This story is actually rather interesting (HT: Doug Mangum). I find it so for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the fact that we were discussing this in my Textual Criticism class barely a week past. Obviously finding additional pages of the Aleppo Codex would be interesting. Dr. Saley told a story similar to the story the AP article relates–people running into a burning synagogue to save a few pages of the codex, etc.

I personally think the whole story of the Aleppo Codex is quite fascinating from a sociological, or perhaps psychological, standpoint. The way communities, and individuals become attached to particular editions of a sacred text. Understandably, when you have a copy of the text that is over 1,000 year old you’d want to protect it. The idea that one would be forbidden from taking photographs, and/or making an in depth study of a codex is probably foreign to our western thinking (certainly when the average American can go buy various editions of the Hebrew Bible for a couple bucks at Amazon.com). Regardless, it will be interesting to see if anything comes of this newest effort to obtain additional portions of the Aleppo Codex.

Calvin and I are soon going to begin a joint series, and we wanted to do a post explaining a bit about what we are going to be doing and why.

In a little under a year, we’ll begin applying to Ph.D programs. We’ve compiled a rather large list of potential programs, and this new series will be a “Survivor,” of sorts, to determine the best Ph.D programs for us. We’re putting our thoughts into writing so we’ll be able to narrow down our choices to a reasonable number of programs to which we will actually apply. We’re also hoping that if there is anyone reading who would have first-hand information on a particular program that we review, they’ll chime in with thoughts of their own. The information that we gather for each program will be posted in a fairly standard format.

If anyone else is in a similar situation as us, we would certainly be happy if our series helped that person out as well.

So, with no further ado, we’ll begin by listing the contenders, in no particular order (drum roll):

• Johns Hopkins University
• University of Pennsylvania
• University of Michigan
• Hebrew Union College
• Penn State
• University of Wisconsin
• Yale University
• Brandeis University
• Harvard University
• Catholic University of America
• University of Toronto
• New York University
• Notre Dame
• UC Berkley
• UCLA
• Ohio State University
• University of Chicago
• Emory University

Now, some of these we are already fairly sure we won’t apply to, but we thought we’d give them their fair shake. Additionally, if you know of a Ph.D program in Hebrew Bible/Ancient Near East/OrSomethingSimilar at a University that we’ve forgotten, please feel free to comment or shoot us an email.

We are now officially three weeks into the semester. For Gordon-Conwell students that means we’re very close to being a third of the way through the semester. That thought is somewhat sobering, but I digress.

Below are my thoughts on classes so far, and how I’m feeling about each:

Interpreting the New Testament: So far things have gone well. Interpreting the NT is basically a New Testament Hermeneutics class. I’ve covered many of the topics in other classes, and in more depth as I’ve studied the Hebrew Bible. Most of the concepts are transferable. As a result I’m not feeling especially excited about this class. However, the reading–most notably Bruce Metzgers The Text of the New Testament and N.T. Wright’s The New Testament and the People of God–has been absolutely fascinating. The introduction to New Testament textual criticism provided in class was also helpful. On the whole I’m looking forward to seeing what the rest of the semester holds, but I’m not expecting it to be a class where I learn something amazingly new each week.

Ugaritic: I vacillate between really liking this class, and loathing vocalizing verbs and nouns. It’s taken three weeks, but I feel like I’ve finally got the basics of Ugaritic under control. Now if I can manage to push forward I think I may enjoy things. Color me undecided on this one.

Independent Reading in the Hebrew Bible: I’m reading Qohelet. What could be better? I’m also looking forward to getting into both Job and Proverbs. Overall, I’ve really, really enjoyed the course work, and the reading is interesting. I’m actually looking forward to my midterm. I learn a bit more about Hebrew grammar, idiom, etc each time I look at the texts for this course, so I’ve been very pleased so far.

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: This course is excellent. I can already see that this will be my favorite course this semester. Dr. Saley manages to lecture without being dry, and if a student has a question he doesn’t have the answer to off the top of his head he writes it down and brings the answer to the next class. I absolutely am going to steal that idea when I teach. Since Textual Criticism is an area I haven’t done a ton of work in I’m learning a great deal. I’m especially looking forward to the second half of the semester, when we’ll actually be doing textual criticism on a section of 1 Samuel.

