older sources. But the thinking is flawed even without this. Saying there was “importation” in this one direction is like saying the name “Baal” in Canaanite texts was imported into them by Phoenicians since Baal shows up in those texts as well. You have to assume omniscience (against much more reasonable answers) to think like this. Or, you create an idea that reinforces your anti-Semitic position and proceed therefrom.

The divine name appears in Egyptian texts as well. As the ABD article on “Yahweh” notes:

To move outside of the Levant, we find Egyptian name lists which include a Syrian site, Ya-h-wa (No. 97), which is identical to Yahweh. A Rameses II (1304–1237 b.c.) list is found in a Nubian temple in ˓Amarah West with six names (Nos. 93–98) following the designation “Bedouin area.” Nos. 96–98 have been found at Soleb in Nubia on an Amon temple of Amenhotep III (1417–1379). No. 93, Sa-˓ra-r, has been identified with Seir (Edom) and related to the biblical references (Deut 33:2) which associate Yahweh with Seir and Paran. This could be taken as evidence the name was known in Edom or Midianite territory ca. 1400 b.c. (EncRel 7: 483–84).

However, Astour (IDBSup, 971) notes that the writing “S-r-r” is incorrect as opposed to the spelling in other Egyptian inscriptions. Furthermore, three of the sites, including Yi-ha, on Rameses III’s temple in Medinet Habu, are in a Syrian context suggesting that Ya-h-wa/Yi-ha was also in Syria. Thus the name is not associated with Edom or Midianites but does seem to appear as early as 1400 b.c. in Syria.2

So, now we’re back to 1400 BC – and other scholars would associate the term in these texts with Edom and Moab. Hess notes:

Some scholars see here the origins of the worship of Yahweh in the southern desert of what are today the regions of the Sinai and the Negev. In the topographical list of Pharaoh Amenophis III (c. 1395–1358 BC) is found the expression t3 š3sw yhw, which can be interpreted, “the Shosu-land of Yahweh” or “Yhw in the land of the Shasu.” Shosu/Shasu was an Egyptian term for groups of nomadic peoples who were located in the desert areas east of Egypt. If this is to be interpreted as the name of a place or people in the area of Seir (Edom) and the southern desert, rather than to the north, then the biblical theophanies mentioned above, the associations in Exodus of Yahweh worship with Midianites and with Sinai, and the revelation of Yahweh in Exodus 3 and 6 may be related. This does not necessarily relate the Egyptian term to Israelites (although that is possible). It simply argues that Yahweh was known and worshiped in the deserts south of Canaan in the fourteenth century BC. However, there are those who question the identification of this place name with Yahweh.52 Even so, Smith is correct in affirming the early identification of Yahweh with sources in the southern desert (Judg. 1:16; 4:11; 5:4–6, 24). He suggests that the desert origins parallel those of the Ugaritic god Athtar (rather than Baal), who is both a warrior deity and a precipitation-producing deity associated with inland desert sites. He notes that Numbers 23:8, 22 and 24:8 associate the god of the exodus with El, and argues that El should be distinguished from Yahweh.533

So, for the sake of Elder Rawchaa and this conversation, the case can indeed be made the divine name goes all the way back to the biblical Mosaic period. What a surprise. But that’s only a segue to the next item.

Point 3

This one hardly needs comment. That occultist literature uses names of pagan deities and demons in the same sentences, formulae, incantations, etc. with Yahweh does not mean that either the occult writer saw them as all the same, or (!) the biblical writer who lived millennia earlier saw them the same. What a writer living between the Renaissance and the contemporary era thought cannot be used to produce the same thought in the mind of a second or first millennium BC writer. You’d think that would be obvious …. you’d think a lot of other things, here, I know.

Point 4

Elder Rawchaa’s use of Exod 6:3 is unique. However, it is related to a much more common notion, that Exod 6:3 tells us the patriarchs didn’t know their god by the name Yahweh. I’ll give two approaches that undermine the Elder’s use of this to separate Israel from the name Yahweh – one that disputes this understanding of Exod 6:3 and one that presumes it.

