John Hobbins and I have been discussing Habakkuk 3 a bit via email, and he encouraged me to bring the discussion to my blog.

I’m currently working on the grammar of Habakkuk 3 for a class this semester. Any chance to learn more about Hebrew grammar is well worth taking, and Habakkuk 3 just makes things that much more enjoyable. One of the first things that pops out about the grammar in Hab 3 is that scholars don’t particularly agree on how to render the verbs. Below, I outline the three ways I’ve noticed scholars rendering the verbs in Habakkuk 3:

1. Some scholars render the yiqtol forms as present-future and the qatal forms as past. (e.g., J.J.M. Roberts, Sinker). In Roberts’ case, at least, this is because he views the poem in Hab 3 as a visionary experience of the prophet. However, he does not elaborate on why he has chosen present-future and past. It could be that he is trying to bring out the aspect of the verbs by using these English tenses (understandable), it could also be that he views Hebrew as tense-prominent. I’d disagree, but an aspect-prominent view of the language could produce a nearly identical translation.

2. Other scholars analyze the yiqtol forms in Hab 3 as short-form preterits (e.g., Hiebert, Robertson, Andersen). That is okay, but I think it is far from certain that the context requires such an explanation. Basically, the scholars who take this view are following Robertson, and I’m just not convinced that his arguments are strong enough to support this understanding of the forms in Hab 3. I’d be happy to be proven wrong, however.

3. The final way in which scholars understand the verbs in Habakkuk 3 is disappointing, to say the least. Some scholars simply flatten all the forms (yiqtol, qatal and wayyiqtol) into English present tense forms (e.g., Smith, O. Palmer Robertson, Haak). Now, it may be that the scholars who do so feel that there is some interplay between aspect in Hebrew that simply cannot be brought into English. However, none of the authors mentioned above discuss their reasons for translating the forms in this way. My reaction is to say that this option really ought to be avoided, as it’s no option at all.

So, those are the three ways I’ve noticed scholars handling the forms in Habakkuk 3. Have I missed anything? Perhaps someone out there would like to argue for one of the above three? I don’t personally find any of them entirely convincing. I’d rather posit some kind of interplay between unbounded action (yiqtol) on the one hand and bounded action (qatal) on the other. How this would be represented in English is, of course, difficult. The idea is also still somewhat nebulous in my mind.

Basically, I’m proposing wildly speculating that there is some interplay between imperfective and perfective aspect in the Hebrew. Perhaps the imperfective action simply paints somewhat broader strokes and the perfective action views smaller, particular instances? Alternatively it may be that the poet intends an interplay between the qatal and yiqtol forms that, in English, would require a vast array of constructions to represent–thus they could not adequately be represented by a simple 1:1 correlation of verbal forms. In either case it may be that all the verbs have the same time reference, but the aspect is what differs.

I’m very interested to hear what thoughts others might have on this topic.

Perhaps one of the most frustrating things in the life of a student is books which do not cite things easily or well. A case in point is David Clines’ Job commentary. On the whole the commentary is excellent, and normally Clines is careful to cite his sources. However, on occasion he forgets (?) to include the proper information so that I can go look up the origin for myself.

I’m currently attempting to understand what Elihu offers (if anything) to the Book of Job. Clines has an enticing quote from Carol Newsom (on pg 710 of his second volume) which he does not cite. He says only that Carol Newsom said it. I have checked his bibliography at the beginning of the section, and there are no works by Newsom cited there. My first thought was that it would be in her book, A Contest of Moral Imaginations. However, it could also be in her NIB commentary on Job, or possibly in one of the articles she has written. Below I’ve included the entirety of the quote which Clines gives–if anyone knows where I can find the context, that would be extremely helpful.

into an intense moment, not just among the characters in the book, but also between the reader and the book. He breaks the dramatic spell and spoils the integrity of an aesthetic, emotional, and religious encounter at the climax of the book….By the end of chap. 27, Elihu has distanced the reader from the immediacy of Job’s passion and has changed the nature of the reader’s experience of the book, so that ideas dominate over passions….Elihu’s need to control–to control the reader’s perception of God and perhaps even to control God–is amply on display when he speaks. This dynamic, coupled with Elihu’s unconcealed conviction that he alone understands what is said and can point out and remedy its defects is what earns Elihu the undying resentment of generations of readers.

