I have been a little busy for the past week or so. As a result updates have been fairly rare. However, I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to quote Michael Fox quoting Ben Sira on the strange woman.
In my view, the Strange Woman is another man’s wife, whose transgression is thus adultery. She is not a prostitute but a wanton amateur of the sort who “opens her quiver for every arrow,” as Ben Sira puts it.
The title of this post seems better suited to my friend Earl’s blog than my own. I don’t mean anything philosophical or metaphysical or whatever else theologians mean by questions like this. I simply mean, what is God like? Who is he in terms of his identity and his relationship with creation. I don’t normally post about my own faith and religious experience on this blog, for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, I’m making an exception in this case because I believe that Jay brings up some good points. Also, I know exactly how Jay feels.
Although I attend church (and very much love my present church context) I do, at times, find myself wondering if I believe in the same God in which much of Evangelical Christianity believes. The answer is often “no.” This was a pretty scary realization when I originally…realized it.1 Soon after this, however, I figured that I believed in the God of the Bible, and I’d take him over the theological construct to which much of Evangelicalism clings.
In short, John Anderson pretty much sums up who God is, “God is . . . . a paradox. Vulnerable yet powerful. Tricky yet faithful. Present yet absent.” My God is a paradox, I’m okay with that. I understand that for many people God being a paradox is an uncomfortable thought. I’m sensitive to that, but if one claims to have a high view of Scripture, how can one dismiss the Scriptures’ view of God?
Rob has opened a can of worms. So, for a bit of weekend fun, head over to the link above and chime in. To be fair, this conversation was already hashed out once at Jim Getz’ blog.
Basically, the issue is that the Biblioblog Top 50 is calculated using Alexa statistics. Alexa tracks hits via their toolbar (which anyone may install, free of charge). Truth be told, there is a rather small number of people who use the Alexa toolbar. In addition, the people who install the toolbar are normally those who have some reason to do so (eg, webmasters, geeks, etc). Thus the sample which Alexa works with is not representative of the internet “population” at large.
All of this means that the Biblioblog Top 50 is not a very accurate indication of the number of hits which various biblioblog receive. It is an accurate representation of which blogs Alexa toolbar users are viewing. My guess is that very few biblioblog readers have the Alexa toolbar installed, resulting in a heavily skewed result–though that is only my conjecture, I could be entirely wrong.
So, what to do? My vote is to continue on as is. The Biblioblog Top 50 is mostly for fun, and Alexa allows us to have some fun and see blogs moving on the charts. The movements may not be accurate. One option would be to investigate better (ie, more accurate) way of tracking statistics. I have a feeling, however, that such a thing won’t be easy. The best way would be for one of the more technologically inclined among us (read: a computer geek) to write a stat program which people could then opt into by inserting a small amount of code (similar to Google Analytics) on their blog. The problem with this, as Jim Getz has already pointed out, is that there is such a wide variety of blog software in use by those in the Biblioblog community that making a package that worked with all of them (especially hosted blogs on wordpress.com, blogger or typepad) would probably be impossible.
What do you think?
Before one may speak of the structure of Job 5.2-7, one must establish that this passage is set off, structurally, from the surrounding verses in some way. In other words, is Job 5.2-7 a self-contained pericope? To some extent, no passage in the Book of Job is a self-contained pericope, since each passage is part of the greater whole and intricately related to its surrounding passages. Nevertheless, this passage is a unit that is distinguishable from the surrounding units.
Murphy treats this pericope as two separate units. Specifically, he associates verses one and two of chapter five as the conclusion of the preceding material (ie, chapter four).1 This association is largely because of what he calls the “quasi-acrostic features” of verses three to seven.2 However, as other commentators have pointed out, verses two to seven could be removed, leaving verses one and eight next to each other without interrupting the flow of the passage.3 Even if one does not agree that verses two to seven could be removed without interrupting the flow of the passage, verse one is clearly a framing statement, and not part of the pericope proper.4
Perhaps most convincing, from a structural perspective, as to why these verses should be taken as a unit is the inclusio which is formed by verse two and verses six and seven. Verse two is a proverbial saying, as are verses six and seven. In addition, verse two as well as verses six and seven begin with the Hebrew letter kaph. In fact, the entire pericope forms a kind of quasi-acrostic chiasm, to borrow Murphy’s terminology. This quasi-acrostic chiasm may be illustrated as follows:kaph, alef, yod, alef, kaph, kaph; with each of the letters beginning a verse line. The chiasm is as follows A-B-C-B’-A’-A’. The double occurrence of כי at the end of the section serves as a mechanism to close the pericope.
