That slippery word QDŠ

The English word moral does not match the semantic range of Hebrew qdš; a closer English semantic equivalent to qdš is divine. We might note that the vast majority of holy things—such as objects (the temple articles), places (Mount Sinai, Jerusalem), geopolitical abstractions (the land, the nation), or time (the Sabbath)—have no moral agency. When a thing becomes holy, whether that thing is the abstract community of Israel (which is what is addressed in Lev 19, not each Israelite individually) or an object like the ark or the sanctuary, that thing is or does in some way identify something about what God is or does.—Walton and Walton, The Lost World of the Torah, 204 (emphasis original)

About that waw conversive…

Unfortunately, this role [as a stative or adjective] has commonly been misunderstood in the past, and this potential function of the perfect has been overlooked in light of the belief that there is some property inherent in the waw to make the perfect act as though it were some other aspect/tense (the “waw conversive”). Some will even go so far as to say that a perfect prefixed by a “waw conversive” ought to be understood as an imperfect! If that were the case, the Hebrew authors had a perfectly fine morpheme to express the meaning of an imperfect: an imperfect. So, why would an author not use an imperfect verb to express an imperfect meaning? That is really where the question lies.—Grant Testut, “Conjunction and Disjunction,” in ”Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? A Grammatical Tribute to Professor Stephen A. Kaufman, 277–78 (emphasis original)

A gloss does not a meaning make

Now, having arrived at a second plausible gloss, we are no closer to the meaning of the Niphal, because a workable gloss should not be confused with the meaning of the Hebrew term.—Steven W. Boyd, in "Where Shall Wisdom Be Found?" A Grammatical Tribute to Professor Stephen A. Kaufman, 122

Going Deeper with Biblical Hebrew—a review

Going Deeper with Biblical Hebrew: An Intermeiate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the Old Testment, by H. H. Hardy II and Matthew McAffee. Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024.

When I read that Chip Hardy and Matthew McAffee had an intermediate Hebrew grammar coming out, I was curious. They are both excellent scholars and both teach Hebrew, so I was fairly certain it would be of value (see disclaimer below). Having had a copy now for a few weeks and working through it, I can assure you that I wasn’t disappointed. It is well-written and solidly grounded in modern linguistic theory. As I told them on my initial glance through it, it’s the second-year grammar I wish I had access to when I was learning Hebrew many long years ago. But enough introduction. Let’s take a deeper look.

First, the book is well-made, with a Smyth binding that will hold up through a semester of use and beyond as you refer to it over the years. The type face is clear and crisp, large enough to be easy on the eyes, but not too large. The layout is clear, with a generous use of tables to illustrate things. There is an abundance of Hebrew examples illustrating their points.

The contents are divided up into three parts, the first being a general introduction to the language and a chapter on textual criticism, written by John Meade. The second part (chs. 3–6, almost 200 pages) covers the verbal system (ch. 3), verbal stems (ch. 4), the prefix and suffix conjugations (ch. 5), and volitives (ch. 6). The third part (chs. 7–11, almost 300 pages) covers nouns and noun phrases (ch. 7), pronouns, adjectives, and participles (ch. 8), infinitives and temporal clauses (ch. 9), conjunctions, adverbs, and other particles (ch. 10), and prepositions (ch. 11). Three guided lessons (textual criticism, semantic analysis [word study], and syntactic analysis), four appendices (continuing with Biblical Hebrew, vocabulary, English-Hebrew list, and glossary), an ample bibliography, and three indexes (name, subject [with Hebrew words appearing together under the entry “Hebrew words”], and scripture index) round out the volume.

Each chapter begins with a brief introduction, then a section entitled “Going Deeper with…,” which consists of a look at a scripture passage, highlighting how knowing Hebrew sheds more light on it, specifically by highlighting the elements to be covered in that chapter. The selections are well-chosen and designed to pique the interest of the student. This is followed by an enumeration of the chapter objectives, another short introduction and then the meat of the chapter. Usually they begin by illustrating the points being made via English examples before diving into the Hebrew. As I mentioned, there are numerous examples from the Hebrew Bible highlighting each of their points. Footnotes provide a bibliography for the student who wants to go further, as well as a bit more background in some cases. Grammatical terms that might be unfamiliar to the student are underlined and defined in the glossary at the end of the volume.