The publisher was kind enough to provide a review copy of The Book of Job: Judaism in the 2nd Century BCE: An Intertextual Reading by Leslie S. Wilson. Anyone who has frequented this blog for any amount of time will know that the Book of Job is one of my greatest interests. I was excited to receive and read the book, and I now share my thoughts with you.

Summary:
Leslie Wilson undertakes to do what many before have attempted: understand the Book of Job. Specifically he argues that the book is best understood via an intertextual reading within the cultural milieu of mid-2nd century Palestine. Job then becomes a kind of a book about messiahs. In Wilson’s own words, “[the author of the Book of Job] describes a paradox, the enigmatic conundrum articulated above. A ‘messiah’ is simply a logical impossibility…salvation at the hands of Yahweh will be apocalyptic….for humanity and indeed the deity to survive, there must be a truce,” (pg 4).

Wilson’s methodology is best conveyed, again, in his own words: “the roots of this study of the Book of Job lie in the recognition in the Prologue of a pattern of words and phrases that seemed to frequently originate from the book of Genesis.” To this end the greater part of the book is spent discussing the intertextual links between Job chapters one and two, and the Book of Genesis. Wilson proposes many such intertextual links, though to be sure he finds many links outside of Genesis, especially in the wider Pentateuch.

The second half of the book is devoted to discussing the poetic sections in rapid succession. Of these sections Wilson perhaps focuses most the the “blessing and the curse,” as well as the Elihu narrative, though all poetic sections of the book are dealt with to some degree. In the end Wilson concludes, “Scholars have traditionally perceived intertextuality as a device intended to evoke an inexact association with a person or event. Our author takes intertextuality to a new level…he applies intertextuality to entire stories in the pursuit of his agenda,” (pg 245, emphasis original). Ultimately the Book is unable to answer the question which it sets out to do, according to Wilson. Namely, the issues of a messiah and salvation are impossibilities. There must be an eternal tension between the divine and humanity. Between human and divine “wholeness” (צדק) (cf. pgs 248-249).

The Good:
First I must commend Wilson for dealing with the book as a literary unity. Too often scholars deal with the book in sections, and thereby avoid many of the difficult interpretational issues that arise. Wilson takes the bull by the horns, so to speak, and grapples with the book as a literary whole. Indeed, seeing the book as a unity is vital to his methodology and conclusions.

Second, Wilson makes an attempt at understanding what is going on with the YHWH speeches at the end of the book in light of the book as a literary unity. I fear that he goes too far, and is perhaps reading too much into the text and making the Hebrew do what it can’t do–but I need to check this a bit further. Either way, his willingness to attempt to make sense of the book as a whole deserve commendation.

Third, he has done a huge amount of searching for intertextual parallels. Although I do not find the majority of his examples convincing (see below), a number of them I do find interesting. It may be worthwhile to remove Wilson’s “code” methodology and see what may be found in some of these parallels with a less…stringent method of comparison.

The not so good:
I have already quoted Wilson as writing, “Scholars have traditionally perceived intertextuality as a device intended to evoke an inexact association with a person or event,” (pg 245). There is a reason scholars traditionally view intertextuality in this light–they are being careful. Unfortunately, Wilson goes too far in his attempt at an intertextual reading. It is simply beyond believability that the author of Job expected his readings to pick up on so much of this intertextual rendering.