With respect to the former, I’ve pointed out elsewhere on this blog (in footnotes, granted) that the consensus translation (“ I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the Lord I did not make myself known to them”) is only one syntactical possibility. Another much less familiar option was pointed out by Francis Andersen years ago in his book, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. On syntactical grounds, Andersen argues for a translation that is basically opposite in its meaning to the accepted view:  ”I am the Lord (YHWH).  I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai. And my name is the Lord (YHWH); did I not make myself known to them?” The verse in this translation expresses a rhetorical question. At the very least, Andersen’s seminal work on sentence structure and its implications for this crucial text should be part of the conversation.

With respect to the latter, I would draw readers’ attention to Hess’ quotation cited above. This portion is relevant:

“Some scholars see here the origins of the worship of Yahweh in the southern desert of what are today the regions of the Sinai and the Negev. In the topographical list of Pharaoh Amenophis III (c. 1395–1358 BC) is found the expression t3 š3sw yhw, which can be interpreted, “the Shosu-land of Yahweh” or “Yhw in the land of the Shasu.” Shosu/Shasu was an Egyptian term for groups of nomadic peoples who were located in the desert areas east of Egypt. If this is to be interpreted as the name of a place or people in the area of Seir (Edom) and the southern desert, rather than to the north, then the biblical theophanies mentioned above, the associations in Exodus of Yahweh worship with Midianites and with Sinai, and the revelation of Yahweh in Exodus 3 and 6 may be related.”

The implication of Hess’ comment is that the patriarchs didn’t know their god by the name Yahweh, but by other names. Yahweh was the name used in Midian – precisely where Exodus 3 has Moses for the burning bush experience when he reveals the divine name. Elder Rawchaa wants to restrict that name to “Ahyah” but the archaeological material (not to mention the biblical material) inform us that “Yahweh” wouldn’t have need forging or importing – it was the name by which the god of the mountain was know, even before we had a Hebrew Bible. This difference between the two (‘ehyeh and yahweh) is only morphological (once again, see my page on this for an explanation).

With respect to Hos 2:16 (“And in that day, declares the Lord, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal’) I’d suggest that the verse does not at all say that “the name Yahweh wasn’t original to the Hebrew Bible.” Rather, it … well … says what it says – that the *8th century BC* Israelites to whom Hosea was writing were committing evil by calling Yahweh Baal (co-identifying the two). Here’s the logic teaching moment: that some Israelites did this does not mean (a) that all Israelites did it, or (b) that Israelites before the 8th century all the way back to the patriarchal era did it.

I’m not sure how Elder Rawchaa would handle the fact that Hosea was Jewish, either.

Lastly, to mop up, there are some other logical disconnections related to the Elder’s viewpoint.

(1) Elder Rawchaa never explained why the Old Testament’s “non-Ahyah” El-names in the Bible were okay and not demonic names. I’m guessing they’re demonic, too, but that’s only a guess.

(2) Going back one last time to the “aaahhh … the Masoretic Text” response of suspicion, Elder Rawchaa never explained how the Masoretic Text outside Exodus 3 (for his Yahweh-Baal links) was a perfectly fine text when it reinforced his idea (or so he thought) but not when I used it for rebuttal.

Well, I know this was long, but I thought it worth blogging. I’m still asking what lessons I should take away from this interview (other than to quit doing interviews; still considering that). One thing that isn’t really a lesson, but which hit home again to me, was how easily these two guys could have destroyed the average church-goer today. If folks like them can devote the amount of time and industry to anti-Semitic Bible study that they obviously have, what does that say for the people occupying the pews now? Kind of disturbing.

