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.

It is my custom to bore you by briefly highlighting the classes I take each semester. Because of my now broken blogging silence I have not done so this semester. So, without further ado…

Middle Egyptian II – This is, as the title should make obvious, the second semester of a year long course in Middle Egyptian at Boston University. Let’s be honest, which one of us hasn’t wanted to learn Hieroglyphs as a kid? If you’re a sci-fi geek, you know that there is a far more important reason for learning ancient Egyptian: you might be asked to join the Stargate Program. All joking aside, another ANE language under my belt is a very good thing. What I’m about to say will probably reveal just how much of a geek I truly am (as if the Stargate comment above didn’t already do that), but I can think of very few things I would rather do than learn an ancient language. Besides, Dr. Botta is simply excellent. I’ve been thoroughly enjoying this class.

Exegesis of Revelation – Dr. McDonough teaches this class and I’ve found it truly fascinating. Not only is the professor engaging, but the regular references to the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are icing on the cake. I’ve not been a big fan of this, the final book of the Bible, but this class is changing that. It’s also helping to hone my Greek skills since we’re required to read the entire book in Greek.

Exegesis in the Minor Prophets – Another class with Dr. Stuart is always a good thing. Although I’ve covered the minor prophets in both undergrad, and in a more broadly focused class here at GCTS, I’m still finding this class informative. It is especially helpful because the majority of our class time is spent simply analyzing the Hebrew text, primarily from a grammatical perspective but also with attention to text criticism, structure, etc. In addition I’m writing a paper on Habakkuk 3 for the course, which is proving to be fascinating.

Applied Anthropology for Missions – As esoteric as the title sounds, this class is actually fun. I’m not an anthropologist, though I do find the subject interesting. Personally I think that there is a lot of payoff for Biblical interpretation in understanding one’s own culture as well as the culture of the text. I’m writing a paper on how epistemology influences the debate surrounding inerrancy. Although I’m fairly sure that this is going to be an eternal debate, at least it ties what I’m learning here back into Biblical studies.

Martin Luther – Really, what more can one say? Sometimes I think this guy really helped the church, and other times I’m convinced he’s the worst thing to happen to it since Constantine. Either way, the class is fun if for no other reason than we get into some heated discussions. This, of course, is one of the best ways to learn. If only I could figure out a way to manage a heated discussion in a Hebrew grammar class, I could feel I’ve accomplished something.

So, there you have it. Yes, I’m taking five classes my final semester. Yes, it’s possible I’m crazy. But what more can one do? There is so much to learn, and only a very short amount of time in which to learn it.

Mandy and I have not fallen off the edge of the planet, regardless of what the total lack of updates here at The Floppy Hat might imply. I have finally managed to rouse myself from blogging silence due to a comment on one of Charles’ posts. Truth be told, between finishing our final semester at GCTS, applying to PhD programs (more on that in a subsequent post), work and a few other responsibilities we have both been too busy to blog. But, I hope to make an effort to blog in spite of the fact that I have no time for such. Besides, after several months of not blogging I have a fair amount of thoughts I’d like to put onto the digital page.

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.

It’s the beginning of October, and that means that the Biblical Studies Blog Carnival is up. Thanks go to Daniel and Tonya for putting it together! The Biblioblog Top 50 has also been released for September. Mandy and I happily remain in the top 50.

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.

I just found out this evening that a friend from undergrad has a blog! You can check it out here. Any blog that can manage to have posts on Judges, Tobit, the Epistle of James, and King Arthur all under one roof deserves to be visited at least once.