Even if this were not the case, Wilson at times picks and chooses his parallels to support his arguments. A single example with suffice to illustrate my point. He picks out of the first phrase in Job 1.1 the first two words, איש היה. From here he makes the parallel with Gen 6.9, which reads: נח איש צדיק תמים היה. There are, of course, other parallels to איש היה. The most notable of these is 2 Sam. 12.1. Wilson acknowledges this in a footnote, but explains that “exact wording” is important in intertextual antecedents and since 2 Sam. 12.1 uses the plural it does not qualify. However, one must wonder how it is that “exact wording” can be so important when the Genesis passage moves the descriptors צדיק and תמים before the verb while in Job 1.1 similar words do not occur until the end of the verse, well after the verb. Indeed, צדיק does not occur at all in Job 1.1.

Sadly this same picking-and-choosing may be seen throughout Wilson’s analysis. To say that Job 1 and 2 are attempting to situate Job within the patriarchal world is one thing. To say, as Wilson does, that they are situating Job next to Abraham and Isaac, but excluding Jacob is going to far. Similarly to say that Job 1.1 is meant to recall Gen. 6.9, and thereby introduce Job as a איש צדיק when צדיק is not used in verse one and there are other parallels to איש היה is going too far.

Conclusion:
Although I have found things that make this book quite worthwhile and helpful, the constant attempts at an intertextual reading go too far. It is not that I completely doubt the validity of intertextual readings, rather I doubt that one may expect them to be so specific. The idea of uncovering a code in Job that explains these parallels is dubious at best. It also would have been good to see more pages devoted to defending Wilson’s dating of Job in the 2nd century. Much of his thesis rides on Job being extremely late (so that almost every other book in the Hebrew Bible could have been written and known for the author of Job to pull from). Unfortunately, Wilson only defends this dating at the end, based on the conclusions of his analysis. This is circular reasoning, and further detracts from the feasibility of his study. If Wilson had dealt with the dating of the book more thoroughly, I would recommend it for purchase. As it stands at present, I cannot do so.

The new resource I speak of is Bible Ref Shelf. John has already mentioned it, but this is potentially too great a resource to keep quite about. There is not a great deal of resources yet on the reference shelf, but I imagine that the number will grow as time goes on.

If you need me, I’ll be reading my new PDF of A.B. Davidson’s Job Commentary.

John Hobbins recently published a post with the following title: Claims about the Bible work best if you actually read it. To be certain, the title is somewhat lengthy, but one can hardly fault John for that. In fact, much of what he says is spot on. Too often people who read the Bible (I primarily speak here of people reading it from a faith perspective, though this is by no means the only subset of people who make claims about the Bible but fail to read it) do so with a preconceived notion of what it says. They then conveniently skip the parts that don’t fit, or they ignore what those parts actually say and reimagine them as something which they most certainly aren’t.

John’s post is worth reading, and I encourage you to do that. I have only one thing to add: I’m really not sure how how might go about changing this. How does one impact the “popular” reading of the Bible in order to bring it around to something that takes the text itself more seriously?¹ A further challenge is that often certain readings of the Bible, which might be “mosquito netting” as John puts it, are part of the special doctrine of a particular church, denomination, cult or other group. This is an area in which, perhaps, pastors and other religious leaders need to take part in the discussion. But alas, many pastors read the Bible with the thickest mosquito netting possible.

My semester has officially begun. I’m very excited about the classes I’m taking this semester. I’m constantly reminded that GCTS truly affords students some wonderful opportunities when it comes to studying the Hebrew Bible and Hebrew language. Mandy has already posted her classes and so, without further ado, my classes:

Middle Egyptian I – I’m taking this class at Boston University. So far it has been absolutely wonderful. The professor is very concerned with moving at a pace the entire class can handle, and because of this he’d rather move too slowly rather than too quickly. Either way I’m finding the material fascinating. I think I’m doing well, other than the fact that I can not draw to save my life. Luckily the professor is gracious in this regard, and so I won’t have to worry too much about my grade being negatively effected by a falcon that looks a bit…odd.

History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East – Mandy actually took this class two years ago, and I am not playing a bit of catch up. This class is extremely interesting. It makes me wonder if maybe, just maybe I might like digging in the Levant at some point in the not too distant future. Eric keeps encouraging me to join him at Tell es-Safi, and this class might help him in that goal. I’m also finding the textbooks (Mazar’s Archaeology of the Land of the Bible and Kuhrt’s The Ancient Near East) engrossing. Because of this I think Mandy is finding me odd.