The passage may be outlined thusly:
I. Wisdom saying concerning the fate of the fool (v. 2)
II. Example Story (vv. 3-5)
A. The fool is consumed (v. 3)
B. The fate of the fool’s children (vv. 4-5)
1. They lack a benefactor (v. 4)
2. Their possessions are taken by the destitute (v. 5)
III. Wisdom sayings concerning the origin of trouble (vv. 6-7)
The basic structure of the wisdom sayings (vv. 2, 6-7) is synonymous parallelism, although verses six and seven are more complex than this basic structure may imply.
Verses six and seven are linked, not only in that verse seven further explains verse six, but also in certain structural elements. As has already been mentioned, both lines begin with the Hebrew letter kaph. Furthermore, stitch A of verse seven uses two of the same roots as stitch B of verse six, namely אדם and עמל. Dhorme has noted that whereas verse six uses two Qal yiqtol forms, verse seven uses two Hifil yiqtol forms.5 These instances, when taken together, show a strong connection between verses six and seven. How then do the two verses connect structurally? The following is an attempt at showing the logical, structural connections between the two verses:
6a -כי לא יצא מעפר און
6b -ומאדמה לא יצמח עמל
7a -כי אדם לעמל יולד
7b -ובני רשף יגביהו עוף
The logical progression from one stitch to the next may be expressed in this way: 6a and 6b conversely 7a just like 7b.
The example story (vv. 3-5) is structured as the outline above indicates. First Eliphaz states that he has seen the fool משריש, “taking root,” but that the fool’s abode was suddenly consumed. He then proceeds to speak of the negative repercussions to the fool’s children. Structurally, verse three is a synthetic parallelism, which may be more accurately termed enjambment.6 Stitch B of the two stitch line moves the story onward. In stitch A Eliphaz declares that he has seen the fool, whereas in stitch B he reports what took place. Verses four and five, which deal with the plight of the children of the fool, are each three stitches, as opposed to the standard two stitches in all the other verses of this pericope.
Verse four follows an interesting downward movement. Each stitch becomes shorter, which has the effect of creating a kind of falling off effect. Stitch A contains a verb, stated subject and indirect object. Stitch B contains a verb and indirect object, but lacks a stated subject. Stitch C contains a particle and a Hifil participle functioning as a predicate nominative.
Verse five has an equally fascinating internal structure. Like verse four, verse five is a tricolon line. The verse, as it has been restored, is entirely synonymous throughout the three stitches.7 The table below illustrates that synonymity, as well as the fascinating structural reversal in stitch C. That is, stitches A and B follow a somewhat non-standard Object-Subject-Verb word order. Stitch C, however, reverses this order, reverting to the more standard Verb-Subject-Object word order. This creates a kind of chiasm between stitches A and B on the one hand, and stitch C on the other. It is also interesting to note that stitch C replaces the expected yiqtol form with a weqatal form.
|
(C)יאכל |
(B)רעב |
(A)אשר קצרו |
Stitch A |
|
(C’)יקחה |
(B’)תנים |
(A’)ואלם |
Stitch B |
|
(A”)חילם |
(B”)צמאים |
(C”)ושאף |
Stitch C |
What does this structure reveal about the verse? Does it impact the meaning? Perhaps not in any non-obvious way. The reversal of word order in the final stitch is likely a way of indicating the end of the line and, possibly, the end of the discussion of the fool’s children, or even the entire example story. In this way it is a mechanism to show closure, not dissimilar to verses six and seven starting with kaph. The change from yiqtol verbal forms to a weqatal form likely serves the same purpose. Notice also that stitch C switches to a plural subject, whereas the other stitches have had collective singulars.
In summary, there are several major structural patterns and many minor ones in this passage. The major structural patterns, in order of priority, are 1) the inclusio formed by wisdom sayings at the beginning and end of the pericope; 2) the tricolon structure of verses four and five; and 3) the synonymous parallelism within verse five. The inclusio clearly establishes the limits of the passage, while the tricolon structure in verses four and five tie together the bulk of the example story, specifically the report of the fate of the fool’s children. Finally, the synonymous parallelism in verse five, aside from representing a stroke of artistic genius, serves as a mechanism for closing the example story before moving on to the final wisdom saying.