 

Incidentally, Redles’ work is the *best* book I’ve ever read for understanding Hitler’s worldview. It really ought not be any mystery as to what motivated him or his inner circle with respect to the holocaust — and his thinking was molded and set in place before he came to power. I can’t recommend this book more highly for those interested in understanding the mind of Hitler. ↩
Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6:1012, 1992. ↩
Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. The footnotes within the quotation are those of Hess and are as follows. 49 – See Savran, Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narratives. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 420. New York: T&T Clark, 200; 50 – The southern origin is supported by Görg (1976); Mettinger (1988, 24–28); Axelsson (1987, 58–61). For the northern view, see Astour (1979); de Moor (1990b, 111–12); 51 – Van der Toorn (1993) traces Yahweh’s origins outside Canaan to Edom and Midian. Following Axelsson, he argues that the earliest biblical texts demonstrate that, despite southern desert origins, Yahweh first appeared in the hill country of Israel rather than Judah. Van der Toorn follows Edelman and Blenkinsopp in arguing that the Gibeonites were originally Edomites. He concludes that the Gibeonites introduced Yahweh to Israel through Saul. This last point is least convincing although the Gibeonites may have known of Yahweh before Israel’s appearance. Additional attempts have been made to locate the divine name Yahweh in a Ugaritic myth (spelled as yw), in a personal name from a fourteenth-century BC (Amarna) text from Tyre, or in the personal name of a contemporary text from far to the north of Palestine (de Moor 1990b; 1997). Due to the fragmentary nature of all these texts and the possibility of other interpretations, none can be regarded as certain or even probable. Cf. Hess (1991a). Even the Egyptian geographic name discussed above cannot be asserted without doubt as containing the name of God; 52 – M. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, 276; and 53 – Ibid., 145–47. ↩

Technorati Tags: Bible, divine, Exodus, gaja, hebrew, Mesha, Midian, Moabite, , rawchaa, Shasu, tetragrammaton, Yahweh

Dictionary of Classical Hebrew: A Unique, Indispensable Tool

I heard in the office today that the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (DCH; 8 vols; ed. David J. A. Clines) is almost at the development threshold on pre-pub. It needs only a couple dozen more orders to become a digital reality. I don’t often blog about Logos pre-pubs. This is one of those exceptions.1

For those unfamiliar with the Logos pre-pub system, here’s a quick explanation. Once we receive a license to a work like this, we “pre-pub” it to gauge interest. We match that interest against our internal development costs. The advantage to customers is that the item gets sold at a discount that won’t appear again. Once enough customers pre-order the product at the special pre-pub prince to cover our costs, we push the button on the development (the charge doesn’t go through until the item ships).

In the case of Clines, the pre-pub is an exceptional deal. It isn’t enough to call this bargain a steal; it’s grand theft. DCH retails for a whopping $1,280 in print ($160 per volume). I’ve used it, naturally, but don’t own it at that price. It’s basically been a boutique item for academic libraries. Not any more if we can push it over the threshold. Our digital edition is available on pre-pub for $249 (80% off). That means for less than the cost of two print volumes you get the complete set of eight volumes, and in the Logos environment to boot. That means DCH is fully searchable (English, Hebrew, transliteration) and linked across other lexicons and books within the Logos system.

You may already have a lexicon for biblical Hebrew, so what’s special about DCH? It’s unique among lexicons covering the Hebrew Bible in several ways:

DCH covers Hebrew word usage from the earliest Hebrew inscriptions to 200 A.D. (CE)
Entries on Hebrew words account for usage of the word not only throughout the biblical texts, but also the occurrences in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hebrew epigraphic inscriptions. 

These first two features must be underscored. DCH is the only lexicon for biblical Hebrew studies that has this coverage. No other lexicon includes that material in its analysis.


Because of the above coverage, DCH includes a list of all non-biblical text citations noted in the lexicon (i.e., the Dead Sea Scrolls and the inscriptions)
DCH  includes a word frequency index for each letter of the alphabet
There is substantial bibliography for research in Hebrew lexicography from vol. 2 onward

I know from past ETS and SBL meetings that DCH is a reference tool that scholars and students have insisted we pursue. We heard you. Now we need some help. Please spread the word to everyone you know who cares about Hebrew word studies to push this one over the hump!

