[b-hebrew digest: February 10, 2001]

Henry Churchyard churchh at usa.net
Sun Feb 11 19:23:10 EST 2001


"Biblical Hebrew digest" <b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu> wrote:
B-HEBREW Digest for Saturday, February 10, 2001.

1. RE: Goliath
2. Terminology
3. Re: Oral tradition and Matthew
4. Keeping to the point
5. Pronouncing Masoretic Hebrew
6. Re: Terminology
7. Re: Oral tradition and Matthew
8. Re: Oral tradition and Matthew
9. Herem (was terminology)
10. Re: Herem (was terminology)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: Goliath
From: "Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk at sil.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:57:57 -0000
X-Message-Number: 1

See below.

Peter Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: Raymond de Hoop [mailto:rdehoop at keyaccess.nl]
Sent: 09 February 2001 12:02
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: Goliath


Peter,

A few remarks in answer to your posting.

> Firstly, you assume a single copyist. Rather more likely is two
generations
> of copyists who damaged the 2 Samuel text: the first who copied hurriedly,
> added a second )RGYM (that word starts with aleph, not ayin), and perhaps
> wrote BYT and )T unclearly; and a second who tried to make sense of the
text
> he saw, which may have been damaged as well as written unclearly.

Isn't this hypothesis upon hypothesis?

PK: No, it is one hypopthesis, that one scribe totally messed up copying
this part of the text. It is not a separate hypothesis that a later copyist
tidied it up because the text we now have is tidy. Not two lightning
strikes, as Ian suggests, but one strike and the necessary repair work.

<snip>

Nevertheless, I just wondered what's wrong with assuming that one scribe or
the other (and very likely the Chronicler) _deliberately_ changed the text
by changing some letters from the text he used as a source inorder to get a
correct version?

PK: We still have to explain the existence of the 2 Samuel text of this
verse as we have it now. This is clearly corrupt. Do you have any other
hypothesis for how this occurred except for copyists' errors? I accept that
the Chronicles text may be a separate tidying up of a corrupt text rather
than a witness to the pre-corruption original. But I very much doubt that
the 2 Samuel text can be what the author originally intended.

Greetings,

Raymond

--

*************************************************************

Dr Raymond de Hoop          Tel.: ++31 50 553 0115
Boeiersingel 11
NL-9745 CA Groningen
The Netherlands             E-mail: rdehoop at keyaccess.nl


*************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Terminology
From: "Samuel Payne" <sam at sampayne.worldonline.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 19:39:22 -0000
X-Message-Number: 2

I have joined the list rather late in the progress of this discussion on the
advisability of using the word "racial" in connection with the Bible, so I
am not sure what has been said already. It does echo however a problem I
have felt for several years.

The Books of Numbers and Joshua in particular describe what nowadays people
would call a war of aggression, and ethnic cleansing on a large scale - with
town after town destroyed, men, women and children. I would like to be able
to say that this was in almost pre-historic times, in the infancy of the
nation, when there was still much to learn. But the Bible does not permit me
to look at it like this. It is all described as being done on the direct
command of God. This leaves me on the horns of an aweful dilemma. If it
really was all done on the direct orders of God, what picture does this give
me of God, and what sort of example is this to the gentiles? On the other
hand, if it WAS "in the infancy of the nation", and NOT on the command of
God as described, how do I accept other cases of "God said . . " or "God
commanded . . " in the Bible as true?

I would be very grateful to be lifted off these horns. It is a painful
predicament.

Samuel Payne




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Oral tradition and Matthew
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Ausra=20Pazera?= <apazera at yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 21:04:51 +0000 (GMT)
X-Message-Number: 3

The same question about Matthew Jewish sources:

In his book "A Commentary on the New Testament from
Talmud and Hebraic. Matthew - 1 Corinthians",  J.
Lightfoot (17th), made references that in the
Babylonian (Talmud) Gemara (so, in the Jewish Aramaic
late tradition) it was mentioned that among Rahab's
posterity there were eight prophets and priests:
Neriah, Baruch, Seraiah, Maaseiah, Jeremiah, Hilkiah,
Hanameel, and Shallum, and that she was married by...
Joshua! 

Yes, it's very interesting from which source or
tradition did Matthew get his reference about Rahab as
the mother of Boaz... Maybe someone knows something
about that more exactly? Thanks.