There are also many minor structural patterns which have been mentioned. The two that are likely deliberate, and therefore of interest to one studying the passage, are 1) the quasi-acrostic pattern and 2) the structure of verses six and seven. The first is likely deliberate since it serves to both set off this section from the surrounding sections, as well as indicate the close of the section by two successive lines beginning with kaph. It also ties the entire passage together. The second is important since one might argue that verses six and seven are the end towards which the entire pericope–perhaps even the entirety of Eliphaz’ first speech so far–points.
The community lament, the funeral song, and the city lament appear to be the main influences on the poetry of Lamentations. In chapter two, the community lament is particularly strong, though it consists only of complaint and petition. In verses 18-22, several points of comparison can be made with the three forms summarized above:
18-19: The initial address to the wall is a characteristic found in the city lament.1 These verses also contain the summons to mourn found in the qinah form. While not exactly a petition itself, the poet here calls on Daughter Zion to petition God. There is also a continuation of the complaint in the description of the condition of the children in verse 19.
20: The standard petition of the community lament is found here in the mouth of the city – an imperative directed at God. In this case, ראה and נבט are the verbs chosen to encourage God to act. Of course, the fact that the poet demands that God “look” indicates that he is not currently “looking,” therefore hints at the divine abandonment motif of city laments (also featured frequently in individual laments). Also in this verse is the hint of reprimand and incredulity that is often found in the psalmic laments: because of God’s actions XY and Z has occurred – does God really want XY and Z to continue?
21-22: The poet returns to the complaint against God. God is accused of slaughtering the people without mercy, and no one has escaped his wrath. This is, of course, also a general description of the distress in correlation to the qinah. As in the beginning of the chapter, the blame continues to be assigned to the deity – echoes of the city lament. Finally, in these last two verses as well as verse 20, there is the possibility that that the personification of the city as a woman could be an Israelite version of the “weeping goddess” of the city lament.
Verses 20-22 in and of themselves are a mini-lament, since they are put as a unit into the mouth of Daughter Zion. She begins with a petition, and moves on to the complaint, as noted above.
Obviously a tone of sorrow and mourning permeates the entire passage, though anger is especially prominent in chapter two. After evaluating the forms most likely to have influenced chapter two and specifically verses 18-22, one could indeed say that Lamentations is a mixture of forms. The community lament is especially prominent in chapter two, and several features of the Mesopotamian city lament can also be seen. Whether or not the qinah form had a real influence on this chapter is debatable; a general feeling of lamentation is of course common to all three forms. Nevertheless, chapter two cannot be pinpointed into any one form. The variety of motifs drawn together, however, is “not something to be scoffed at or derided, but should be celebrated and enjoyed.”2 It is difficult to tell if the pulling of various types of lament was intentional; either way, the poet shows his skill in weaving a dramatic and emotional portrayal of the grief of the people, pulling in whatever resources he had available, whether consciously or subconsciously.
Whether one wants to create a new form, as does Berlin, or be satisfied identifying the poem as a creative mixture of several types of forms, the end result is one of emotional rawness that probably would have been used by the community in their mourning of the destruction of Jerusalem and the death and exile of many of her people. In this respect, it could have been used very much as a metaphorical dirge. Certainly, it is very unlikely that the poem was used to commemorate the re-building of the temple, as it is theorized that some city laments were used. The closest connections for use are those of the community lament, which later became integrated into the formal liturgy of the community.3
My next two posts on Lamentations will focus on identifying the form of Lamentations 2 (though it applies generally to Lamentations as a whole as well). Keep in mind that this is a very broad overview of the issues as part of a larger paper, so there is obviously a lot here that could be treated much more in depth. Once again, enjoy, and comments are always welcome!
The genre of Lamentations seems almost laughably obvious, as it is reflected in the English title. Lamentations is part of the broad category of lament literature, a genre which at its core is “a cry uttered when life falls apart.”1 The book is composed of five separate “laments.” Chapter two is one of these laments, and verses 18-22 are one part of the lament of chapter two. Identifying the type of lament in chapter two, and the laments of Lamentations as a whole, is more complex.