Readers should note I receive no commission on any sale and no remuneration for blogging about our products. ↩

Technorati Tags: Bible, classical, clines, dead sea, dictionary, epigraphy, hebrew, inscriptions, lexicon, Old Testament, scrolls, study, word

Biblical Theology, Poverty, and Social Justice, Part 4

In Part 3 of this series, I had assembled a list of verse references drawn from the ABD article (linked in Parts 2 and 3) on the poor / poverty which its author categorized as involving oppression of the poor in legal (and hence political) contexts. I then put an exercise before myself and readers. I have earlier noted that many passages on the poor /poverty were pretty ambiguous as to two issues:

(1) What causes the poverty in these verses? For example, are they clear that the poverty of the victims was caused by economic exploitation as opposed to their own ineptitude or laziness, a military invasion, or some other unfortunate apolitical circumstance?

(2) What can we say about the abusers in these passages? Are they always wealthy? How can we tell? Are they state officials (as opposed to some random wealthy person)? Is there anything taught in these verses that provides a biblical axiom along the lines of “wealthy people inevitably cause oppression”?

I’ve gone through all the verses now. I can’t say I’ve done any deep exegesis. I’m just looking at each one in view of the surrounding (literary) context. Generally, I don’t see any indication of the cause of the poverty-stricken in any of these passages. The oppressed in these passages are already referred to as the poor. That said, I’d say there is a clear sense in some of the passages that judicial and political oppression kept the poor in their stricken condition or made their poverty worse. I also don’t think it can be accurately argued that all these verses always have wealthy people in mind when describing oppressors, though some clearly do. The same goes for identifying the evildoers as state officials (as opposed to some random poor or wealthy oppressor). Consequently, I don’t see any basis for the idea that wealth is some sort of inherent corrupter of persons that invariably prompts them to oppress the poor or that always peripherally leads to the oppression of the poor.

What follows are some notes I took while reading. I’m labeling with (P) any that seem to justify the conclusion that political corruption and injustice are at least partly in view. At the end of the list, I’ve linked to an article that deals with the relationship of the Israelite state and poverty. It’s our next launching pad. You’ll see in my comments that it’s evident some of the oppression derided by the prophets (and so, God) involves political and judicial authorities cheating and abusing the poor. I raise some questions about how to understand precisely what’s going on and how to transfer the ideas to our own time. The article will help us think about that.

Isa 3:14-15

(v. 8): Jerusalem has stumbled, and Judah has fallen, because their speech and their deeds are against the Lord, defying his glorious presence; (v. 9): “they have brought evil upon themselves”; (v. 11, 14): “Woe to the wicked . . . the spoil of the poor is in your houses; (vv. 18-26): description of wealth.

It seems obvious that the wealthy were abusing the poor. There is no indication that all the wealthy did this, or that having wealth axiomatically resulted in this abuse. There is also no reference to the role political leaders played in this. Were they among the guilty? Did they know of abuse and do nothing? Did they endorse it? I’d file these ideas under “possible but uncertain from the text” with respect to this passage.

Isa 10:2 (P)

The first verse refers to those who “decree iniquitous decrees” and the “writing of oppression”; seems a clear reference to those with the power to make laws and law codes (i.e., political rulers). Consequently, this seems a clear reference to the fact that laws were being put in place that abused the poor. The chapter follows a negative reference at the end of ch. 9 to Manasseh and Ephraim (i.e., the northern kingdom of Israel) but that alone is inadequate to argue that it is the northern authorities / kingdom that are targeted in ch. 10. Better for that is the reference to the day of punishment in 10:3 and the fact that Isaiah lived in the 8th century BC. These elements make for a coherent argument that the evildoers in Isa 10 are those of the northern kingdom, as it would soon be destroyed by Assyria (722 BC). The judgment of Assyria itself is mentioned in 10:5ff. So, while the OT repeats countless times that the judgment of exile (cf. the curses at the end of Deuteronomy) was due to idolatry and disloyalty toward Yahweh, wickedness in terms of righteous rule was also a factor.