We have arrived at the point in the biblioblogosphere where linking to a few representative posts on the issue of Bible translation is simply impossible. It’s a dead horse that, for some reason, we find the most sadistic pleasure in continuing to beat. The normal perpetrators are John Hobbins, David Ker, Iyov, Doug Mangum, and many others.

Something that has been discussed in the past, in a variety of posts, is proper English grammar versus freer grammar in translations. This is normally an issue of either A) wanting simple English (which, I guess, means bad English) or B) maintaining Hebrew word order. The latter is what I’d like to address in this post.

As many of you may know, I’m translating a bunch of Biblical wisdom texts for a class this semester. One of those texts happens to include Qohelet 3.10. Which says, according to MT:

רָאִיתִי אֶת־הָֽעִנְיָן אֲשֶׁר נָתַן אֱלֹהִים לִבְנֵי הָאָדָם לַעֲנֹות בֹּֽו׃

A literal translation might be, “I saw the task which God gave to the children of man to be tasked with it.” Of course, we see easily that literally translating this into English provides a somewhat odd construction. We simply don’t need the final pronoun in English. The majority of English translations simply render the final bit of the verse something like, “to be tasked with,” thus dropping the pronoun. This works perfectly fine. However, in English, prepositions are not words that we end sentences with(!). The most natural way to re-order the words in the verse to make it fit with proper English grammar would be, “I saw the task which God gave to the children of men with which to be tasked.” Only the NASB uses this word order though. I imagine it was deemed too difficult for 4th graders, and thus the easier, but less proper, reading was adopted.

I’m not here to argue that one ought to adopt the more grammatically correct reading. I just find it ironic that many translations, which claim to put things into proper English, in fact do not–at least in this case. I also find it somewhat amusing that the NASB, which supposedly keeps the Hebrew word order, abandons it in favor of proper English word order, at least in this case.

So, what does all of that mean? Nothing of any consequence, except to point out yet again that translating the Bible is a difficult and imprecise task. On the other hand, simply reading the Hebrew is a fun, energizing, and too often overlooked leisure time activity. Discussions regarding how a passage should be translated, and whether proper English or Hebrew word order should be favored would be rendered completely moot if everyone would simply learn Hebrew and Greek (and I suppose, to be fair, Aramaic needs to be added to that list, as Peter Bekins has pointed out).

…was the serpent in the garden. So says Walter Brueggemann in his Interpretation: Genesis commentary (from p. 47-48):

The serpent is a device to introduce the new agenda…it is a player in the dramatic presentation. This is the first theological talk in the narrative. The new mode of discourse here warns that theological talk which seeks to analyze and objectify matters of faithfulness is dangerous enterprise…the prohibition which seemed a given is now scrutinized as though it were not a given but an option. The serpent engages in a bit of sociology of law in order to relativize even the rule of God. Theological-ethical talk here is not to serve but to avoid the claims of God…God is treated as a third person. God is not a party to the discussion but is the involved object of the discussion. This is not speech to God or with God, but about God. God has been objectified. The serpent is the first in the Bible to seem knowing and critical about God and to practice theology in the place of obedience.

Calvin and I both agree: that’s just brilliant!

Tyler Williams has a post up discussing the Vatican’s recent declaration that the name Yahweh not be spoken as part of their liturgy. I agree with many of his thoughts.

In my undergraduate career (at a Christian college), we pronounced the name as “Adonai,” aside from one student who decided to pronounce it “Hashem,” (ie, “the name”). This has always been what I’m most comfortable with. Not that I have any problem with vocalizing the tetragrammaton as Yahweh, but I’m most comfortable with a healthy distance between myself and an enraged deity. When I came to GCTS I was rather abashed that everyone vocalized יהוה as Yahweh. To date I think Mandy and I are the only ones who regularly insert Adonai when reading from the Hebrew Bible.

I, like Tyler, think that by translating the Name as “LORD” we lose something. It’s the difference between a title and a name. God implies a certain relationship with Israel when he reveals his name to Moses. To simply use “LORD” lacks the same connotations of relationship. I’d love to see modern translations simply use something akin to YHWH. That way each individual/church/denomination/etc can decide how they feel most comfortable dealing with the tetragrammaton. At the same time, it make obvious what is not always obvious in English translations–יהוה is a proper name, not a title.