Each chapter ends with exercises consisting of Hebrew to English translation (with instructions not just to translate, but to parse verbs and make other notations based on the theme of the chapter), a selection of sentences to translate from English to Hebrew, and a guided reading of a scripture passage, with vocabulary and notes to assist. Considering that this is a second-year grammar, the notes should be more than adequate.

The only note of concern I have is the chapter on textual criticism assumes access to works that only a well-equipped seminary or graduate school would have. I have a fairly well-stocked library, but I certainly don’t own the Göttingen LXX volumes (although I wish I could justify them!). Consequently, it’s obvious this chapter was written with the seminarian/graduate student in mind. That being said, the principles he lays out can be applied with the tools you do have. And the bibliography supplies links to public domain tools such as Kennicott and the Hexapla, which mitigates some of problems of not having access to a research library. And maybe it will spur the student on to learning other languages, such as Aramaic (for the targumim), Syriac, or Latin. Worse things could happen! And some might even decide to splurge and buy the Göttingen LXX on Accordance or Logos. (I admit, that one is tempting to me sometimes, even though I prefer print for reference works like that!)

The text is remarkably free of typographical errors. I understand that they are planning to post an errata sheet, but for now the only egregious error that needs to be noted is at the top of page 151, where the root גדל is reversed. Once the errata sheet is posted, I’ll add a link here.

In summary, this is an excellent second-year grammar that adequately prepares the student to be ready to more easily read the Hebrew Bible, while also preparing them to be able to read and understand more advanced works, such as IBHS or, to explore more historical grammar, Eric Reymond’s Intermediate Biblical Hebrew Grammar, as well as giving them a solid foundation in modern linguistic approaches to Biblical Hebrew—which will also equip them to understand linguistic approaches to Biblical Greek and English. I heartily endorse this book and encourage you to add it to your library.

Disclaimer: I was given a free copy of the book with no obligation to review it.
Secondary disclaimer: I read and recommended for publication at Eisenbrauns Chip's dissertation on Hebrew prepositions, although in the end it was published by SBL Press. And, I copyedited Matthew's revised dissertation for Eisenbrauns in the ENEAC series. That's why I was excited to read this volume, but it didn't prejudice me toward it before reading it.

I love it! Hebrew humor

One should avoid several common misconceptions about meaning. First, meaning does not necessarily equal translation value. Words do not have identical semantic ranges in any two languages. Hebrew חסד may have some similar notions as English loyalty, but it is not identical in meaning or usage. A Hebrew market would not have a ḥesed-program for frequent shoppers.—Going Deeper with Biblical Hebrew, 590

Insights from Hebrew grammar

See also Gen 1:6, 9 (unmarked jussive), 11, 14, 20 (unmarked jussive), 22, 24. Note the shift in person for the creation of humanity in verse 26: נַֽעֲשֶׂה אָדָם; “Let us make man” (unmarked cohortative). Rather than the function of a performative jussive, the cohortative states the action that God is going to do. The act of creation is expressed in verse 27: וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָֽאָדָם “God created man.” The use of the first-person verbal form contrasts with the indirect nature of the jussive, instead emphasizing God’s personal investment in the creation of humanity.—Going Deeper with Biblical Hebrew, 253 n. 61

The continuing importance of linguistics for translation

It is sometimes argued that improved modern translations are making linguistic study less necessary than it used to be. Quite the contrary is true. Increased modern philological knowledge, while it has enabled us to overcome certain difficulties which the older translations had, has also made the assessment of meaning more approximative in character, has multiplied the factors which may bear upon it, and may thus have made the production of definitive translations more remote.—James Barr, in Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, 299

Context is king!