Isa 11:4 (P)

The messianic (“Branch”) character of the passage and verse 4′s characterization that the Branch of Jesse will judge the poor fairly makes righteous treatment of the poor a political / governmental issue. That much is clear. What isn’t clear is just what constitutes righteous treatment. OT law does not call for all Israelites to have the same stuff or same level of wealth, so any conclusion along those lines is illegitimate. OT law calls for equal status before the laws within it (i.e., one’s level of wealth was not to be a factor on how one was judged in terms of guilt or innocence, or with respect to remuneration, which was spelled out, at least in the cases listed in the OT law).

Isa 26:6

Very vague here; the humbled “inhabitants of the city” (v. 5) is vague; it doesn’t allow us to delineate specific classes or levels of wealth. I don’t see any evidence for political oppression here; that has to be inserted.

Isa 29:19 (P)

The meek and the poor of v. 19 are contrasted with the ruthless, the scoffer, the one who looks for opportunity to do evil. At first glance, there doesn’t seem to be any textual evidence for political oppression. Anyone, rich or poor, could be characterized by the terminology in v. 20. However, v. 21 suggests political oppressors are the referent, as the wicked of v. 20 are further described as those who “by a word” (a decree? testimony before a judge?) produce misery by labeling people as offenders (scoundrels); the reference to “the gate” (the word “plea” in ESV is not derived from a Hebrew term) certainly indicates a judicial context, as the “gate” was the place of legal transaction in a city (cp. Ruth 4). The wicked lay a snare in legal proceedings that result in the defeat of the person who is “in the right” (v. 21).

Isa 32:7

Vague here again; just a reference to “scoundrels.”

Jer 2:34

The collective “you” being referred to here are the people of Judah in Jer 2. There is nothing to specifically indicate judicial or political oppression.

Jer 5:28 (P)

The language here is (“judging”; “defending the rights of the needy”) speak of judicial / political oppression. In verses 30-31 there is reference to the prophets prophesying falsely and the priests ruling “at their discretion” (i.e., however they wanted to). The evils drew the wrath of God (v. 29). We don’t get any specifics beyond that.

Jer 20:13

Only a generic reference to the needy suffering at the hands of evildoers.

Jer 22:16 (P)

The passage contains overt reference to political leadership; it is directed to the sons of Josiah. Josiah judged the poor and needy righteously (v. 16), but his sons were ruthless. The opposition makes it clear that political and judicial oppression was a reality and God despised it. We aren’t given specifics other than general references to “dishonest gain” and violence.

Ezek 18:12 (cf. Deut 24:12; Ezek 22:29)

An important passage since it references specific acts of justice or injustice from the OT law. The cross references come mainly from Exod 22 and laws about debt servitude, extortion and usury. The actual verse reference is not to political powerholders but the citizen and his treatment of his neighbor. The opposite of the wickedness described is found in vv. 14-18, again describing OT laws abotu robbery, extortion, and care for the poor. Nothing specifically suggests political leadership per se.

Amos 2:6-7

The references are to a range of immoral and abominable behaviors committed in general by Israelites, including “trampling” the poor. Nothing specifically political or judicial.

Amos 4:1 (P)

The “cows of Bashan” reference are basically universally regarded as a reference to the wealthy women of Samaria. However, since fatted cows were generally regarded as a sign of abundance and well being, “cows of Bashan” may more generically refer to all wealthy. These wealthy were trampling the poor and therefore condemnded, therefore, included in the condemnation. Political leadership would by default be included. I rate this (P) mostly because of the chapter that follows.