Ausra  


-- Tony Costa <tmcos at hotmail.com> wrote: > Ausra,
> 
>   Good question. I'm not sure if Rahab is mentioned
> as the mother of Boaz in 
> the Hebrew Bible, but we are told in Ruth 4:21 that
> Salmon was the father of 
> Boaz. Matthew 1:5 is the text that mentions Rahab as
> the mother of Boaz, and 
> I think you are right in pointing out that this may
> be due to Matthew's 
> reliance on Jewish tradition.
> 
>                                            Tony
> Costa, B.A.
>                                           
> University of Toronto
> 
>

=====
Ausra Pazera

Vilnius University
Religious Studies Centre
Universiteto 3
2061 Vilnius
Lithuania

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Keeping to the point
From: b.gardner at abdn.ac.uk
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 01:43:10 GB
X-Message-Number: 4

Dear All,
        Can anyone give me references to studies of the use of astronomy in
the 
Tanakh and in other Jewish traditions?

Thanks,

Bruce Gardner.



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Pronouncing Masoretic Hebrew
From: "Jonathan Bailey" <jonathan.bailey at gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 08:44:41 -0800
X-Message-Number: 5

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0933D.B5515BB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What do people on the list have to say about the pronunciation of Hebrew =
by the Ben Asher school?

Was Resh aleovelar or uvular? Were Samech and Tet pharyngialized Sin and =
Tav, just as they are in Arabic? Had that characteristic already died =
out by the time the vowels were put in? I notice that Samech and Tet =
have no effect on vocalization. Was Vav a fricative labio dental or just =
a labial?

Jon Bailey

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0933D.B5515BB0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>What do people on the list have to say =
about the=20
pronunciation of Hebrew by the Ben Asher school?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Was Resh aleovelar or uvular? Were =
Samech and Tet=20
pharyngialized Sin and Tav, just as they are in Arabic? Had that =
characteristic=20
already died out by the time the vowels were put in? I notice that =
Samech and=20
Tet have no effect on vocalization. Was Vav a fricative labio dental or =
just a=20
labial?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Jon Bailey</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0933D.B5515BB0--


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Terminology
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard at ont.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:43:11 -0600
X-Message-Number: 6

Dear Samuel,

This seems a theological question rather than one for a list that discusses
biblical Hebrew. Could you possibly frame your question in a form that
would allow us to address the issue in terms of the Hebrew language? I
would be glad to give you a theological answer, but I suppose that I might
not meet with favor for doing so.

				Yours,
				Harold Holmyard
				Dallas, TX


>The Books of Numbers and Joshua in particular describe what nowadays people
>would call a war of aggression, and ethnic cleansing on a large scale - with
>town after town destroyed, men, women and children. I would like to be able
>to say that this was in almost pre-historic times, in the infancy of the
>nation, when there was still much to learn. But the Bible does not permit me
>to look at it like this. It is all described as being done on the direct
>command of God. This leaves me on the horns of an aweful dilemma. If it
>really was all done on the direct orders of God, what picture does this give
>me of God, and what sort of example is this to the gentiles? On the other
>hand, if it WAS "in the infancy of the nation", and NOT on the command of
>God as described, how do I accept other cases of "God said . . " or "God
>commanded . . " in the Bible as true?



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Oral tradition and Matthew
From: Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:31:01 -0800
X-Message-Number: 7

Now, would anyone happen to know specifically which Targumim or oral
traditions
mention Rahab as the mother of  Boaz and/or wife of Salmon?


Thanks.

Solomon Landers

"Harold R. Holmyard III" wrote:

> Dear Ausra,
>
> It seems that you are right about Rahab not being mentioned as the mother
> of Boaz in the OT. Thanks for the good observation.
>
>                                 Yours,
>                                 Harold Holmyard
>
> >It's quit possible that in the "Mathew" text there are
> >some traces of Oral Jewish traditions that we know
> >from Targumim. For example that very fact, that Rahaba
> > was included in genealogia of Jesus. In Hebrew text
> >Rahaba is not mentioned as mother of Boaz, is it?
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [Numberup at worldnet.att.net]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Oral tradition and Matthew
From: Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:32:33 -0800
X-Message-Number: 8

OK, I found that Tannaic tradition about Rahab being the mother of 8
prophets and the
wife of Joshua in Megillah 14b-15a (Babylonian Talmud).  Nothing about
Salmon, yet.