The communication of meaning in Hebrew was not determined at all by what the words meant in Arabic, and was not primarily determined by what they meant in proto-Semitic; it was primarily determined by the choice between the words available in Hebrew. Because words operate in relation to one another within Hebrew, all philological solutions to particular difficulties have to be considered not only in themselves, for the satisfaction they give in a particular difficult context, but also in their more general implications, for the effect they have on the total balance of the available series of choices in Hebrew.—James Barr, in Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, 293

Why linguistics?

In biblical studies, as in many other areas of learning, language analysis has rarely thrived as an end in itself. For the most part, linguistics has served the needs of philology. Grammar has been formalized in order to read and interpret a text fluently and correctly. Special attention has been paid to irregular patterns and to rare and unexpected forms. The philologist encountering an odd phenomenon can consult a specialized grammar book and find an explanation of a puzzling form or construction, or the thrust of a peculiar idiom. By correctly identifying unusual language forms, the philologist can proceed with the business of interpreting the text. Grammar ministers to meaning, and this is as it should be. Ultimately all disciplines should serve to elucidate the literatures that we study by clearing out the channels of communication, removing the clutter of unknowns that block our understanding.—Edward Greenstein, in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, 29

Vapor? Vanity? Meaningless? Which is it?

Rendering hebel as “breath” suggests that Qohelet is not saying that everything is meaningless, but rather that everything—which is important “in its time” (3:1a)—will vanish from “under the sun.” (Rendering hebel as “vapor” lacks the sense of “crucial to life,” but keeps that of ephemerality.)

This understanding of hebel makes sense of, for example, “Enjoy happiness with a woman you love all the fleeting days of life [kol yêmê hayyê heblekā]” (Eccl 9:9) —love is not “vain” or “meaningless,” but it will pass when we die, so enjoy it while God grants it.—Frederic Clarke Putnam, in Devotions on the Hebrew Bible, 149

A little child

You probably know the story. Naaman, a powerful Syrian general, was a leper. A captive slave girl mentioned that a prophet dwelt in Israel who could cure him. Naaman traveled there, and Elisha told him to dip himself in the Jordan seven times. He grumbled at this, thinking it was beneath his dignity, but in the end he did it—and he emerged healed! Note the verb ירד (“to go down, dip”) and its similarity to the name “Jordan,” ירדן. Most likely this is a wordplay (found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible; e.g., Josh 3:13; 1 Kgs 2:8).

The beginning of the story emphasizes Naaman’s importance and power, and the little maid (נערה קטנה) is his polar opposite: no status, no office, no prominence (5:2). What a change then, when Naaman emerged from the Jordan the seventh time, with skin “like a נער קטן”— the same description (with masculine gender) as the little maid. The thought is, he became like her. On the surface this refers to his skin, but there is a deeper meaning as well.—George Schwab, in Devotions on the Hebrew Bible, 59–60

Geography matters!

Some translations also miss an important clue in the Hebrew as to the battle’s location. Two different Hebrew words for “valley” appear; the first, עמק (“valley of Elah,” 17:2 NASB): denotes a broad, flat valley; the second, גיא (“with the valley between them,” 17:3 NASB) denotes a sharply sloped and narrow valley— “a ravine” (HCSB). Thus, while the valley of Elah is broad and spacious, it only pinches together in a few spaces—thus narrowing the choices for possible battle sites. Translations that render both Hebrew words “valley” miss the clue the narrator is providing for the battles precise location.

Furthermore, 1 Samuel 17:4 says Goliath initially “came out” or “came forth” (יצא) from the Philistine camp. But as David arrived, Goliath was literally “coming up” (עלה), not coming out (17:23, 25 NIV). Many translations gloss over this difference, but perhaps the writer was trying to convey something. I suggest he was; Goliath was likely ascending the Israelite side of the ravine (17:3), taunting Saul’s forces. This understanding of the text would explain why the text says, “The men of Israel fled from him” (17:24 NASB). Why would they flee, unless his coming up their side of the ravine made them fear his direct attack? If he stood out in the middle of the valley, they might be afraid, but they had no need to flee.—Bryan Beyer, in Devotions on the Hebrew Bible, 51

With all your lēbāb (לבב)

English speakers often distinguish between “heart knowledge” and “head knowledge,” but in biblical Hebrew, לבב refers to both the “heart” and the “mind” (and can further indicate “thinking,” “feeling,” or one’s “will”). To be called to love Yahweh with all our לבב implies not only our heartfelt devotion but also our thinking.