Amos 5:11-12 (P)

Overt references to the “house of Israel” (dynastic leaders). They are guilty of “trampling” the poor through taxation policies, taking bribes, and oppressing the needy in judicial settings (“the gate”). God would have them hate evil and to do good, one item of which concerns “establishing justice in the gate” (v. 15).

Amos 8:4-6

General oppression of the needy and poor is described; the general population (“my people Israel”; v. 2) is in view.

Psa 35:10

General oppression is in view again. It isn’t clear to me that the “witnesses” of v. 11 (ESV) speaks of a judicial context, as opposed to generic enemies and their accusations.

Job 24:4

Job 24:1-4 appears to speak of general cheating and injustice. I don’t see how the language could be isolated to the political or judicial, or how that is of necessity what is in view. Job is set (but likely not written) in a pre-Mosaic law context anyway, and so political justice really isn’t in view.

Eccl 5:7-8 (P)

Verse 8 sets the context as one involving political officialdom. The verses that ensue seem to broaden the oppression to the more general population, but political and judicial corruption is certainly included.

Here’s the article I mentioned earlier:

J. Levenson, “Poverty and the State in Biblical Thought” (13 pp)

Until next time!

 

Technorati Tags: Bible, Old Testament, poor, poverty, social justice, theology

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 032: Word Study Techniques, Part 1

The latest episode continues the series on Bible study at the word level. This episode focuses on why knowing how a word is used by a single author can be important. The nature of the example I use (“unmarried” / agameō in 1 Cor 7) requires saying something about a word’s distribution as well.

Technorati Tags: Corinthians, divorce, remarriage, unmarried

J-STOR Opens Archives for Free Access to Scholarly Journals

A while back I blogged on the importance of scholarly journals for biblical research. J-STOR, one of the premier database repositories for academic journals in the humanities (which of course includes biblical studies, archaeology, and religion) recently announced a new program to provide journal articles to the public for free. Check it out!

Technorati Tags: access, free, J-STOR, journals, online

Tips for Bible Study from the Blogosphere

A reader of Naked Bible recently sent me a link to a post he wrote that provides links to 45 blogs that offer tips for Bible study (varied ages and circumstances). Check it out – some useful links.

Technorati Tags: Bible, study

Understanding the Göttingen Septuagint

The Göttingen Septuagint is the premier critical-scholarly edition of the Septuagint. If you’ve ever seen or used it, you know it can be intimidating. Fortunately, Abram K-J (Words on the Word blog) has created a primer in two parts on how to read and understand the Göttingen Septuagint. Here are the links (highly recommended):

How to Read and Understand the Göttingen Septuagint: A Short Primer, part 1

How to Read and Understand the Göttingen Septuagint: A Short Primer, part 2 (the apparatus)

And it goes without saying you should have the digital version of the Göttingen Septuagint.

Technorati Tags: digital, edition, Göttingen, guide, handbook, LXX, primer, septuagint

MEMRA Online Ancient Language Courses for 2013

The MEMRA schedule for 2013 has now been posted!

MEMRA is in its third year and has transitioned to offering only ancient language courses. Each course lasts one year (52 weeks) so as to stretch two semesters of grammar for student convenience and low pressure pacing. There will be two modules that have their start in 2013: the first beginning March 4, the second beginning on July 8.

Course offered in 2013 are:

Beginning Biblical Hebrew
Beginning Biblical Greek
Beginning Ugaritic
Beginning Aramaic (new; offered only in the second module)

To see the 2013 schedule and register for courses, go to MEMRA and click on the registration tab at the top. You can also view course descriptions, sample videos, and sample course syllabi (unit breakdowns) for the beginning Hebrew and Greek courses.

NOTE: Registration ends two weeks prior to each module. You can register for either module (prior to the end of a registration period). You can also register for a course in each module, or register for more than one course per module.

Now’s your chance to learn biblical Hebrew and Greek (or another ancient language) online from home!

 

Technorati Tags: ancient, Aramaic, greek, hebrew, language, online, study, Ugaritic