One thing that neither Mandy or I have blogged about much is our experience of learning Aramaic in Seminary. I had some negative things to say about our Biblical Aramaic course last spring. To be fair, looking back, I imagine I was simply overwhelmed during the first week of the semester and thus panicking. The class wasn’t as bad as the first post linked above makes it out to be, nor is the work described in it unreasonable. However, I never really went over any of the positive things about learning Biblical Aramaic at seminary, specifically at GCTS.

The first and most obvious positive to learning Biblical Aramaic at GCTS is that we are able to take a course in it at all. As Peter Bekins has pointed out (his post was actually the inspiration for this one), many seminaries do not offer Aramaic, and if they do many seminarians do not take it. That’s not the case at GCTS. To be sure, the Aramaic class was not even close to the size of the Hebrew and Greek courses, but it was fairly sizable (perhaps 30 students).

Having taken Aramaic I have a much better idea of how semitic languages work. I imagine this will be even more true once I complete Ugaritic this fall. Taking Aramaic also means that I can read the entirety of the Hebrew Bible in the original language.

Although this next positive is specific to GCTS, it still applies in my case, as well as Mandy’s. By achieving an A or A+ in Aramaic, students here are able to take two directed study courses with Dr. Stuart, if they would like. Those two courses are Targumic Aramaic and Syriac. To be completely honest, the number of dead languages taught at Gordon-Conwell was one of the main reasons Mandy and I chose to come here for our Masters’ work.

I’ve not studied Aramaic as much, or for as long, as Pete Bekins. Nevertheless, I see the beginnings of the importance to an understanding of Hebrew, and semitics generally, as well as Biblical studies, that he discusses in his post. Also like him, I would love to see Aramaic as a requirement at seminaries–of course, I’d also like to see two full years of Hebrew as a requirement, but I won’t hold my breath.

Learning Aramaic allowed me to see how some of the things that Hebrew does are carried on in a related language. I really can’t overestimate how helpful that has been to me as I continue to read the Hebrew Bible and refine my knowledge of Hebrew. Johns’ Grammar also includes some helpful charts in regards to the way in which Aramaic is related to other semitic languages, including very brief discussions of proto-semitic consonants and the Canaanite vowel shift.

Overall, I’m extremely pleased that I was able to learn Aramaic while in seminary. Likewise I’m pleased to be taking Aramaic this semester, and I plan to take both Targumic Aramaic and Syriac if I can fit them into my schedule. Of course, my desire is to eventually obtain a PhD, so I may be an odd ball. But I even know some M.Div. students who took advantage of the Aramaic offerings here at Gordon-Conwell. I highly recommend it.

Art was able to attend a lecture by Dr. Levenson, of Harvard Divinity School, regarding the binding of Isaac. He has his thoughts up over at his blog.

With Art’s description, I wonder if perhaps I should have taken the plunge and decided on taking Levenson’s seminar this semester on the Aqedah, instead of Textual Criticism. In the end I’m pretty sure I’ll be glad I took text crit, but Art’s review makes it difficult to feel like that at present.

Welcome! You’ve just stumbled upon (or were directed to) The Floppy Hat, the new cooperative blog of Calvin and Mandy Park! For those of you who are already familiar with our respective blogs, I just wanted to explain a little of the reasoning behind our new site, and what you can expect out of it. Let’s get started!

What exactly is this, you ask?
As you may have shrewdly guessed, Calvin and I have decided to open up our own domain, www.thefloppyhat.com. In the future, we may expand the site into more areas than a blog, but for now, this is just the home of our new joint blog venture.

So why have a joint blog?
As those of you who have already made the acquaintance of Calvin or I in some fashion know, we are both keenly interested in the Hebrew Bible and Biblical languages. We also both want to pursue a Ph.D. in the area of Hebrew Bible, Ancient Near East, Semitics, or some other related major. We’re also best friends, study partners, and life companions! For awhile now we’ve both maintained separate blogs, which have been more or less personal in nature. Since we both blog frequently (that’s Calvin) or occasionally (that’s me) about our studies, research interests, and general pursuit of academia, we figured why not do it together? We’ve always been a team, and love the idea of continuing to be a team as we pursue Ph.D work and ultimately our future careers.