Advanced Hebrew Grammar – This is the single class that I have been looking forward to the most. Dr. T. Petter is doing a directed study with Mandy and I. Throughout the summer the syllabus has morphed and changed as the three of us (Dr. Petter, Mandy and I) have all given input. Now that the syllabus has been finalized I can say with confidence that I’m excited. We’ll be focusing on the Biblical Hebrew verbal system in prose. I will probably solicit your suggestions on additional readings that might be helpful to us in the coming weeks. The final evaluation for the course will be a paper dealing with the verbal system in prose via an analysis of a pericope in Judges, with special attention to the verbal system throughout the book. The specifics, of course, are subject to some small amount of change over the next couple weeks, but that’s the basic outline.

OT Prophetical Books – This will be my first class with Dr. D. Petter, and it seems like it’s going to be great. It has been a while since I’ve done any type of sustained study in the prophets, and so that alone makes this interesting. Dr. Petter is also extremely personable, and I’m sure that the class itself will be fascinating. It’s also another opportunity to work with the Hebrew text and that is always a worthwhile endeavor.

Akkadian – Finally, I will be taking Akkadian this semester. It might more properly be called “An introduction to Akkadian grammar,” since we won’t be learning any vocabulary, nor will we be learning the signs. Nevertheless I think this will be an interesting class as it will allow me yet more exposure to semitic languages. I fear my excite for this class is somewhat dimmed in light of the flaring beacon that is Middle Egyptian, but I still expect the class to be interesting.

With the Fall semester just around the corner, it’s time for my beginning of semester run-down of classes. This semester is going to be a doozy – I have 5 resident classes and 1 SemLink (GCTS’s distance ed), not to mention doctoral apps and ministry at church (including the Hebrew class that I am now teaching).

Advanced Hebrew Grammar with Tom Petter
Calvin and I are really looking forward to this. It’s an independent study, but since we’re both taking it we’ll essentially be doing all the work together – which will include translating and syntactically tagging the entire book of Judges. I’m excited to see how this goes.

Intermediate Greek with Dave Mathewson
I’m kinda neutral towards this class – it’s required for my MABL and I really need it anyways to help further cement my Greek. But, as I’ve mentioned before on multiple occasions, Greek isn’t really my first love. However, I’ve heard that Dr. Mathewson has a different take on the Greek verbal system than we learned in Greek I & II so that should be at least mildly interesting to learn about.

Prophetical Books with Donna Petter
This is the first class I will have taken with the other Petter at GCTS, so I’m curious to see what her teaching style is like. You may remember that I took Poetical Books with Doug Stuart last semester and had fun typing my Lamentations exegesis paper, which has shown up in various parts over the summer on this blog. This time, I’m hoping to be able to do something in Jeremiah. I may also find out if I can sub in a research paper instead of the exegesis paper – since I’ve already done one at the 700 level.

Exegesis of James with Sean McDonough
I took Exegesis of John, my required Gospel exegesis course this past summer, and now I’m getting the epistle requirement out of the way this fall. I am, of course, neatly avoiding Paul. James is one of my favorite NT books, so I’m sure this class will present some fun tidbits for thought (even if it is more GREEK).

Middle Egyptian I with Alejandro Botta
We are taking advantage of the BTI again this year, and will be taking this class at Boston University. From what I understand, it’s a joint offering from the School of Theology and the Archaeology Department. We already have our textbooks for this one (just came in today!) and I’m pretty psyched. It’s going to be a lot of work, but worth it, I think.

Contemporary Theology and Theologians
This is the SemLink that I have had all summer to work on but have barely touched. Unfortunately, between two summer classes and visiting family for the past 3 weeks, I haven’t had a whole lot of spare time. That means this is essentially a sixth class I have to do this semester, which will make my life very hectic, to say the least. Nevertheless, I am and have been looking forward to some of the reading.

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?

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.

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.