To live out this devotion to God, Moses tells the people to have Yahweh’s words on their לבב. While this does imply memorization, the point is that they should have these words on their mind in daily life. The English expression really is fitting. Like a tune we can’t get out of our heads, or something we can’t take off our minds, Moses instructs us to be deliberate about thinking on God’s Word—to be so occupied with the word of Yahweh that we are in a sense preoccupied with it, so much so that it spills out in our words and actions.—Brian L. Webster, in Devotions on the Hebrew Bible, 35

Why almonds, of all trees?

Why almonds? There is no evidence that Aaron’s rod was made of almond wood. Nor did Hebrew have the expression, “You’re driving me nuts!” However, the word for “almond” (שָׁקֵד [šākēd]) is derived from the same root as the verb for “keep watch, be awake, be vigilant” (שקד). This is because the almond tree is “watchful/ awake” in the sense that it is the first tree to blossom every year while other trees continue their winter slumber. Now we can understand, for example, God’s object lesson to young Jeremiah, which otherwise does not make sense in English: “ ‘What do you see, Jeremiah?’ ‘I see the branch of an almond tree [שָׁקֵד],’ I replied. The LORD said to me, ‘You have seen correctly, for I am watching [participle of שקד] to see that my word is fulfilled’ ” (Jer 1:11-12).—Roy Gane, in Devotions on the Hebrew Bible, 31

What I'm reading

Right now I'm reading two books. One of which I should excerpt from but probably won't because I want you to buy it and read it : )

As my seminary theology professor used to say, "You owe it to yourself to read this book," and invariably, if I did read it, I would have to agree with him. So, you owe it to yourself, and your family, to read this book: How Not to Diet. It's a sequel to his earlier book, How Not to Die, which I read some years back but apparently didn't blog about, as a search on this blog shows nothing. You should read that one too.

The other book, which I read in June/July of this year and then immediately started rereading because I wasn't sure I "got" what they were arguing, will probably, Deo volente, start showing up on this blog pretty soon, is John Walton and Harvey Walton, The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest. I'm not sure I buy everything they are selling and in some cases, I think they "give away" too much, if you follow. We'll see if I still think that as I reread it.

In addition, I'm rereading the Greek New Testament. I just finished Luke and will be starting John. I read about five chapters a week, some weeks more, some less. I'm also reading the LXX, using the Hendrickson/Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2 volume Reader's Edition. The Greek is relatively simple, but the vocabulary is rather expansive, so the reader's edition is nice. I'm in the middle of 1 Samuel right now, but because of the garden, I'm only reading about a chapter or two a week. I grabbed that at an AAR/SBL meeting right after it was published, and have been off again on again with it ever since. I tend to read it more regularly in the winter when less is happening.

I'm also reading through the Hebrew Bible, front to back. I've never done that before; I've read probably half to two-thirds of it piecemeal, some areas, like Isaiah, Psalms, and the Minor Prophets, I've read multiple times, but others, like the Torah, I've only barely touched on, so this is fun and interesting. I'm in Numbers right now. In order to keep up a decent pace (about 3–5 chs./week), I've been using the Hendrickson/Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Reader's Edition. I received a complimentary copy because I was involved in proofreading the thing. I proofread Isaiah, Psalms, and most, if not all, of the Minor Prophets, maybe more, but I can't remember anymore—that was about ten years ago now! (I linked to the Christian Book page because I can't find the Hendrickson one anymore; they recently were sold to Tyndale, so I wonder if that's why?)