Solomon Landers

Ausra Pazera wrote:

> The same question about Matthew Jewish sources:
>
> In his book "A Commentary on the New Testament from
> Talmud and Hebraic. Matthew - 1 Corinthians",  J.
> Lightfoot (17th), made references that in the
> Babylonian (Talmud) Gemara (so, in the Jewish Aramaic
> late tradition) it was mentioned that among Rahab's
> posterity there were eight prophets and priests:
> Neriah, Baruch, Seraiah, Maaseiah, Jeremiah, Hilkiah,
> Hanameel, and Shallum, and that she was married by...
> Joshua!
>
> Yes, it's very interesting from which source or
> tradition did Matthew get his reference about Rahab as
> the mother of Boaz... Maybe someone knows something
> about that more exactly? Thanks.
>
> Ausra
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Herem (was terminology)
From: "Liz Fried" <lizfried at umich.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 16:21:03 -0500
X-Message-Number: 9

Dear Samuel,
One of the many joys I have had in studying the bible
critically is being able to take myself and others off these particular
horns. (Tho we may find others.)
I was teaching Hebrew to a friend and we were reading Joshua,
and he was similarly upset and confused (as were my own
children when they studied it).  I gave them all the Mesha
Stele to read. It was a great gift to myself and to each of them.
It placed everything in perspective; it provided understanding.
The  Moabite Stele can be found in translation in Cogan and Tadmor's
Anchor Bible Commentary on II Kings, p.333-4. It can also be found
in a great little book called Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories
from the Ancient Near East, by Victor Matthews and Don Benjamin.
The important to realize that the Hebrews were not alone in telling these
sorts of stories. This was ubiquitous among the peoples of the ancient
near east. Each god ordered it's people to destroy the others, to put them
to Herem (a word used in both the bible and the Mesha inscription), and
to devote them to himself. It is necessary to put oneself in the mindset
and the period of the age in which these texts were written, to consider
who the itended audience was, and the purpose of the text for its
audience.

If you can't get the Mesha stele, I can copy it out for you.

Liz Fried
Ann Arbor

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Samuel Payne [mailto:sam at sampayne.worldonline.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 2:39 PM
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Terminology
>
>
> I have joined the list rather late in the progress of this
> discussion on the
> advisability of using the word "racial" in connection with the Bible, so I
> am not sure what has been said already. It does echo however a problem I
> have felt for several years.
>
> The Books of Numbers and Joshua in particular describe what
> nowadays people
> would call a war of aggression, and ethnic cleansing on a large
> scale - with
> town after town destroyed, men, women and children. I would like
> to be able
> to say that this was in almost pre-historic times, in the infancy of the
> nation, when there was still much to learn. But the Bible does
> not permit me
> to look at it like this. It is all described as being done on the direct
> command of God. This leaves me on the horns of an aweful dilemma. If it
> really was all done on the direct orders of God, what picture
> does this give
> me of God, and what sort of example is this to the gentiles? On the other
> hand, if it WAS "in the infancy of the nation", and NOT on the command of
> God as described, how do I accept other cases of "God said . . " or "God
> commanded . . " in the Bible as true?
>
> I would be very grateful to be lifted off these horns. It is a painful
> predicament.
>
> Samuel Payne
>
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [lizfried at umich.edu]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Herem (was terminology)
From: "Charles David Isbell" <cisbell at home.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 16:59:57 -0600
X-Message-Number: 10

Dear Samuel,
Liz is right on target about the language of the Mesha stela.  I would like
to add another point.  The language used in Joshua, etc., is stylized and
used to describe a situation that may have been the vision of editors who
longed for a pure society free of non-Yahwists, but other biblical texts
indicate that total destruction of these populations [herem] does not
describe what was actually done.  The very people supposedly totally
exterminated under Joshua remained a constant source of religious temptation
and political opposition for hundreds of years after the era of Joshua, as
even a cursory reading of the Deuteronomic History shows.
Regards,
Charles David Isbell>




---

END OF DIGEST

---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [churchh at usa.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.


____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list