The most well known biblical laments are, of course, the psalmic laments, which are in and of themselves broken down into two types: the individual and the community lament. Other forms of lament are the dirge (funeral lament) and the city lament. The problem with Lamentations, especially chapters one, two, and four, is that it does not fit neatly into any of the lament forms named above. That is to say, it is not just that the lament is missing parts of a typical community lament, for instance, but rather that it appears to be a mixture of several types of laments. Chapter two is one of these “hybrid” forms.
The first type of lament that has similarities to the chapter in question is the community lament. The community lament generally consists of the following parts:2
In the community lament, the community cries out to God because of a disaster by which the whole people are affected. The community lament seeks to prompt God to action to help and deliver his people. In many ways, chapter two has similarities with the community lament. A “disaster par excellence” was at hand, and the community cries out to God in the hopes that he will act, or in the case of chapter two, have mercy after all.4 However, unlike the community (or individual) lament, the chapter consists entirely of the complaint and petition portions of the lament. There is no summary of God’s past gracious acts and no hint of a response from God. Chapter two, especially, is entirely consumed by reviewing not the gracious acts of God but the recent destructive acts of God (vs. 1-18; complaint against God) and a demand for God to act (vs. 19-22; petition). Certainly, there is no vow of praise (or an expression of confidence, as in the related individual lament). One might then ask, can chapter two really be called a community lament in form, when it is missing so many of the crucial pieces of the lament?
Another possibility that may have had influence on Lamentations chapter two is the funeral dirge, or qinah form. Examples of actual dirges in the Bible are limited, but the prophets make use of the dirge form metaphorically in many instances.5 Elements of a dirge may include any of the following:6
The opening איכה of Lamentations 2 might be said to have similarities to a dirge. Additionally, there is a clear “summons to mourn” and certainly a description of suffering. Nevertheless, a true qinah was used for mourning over the death of an individual; any similarities to the dirge in Lamentations 2 are purely metaphorical in nature. Adele Berlin notes the similarities of the poems in Lamentations to both a community lament and a dirge, and suggests a new form for the laments that is part community lament, part dirge, with a little bit of uniqueness thrown in: the Jerusalem lament.7
The final type of lament that has been compared extensively to the laments of Lamentations is the Mesopotamian city lament. These laments, which “describe the destruction of particular cities and their important shrines,” date to the 2nd millennium BCE.8 The features of a city lament are as follows:9
F. W. Dobbs-Allsop has compared and contrasted each of these elements with the poems in Lamentations and comes to the conclusion that they have many features in common. However, he notes that ultimately the author of Lamentations does not copy exactly the city lament, but molds it to Israelite customs and beliefs.10 Most scholars now admit at least some similarities between Lamentations and the Mesopotamian city lament genre, though not all agree that the city lament is the most important influence on Lamentations.11
It seems several people throughout the blogosphere are very confused today. As it happens today is not my birthday. My birthday is on the other side of the year, you’d be hard pressed to be further off the mark than July 10.
It seems that a great many people have begun following my teachings. I, of course, cannot discern my teaching within what they claim to believe, but I suppose that is neither here nor there. Besides, I really wouldn’t want to take glory away from God by having people celebrate my birthday with conferences and the like.
Also, we really need to get something out in the open: I am nowhere near 500 years old, and I find it somehow insulting that you all think I am. I’ve been told I was mature for my age, but really–500? If I was 500, I’d know far more languages than I do at present.
And for the last time, my first name is not John!
I recently came across this quote, and it’s simply too good not to post.
“If I had been a priest I should have made a thorough study of Hebrew and Greek so as to understand the thought of God as he has vouchsafed to express it in our human language.”
There is only one bit of what St. Theresa says that I don’t entirely agree with: don’t miss the chance of understanding the thought of God by not learning the languages, even if you are not a priest.
I have had a wonderful time working my way through Proverbs 1-9 recently. Part of the reason that the labor has been so enjoyable is that I have been refreshing my own knowledge of the various aspects of this part of the Book of Proverbs. I have always found Proverbs 1-9 to be fascinating; the interplay between Lady Wisdom and the forbidden woman, the father and the son, the My Son poems and the various interludes, are all intriguing. When I read through Proverbs 1-9 recently I noticed a pattern in the first several poems that I would like to wax eloquent about for a few sentences. I will then wildly speculate about what this pattern might indicate. I’m sure some of you will be kind enough to correct me in the comments thread, and I welcome this.