Abandonment

The Biblical view of sin, however, replaces the phrase “not yet” by “no longer”. Sin is not the primary phenomenon, it is not the beginning, but it is a turning-away from the beginning, the abandonment of the origin, the break with that which God had given and established. Wherever the Prophets reproach Israel for its sin, this is the decisive conception: “You have fallen away, you have strayed, you have been unfaithful. You have forsaken God; you have broken the Covenant, you have left Him for other gods. You have turned your backs upon Him!” Similarly, the Parables of Jesus speak of sin as rebellion, as leaving God. The Prodigal Son leaves home, goes away from the Father, turns his back upon him. The Wicked Husbandmen usurp the master’s rights and wrongly seize the land which they only held on a rental. They are actually rebels, usurpers. The Lost Sheep has strayed away from the flock and from the Shepherd; it has gone astray.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 91

<idle musing>
He's continuing the theme we saw yesterday. So, sin, rather than a moral issue, is a conscious turning away from God. Which makes perfect sense in the Hebrew, where the word šûb, "to turn, return," is the word commonly used for repentance.
</idle musing>

The function of הנה

Bar-Efrat points out that a significant function of the Hebrew term הנה (behold), especially after a verb of seeing, is to point out that the scene is being viewed from the perspective of one of the characters (35–36).—Judging the Judges, 31

<idle musing>
I'm too lazy to type in the Bar-Efrat reference; you'll have to either buy the book, access it through JSTOR, or borrow it from a library. Or just accept it on Mary Conway's word : )
</idle musing>

Not new, just a reminder

Usually, a sentence consists of at least two parts. One part is old known information picked out from the previous context or presupposed by the common knowledge of the speaker and addressee. This would be the theme of the sentence. The other part consists of new, added or invoked information. This part would be the rheme of the sentence.—Galia Hatav, "The Infinitive Absolute and Topicalization of Events in Biblical Hebrew," in Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics, ed. Adina Moshavi and Tania Notarius, LSAWS 12 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 214

<idle musing<>
I know, that's not new information, but it's a helpful reminder (see what I did there?).
</idle musing>

What? No name?

The preceding considerations show that the way in which the biblical narrator reiers to a given character as speaking or acting subject is not determined solely by accessibility or social status. A factor that is no less important is the position the narrator allocates to this character. The participant who is successful in his undertaking or prevails in the spoken interaction is marked by name and/or title, whereas reference to the character who complies or remains submissive or passive is limited to the verbal form only. In other words, the stylistic shaping of reference is germane to positioning. Positioning by reference, then, is a significant component of the interface between literary theory and the linguistic study of discourse and pragmatics.—Frank Polak, "Participant Tracking, Positioning, and the Pragmatics of Biblical Narrative," in Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics, ed. Adina Moshavi and Tania Notarius, LSAWS 12 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 168–169

<idle musing>
Interesting observation. He comes to this conclusion after a study of the book of Ruth.
</idle musing>

Position of power

These episodes [between Ruth and Naomi] demonstrate the way of indicating the speaker that is characteristic for the rhetoric of biblical narrative: the participant whose request, proposal or command prevails is mentioned by name or title, whereas the identity of the participant who complies is not indicated explicitly. In other words, the narrator uses the reference to the different parties in the exchange in order to point to their position in the interaction. This aspect of reference reflects “positioning,” which in social psychology and discourse analysis indicates “the assignment, shaping and negotiations of reciprocal relations between all parties involved in the interaction” (Weizman 2008: 16), in particular with regard to the social and emotional stances that individuals take vis-a-vis real or imagined others (Harré and van Langenhove 1999; Harré et al. 2009; Du Bois 2007). This concept has been introduced into narrative theory by Michael Bamberg (1997) and David Herman (2009: 55-63); in biblical context it has been used by Victor Matthews (2008: 101-7). For narrative theory this means the molding of internal “qualities” and “place in society” of the various characters by the narrator, through the interaction as it is shaped. The narrator marks the position he grants to the parties in the negotiation process, as successful and persuasive, or as doing concessions, as obeying and as failing to achieve intended aims.—Frank Polak, "Postioning, and the Pragmatics of Biblical Narrative," in Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics, 161–62