Another RBL newsletter. A few of what I find noteworthy: Margaret Barker’s Temple Themes in Christian Worship (here and here). I don’t find myself attracted to most of her work (I think she needs to be a little more critical with her sources), but this is an interesting theme that I’d like to see explored more. D. C. Parker’s An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts looks like an outstanding resource that should become a standard. James Robinson’s Jesus According to the Earliest Witnesses consolodates Dr. Robinson’s work with the Q source, which, while not my cup of tea, will no doubt be an important text in that discussion. Ehud Netzer’s The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder will nicely compliment a lot of the Second Temple Period research I’m doing. Herod influenced Judaism and Rome’s relationship with her to an astounding degree, and his building campaigns were a large part of that.
Monthly Archives: August 2009
Top 50!
How do you like that? I went from NA last month to 34th this month! (With a slight spelling error.) Thanks for the support everybody! My feelings can be summed up with a line from Ben Affleck’s only really good movie (you’ll have to guess): “If I sell two issues I feel like John Grisham.”
On a side note, does anyone know how to get the HTML code to work on WordPress? I can’t seem to get any of the Biblioblog widgets (or whatever they’re called) to work. My brother’s the one who got a degree in information systems and makes six figures.
John Hobbins and His “S” Source
John Hobbins over at Ancient Hebrew Poetry posits a hypothetical S source for Matthew, Mark, and Luke (specifically Mark 1:16-28; Matt 4:18–22; 7:28–29; Luke 4:31–37). It’s well worth a read.
UPDATE: John’s got a follow up comparing his S source to Matthew and Mark, concluding (among other things) it was unlikely Matthew used Mark as a source.
Bible and Interpretation’s Special Section
Jim West highlights a new section at Bible and Interpretation called Scholars, Frauds, the Media and the Public. There are four articles up so far, including Cargill’s recent evisceration of Jimmy Barfield’s Copper Scroll project. I’m reminded of Jim Davila’s recent comments on a review of The Sisters of Sinai that butchers some fundamental facts. Thanks for pointing it out Dr. West.
Chris Brady is a Dreamer
The Targuman has a couple comics up about ideals, and the first reminded me of a very old Calvin and Hobbes:
Oh, how I miss Calvin and Hobbes
Jewish Priesthood after the Destruction of the Temple
What was the function of the Jewish priesthood after the Temple was destroyed? Many have opined that the priesthood slowly disappeared as an institution as a result of the lack of any real cultic utility, but priestly lines were maintained for centuries afterward, and there are some indications that they maintained some function, particularly in the synagogues. Greek and Roman rulers set out to dilute and handicap priestly authority long before 70 CE, but as a social class they still maintained a great deal of influence (so much so that Herod had the newly appointed High Priest, Arisobulus III, drowned after the masses expressed joy at his appointment; and Josephus appealed proudly to his priestly lineage). Where they basically a Jewish aristocracy? What was their relationship to the rabbis? Without the temple the law became the new liturgy, as far as the literature reveals. Did they compete with each other over ecclesiastical clout? The opposition of the rabbis to many practices associated with the synagogues may suggest this, but what kind of priestly lineage could be averred in the diaspora?
These are some of the more annoying questions that keep me up at night (when my eight-month-old does not).
συνεσταυρωμαι’s “Radical New Way to Teach OT Intro”
συνεσταυρωμαι points to Philip Davies’ highlighting of an often overlooked aspect of teaching a course introducing the Old Testament. A question asked, what textbooks would be good for an Intro to OT class? Davies replies:
Personally, I recommend getting the students to just read the Bible: the best introduction they can have. And it will put them ahead of many of their teachers.
Zing! He expounds here (pointed out by Peter Kirk). It reminded me of a comment made by a friend who studied at UPenn under Jeff Tigay. My friend explained that Tigay often lamented that grad students knew so little about the Bible. When he was a student, apparently, they were expected to pretty much be able to finish the Hebrew of almost any verse after being given the first few words. I was 20 before I ever read the Bible, and when I decided to major in ancient Near Eastern studies I was told to be ready to be competing with kids who had been studying the Hebrew Bible since they were ten. That’s encouraging. Then I would be told there were no jobs (but only by people who had jobs). I guess the lesson is to read your Bible.
“El, Creator of the Earth” on a Jerusalem Ostracon?
I’m conducting some research on the phrase ‘l qn ’rs (El, Creator of the Earth) as it appears in the Bible and in other inscriptions. I’m specifically dealing with the phrase as originally a reference to a procreative theogony. In 1971 N. Avigad discovered an ostracon in Jerusalem that contained the following broken phrase (from Patrick D. Miller’s 1980 article):
. . . yhw.’br[ ]hw
. . .n.mkyhu bn?nh . . .
. . . [ ]qn’rs
The lacuna before qn’rs has generally been restored with ‘l. The epithet may provide a little context for Gen 14:19, 22, where Jerusalem is associated with the worship of אל עליון. Some issues mitigate this understanding, though. In Hebrew we would expect the participle קנה to carry the final /h/ as it does in Genesis (see Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 52–54). There also seems to be no space between the nun and the aleph, which has been interpreted by Stefan Paas as an indication it is a single name, specifically qn’rs, related to the Hittite ku-né-er-ša. Some scholars have rejected the traditional restoration as a result of these concerns.
I prefer the traditional reading, and here’s why. This epithet originates, as far as we can tell, around the middle of the second millennium BCE. It is of Semitic origin, which is why the 14th century BCE Hittite Elkunirša myth misinterprets the appellative as a personal name. The Phoenician Karatepe inscription (8th century BCE) provides the classical form of the epithet (‘l qn ’rs), and if we understand the inscription from Jerusalem in a cultic or liturgical light, the preservation of the original form (without the /h/) is less anomalous. I find this explanation more likely than a reference to a Hittite deity. The association of the phrase with El (until the Common Era the epithet refers exclusively to El) and its proximity to the Yahwistic name Mikayahu in the inscription seems to me to support the restoration of ‘l in the missing portion.
Has anyone else dealt with question or have any criticisms or insights?
Jim West Reviews The Historiographical Jesus
Jim West has a review up for Anthony Le Donne’s The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David. It’s well worth reading.
EDIT: This link takes you to chapters 1–9.
Macedonian Royal Burial Found?
Claude Mariottini points out an AP article discussing the discovery of a Macedonian burial from around the end of the fourth century BCE. The style, burial goods, and proximity link it to a burial discovered last year that may be Alexander the Great’s son. Fascinating.