But, “The Floppy Hat”!?!?
It’s simple, really: the floppy hat is my fond nickname for the doctoral tam. My desire to obtain a Ph.D started at convocation in college, when I saw all the profs with their marvelous doctoral robes marching down the aisle, with the crowning glory of a floppy hat! Of course, this morphed into more reasonable reasons over time, but to this day I still call the tam a “floppy hat,” and Calvin has picked up on the term as well. Silly, you say? Exactly! The name is now rather symbolic of the air that we bring to our studies: we love the Hebrew Bible, our goal is to teach it, and consequently we want those we teach to love the Hebrew Bible! We are firmly against boring, dour-faced, dusty academia. This doesn’t, of course, mean that we don’t take our scholarly efforts seriously…but it does mean that we intend to infuse our passion for the Hebrew Bible into our studies. I, for one, am rather whimsical and goofy, and I think it’s terrible (for example) for a good scholar to write a boring book!

So…now what?
You can expect that much of the more academic subjects that we posted about on our personal blogs will continue. We’ll talk about our research interests, Ph.D programs, classes, little tidbits in our studies that we found interesting, post book reviews, interact with other blogs – don’t expect anything really crazy! We’ll also keep in the works a series or two that we’ll work on together.

Are your personal blogs still open?
Yes, for the foreseeable future. I, at least, enjoy blogging on occasion about other subjects that pop into my brain, from my observations of the habits of ladybugs, to what it’s like to live in MA, and I know Calvin will continue to blog about the youth ministry, video games, and any other number of subjects.

Enjoy!

Yesterday and today, I read over Doug Mangum’s series of posts comparing the new ESV and NLT study Bibles. Of particular interest to me was the third and final part in the series, where Doug compared the study notes of the two Bibles. In the course of his post, Doug pointed out several notes where he felt that the ESVSB over-theologized based on the Hebrew grammar. I scanned the Book of Jonah, available for viewing online, myself, and felt he was fairly justified in his points of contention with several of these notes.

When Doug ended with the statement, “what I’ve seen so far leads me to think it will be a worthwhile addition to the study bible market,” it started me thinking about whether or not I would say the same thing. I am in agreement with Doug in that I would be interested to see how the rest of the study Bible turns out (and certainly before making any bold judgments on the overall quality of the ESVSB – which I wouldn’t do based on one excerpt). However, considering the notes of the ESVSB brought this thought to my mind: in general (not speaking now of the ESVSB specifically) can a study Bible that makes theological or hermeneutical claims based on the Hebrew grammar, and on closer inspection, it turns out these claims are flat out wrong (or at least highly tenuous), really be considered “worthwhile”?

My problem is this: those of us who know the Biblical languages (or in my case, Hebrew and Aramaic, Greek to be added in this coming school year) have a great responsibility toward those who do not. There is enough self-perpetuated ignorance among lay people as it is, without those who have training in Biblical languages to be spreading more of it around. To me, this is almost unforgivable. Consider the general audience of study Bibles: the average Bible-minded Christian who doesn’t know Hebrew or Greek, and really has no resources to look up something a study Bible says about the language to verify its accuracy.

When it comes to interpretations based on the English, at least the lay person has English resources, if they so chose to utilize them, to look up and see if the information being given has some credence. However, when a claim is made based on the original language, what further resource does the lay person have? They are left with basically two options: trust that the person writing the study notes knows what they are talking about and accept what they say, or try to find someone personally who knows the languages to verify it with them. Since there are, sadly, hardly a glut of people running around in local churches who have a handle on Hebrew and Greek, most are left with option one. There is the option of looking in commentaries by people who know the languages to see if they say something similar, but ultimately it’s the same idea: they can’t know for themselves.

Therefore, I repeat what I said earlier: those who know the languages have a great responsibility. We cannot afford to be careless in our statements based on Hebrew words or grammar. There are hundreds of thousands of people depending on the accuracy, diligence, and scholarship of study tools to get it right. I, of course, realize that we are all human and we all make mistakes, nor do any of us have unlimited knowledge, and some are further down the road of understanding the languages than others. Obviously, there will always be some enterprising person who will make something of nothing regardless of how careful one is. However, to the very best of our ability and knowledge, when we are dealing with educating lay people (which study Bibles, among other tools, ultimately purport to do), we must be very careful in how we use the biblical languages to add theological meaning to the text.

Of course, ultimately, this would all be solved if every Christian would learn the Biblical languages. I am in full agreement with my husband there.