To begin, it might be wise to establish a few assumptions that I’m making. The foremost of these is that repetition is an aid in learning. The more a teacher repeats something, the more likely a student is to remember it. A second assumption that I’ve made is that Proverbs 1-9, in its received form, has been shaped and that there is a reason and/or logic to this shaping. That is not to say that scholars completely understand this reason, but such a reason existed in the mind of the redactor/writer/editor.
Turning to the text itself, the intriguing pattern I was referring to is the tendency, early on in the poems of Proverbs 1-9, to conclude a poem with a summary statement concerning the fate of the wise over against the fate of the wicked. This juxtaposition of the wise and the fool occurs in 1.19 (but only concerning the fool), 1.32-33, 2.21-22, and (possibly) 3.32-35. Each of these sections deal somehow with the fate of the wicked, and most also deal with the fate of the wise as contrasted with that of the fool. Furthermore, each of them reinforces the doctrine of retribution as the governing law of life.
The first three poems (My Son poem #1, Interlude A, and My Son poem #2) all conclude with such statements. The final statement, in 3.32-35, comes at the end of a My Son poem, though Interlude B and My Son poem #3 both lack a similar concluding proverb. What I think may be going on here is that the editor is using these statements as a kind of pedagogical tool.
What I mean by this is that the summary statements serve to do exactly that: summarize the poems that have come before. By repeating similar statements, or at least statements with a similar moral, at the end of the first three poems, the editor is driving home the point that A) each of these poems is, to some extent, saying the same thing and B) obedience==blessing while disobedience==cursing (cf. Deut. 28). The end of chapter three would then serve to again drive home this point. Interestingly these verses juxtapose the wise and foolish in a somewhat unique way (when compared with the other verses listed above); line A of each verse discusses the negative things which YHVH will do to the foolish while line B contrasts the positive things which YHVH will do for the upright. Perhaps also worth mentioning is the fact that these verses represent the first cluster of antithetically parallel verses in Proverbs. That may or may not be significant. I haven’t decided.
By means of conclusion, I think that the various summary statements in Proverbs 1.19, 1.32-33, 2.21-22 and 3.32-35 are intended to drive home a very specific point to the reader. On the one hand it is the point that each of the poems makes in a more specific and verbose way: obedience to YHVH==blessing while disobedience==cursing. As for why the statements cease after the first few poems, my off-the-cuff theory is that having firmly established the point, the editor feels free to begin allowing the specifics of the poems themselves to take center stage. Not that this wasn’t taking place before, but the summary statements certainly draw ones attention back to the overarching point which is being irrespective of the specific content of each poem.
Daniel and Tonya have requested that I make some posts that have to do with Greek. I am currently in the midst of writing an exegesis paper on John 1.1-5. From a text critical perspective the pericope is fairly straightforward. However, there is a punctuation issue in John 1.3-4 that has been causing me some difficulties. John 1.3-4 read as follows:
παντα δι αὐτου ἐγενετο, και χωρις αὐτου εγενετο οὐδε ἑν ὁ γεγονεν ἐν αὐτῳ ζωη ἠν, και ἡ ζωη ἠν το φως των ανθρωπων
The question is whether or not ὁ γεγονεν should be taken as part of verse three, or as part of the phrase which begins verse four. Most modern translations place it with verse three, translating, “All things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being which has come into being. In him was life…” This rendering is somewhat tautological, but the Prologue has a tendency towards repetition. The alternative way of taking the verse is to associate ὁ γεγονεν with verse four, and translate “All things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being. That which has come into being in him was life…”
The second way of understanding the association of ὁ γεγονεν with its surroundings is supported by the oldest manuscripts (with punctuation) and by all the ante-Nicene fathers (orthodox and heretical). It is the reading adopted in the NA27. However, I can’t make heads or tails of what it means. I can translate it just fine, but trying to figure out what is being said when the remainder of verse four, and all of verse five, is taken into account is truly mind boggling. It seems to me that taking it as part of verse three, although it ruins many attempts at structuring the passage and goes against the oldest known understanding of the way to separate the text, lines up better with Johannine theology (particularly John 5.26). In addition, it seems to be the more natural way to read the text–but that could be my own relative inexperience with Greek showing through.
Having said this, I’m looking for opinions on the text. Should I take ὁ γεγονεν as part of verse three (with Barrett, Borchert, Schnackenburg, and most modern translations) or as part of verse four (with NA27, Brown, Bultmann, and Beasley-Murray)?