Help with an Article

I’ve about exhausted my resources here at Oxford and cannot seem to locate a book entitled  L’Ecrit et l’Esprit. Etudes d’histoire du texte et de théologie biblique offertes en hommage à Adrian Schenker. It’s edited by D. Böhler, I. Himbaza, and P. Hugo and it’s part of the Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis series. I’m really only looking for an article entitled “Voir Dieu. LXX d’Exode contre TM et LXX du Pentateuque,” by Innocent Himbaza on pp. 100-11. Worldcat.org says it’s only at the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, and I can’t quite get interlibrary loan here to work for me (I don’t even know if they’ll do it for a German library). I appreciate whatever help can be offered.

The Hermeneutic Circle

In biblical exegesis it’s quite easy to get sucked into what is called the hermeneutic circle. I was recently provided with an absolutely beautiful illustration of this concept when a friend took issue with my opposition to the idea of a univocal view of the Bible:

You found a couple of puzzle pieces in a thousand-piece puzzle that are difficult to fit into the picture shown on the outside cover of the box, and so on that basis announce that the original puzzle was that represented by the two unusual pieces while the 998 pieces represent a radical alteration of the original picture.

Here is where this runs into problems. The Bible has no theological composition on its cover. It has no cover. It is a collection of texts written, edited, and redacted by a number of different people for a number of different reasons that were gather together for equally disparate reasons and eventually combined in a single publication. Since we didn’t produce the puzzle (fragments of text) from a single, original composition, we can’t have been responsible for any picture on the cover.

The above statements asserts there’s a picture on the cover, though. Where, then, did it come from? There’s only one possible answer. It must come from putting the pieces together. We run into problems, though, since my friend tells us above that we must make sure we put the pieces together in a way that matches the picture on the cover. If we deviate because the pieces don’t fit it’s because we’re doing something wrong. Therein lies the paradox. The picture on the cover cannot depend on the picture produced by the pieces if the pieces must be made to produce a picture that matches the cover. To insist that such is the case is to be stuck in the hermeneutic circle.

How Uruguayan Jews Barbecue

In Uruguay and Argentina a barbecue is called an asado, and they take it quite seriously. Here’s a participant in a Uruguayan communal asado that you probably wouldn’t find at a Texas barbeque:

Azzan Yadin on Goliath’s Armor

In 2004 Azzan Yadin published an article in Vetus Testamentum arguing that the depiction of Goliath’s armor points not to genuine Philistine battle armor, but to the armor of sixth century Greece.  Azzan states:

The present article suggests that the battle between David and Goliath—or, more accurately, the final redaction of this battle—is a response to burgeoning Greek national identity, and maintains a literary dialogue with the Greek epic tradition.

I agree with Yadin’s dating for the final redaction of Samuel, but I believe Goliath’s armor should be interpreted as reflecting Neo-Assyrian battle armor (not Homeric). Irrespective, I want to explain here why I take issue with the evidence that is presented for rejecting the Philistine provenance of Goliath’s armor. Here is what is the article says:

The head gear is unlike the distinctive feathered helmets of the Egyptian reliefs at Medinet Habu; Goliath’s chain mail (שריון קשקשים) is Mesopotamian-Syrian; and the great shield, requiring a shield bearer, is unlike the small round shields of the Philistines portrayed in Egyptian reliefs.

The second point accords with my own conclusions about Goliath’s armor, but the other two are based exclusively on the Medinet Habu reliefs. The first concerns the fact that the reliefs identify the Philistines, Denyen, and Tjekel as wearing “feathered helmets.” I don’t think these helmets have feathers in them at all. I prefer the conclusion that they represent leather straps. The Medinet Habu temple dates to the mid 12th century BCE (Iron Age 1A). The story of Goliath purports to relate events from over 100 years later. I think it’s a bit reaching to assert the Philistine origin of Goliath’s helmet can be rejected based on Egyptian bas reliefs from over 100 years earlier.

The originally monochrome pottery of the Philistines takes on Egyptian and Canaanite flavor after only a few decades of interaction, and is vastly different by the end of the 11th century. Ashdod and Ekron are the only cities where pottery from the original phase of Philistine settlement are found. Other aspects of Philistine culture, like architecture, art, burial customs, and cult objects, all show variegation and local influence. The three temples from Tell Qasile  all have different styles. Even the anthropomorphoid coffins have been shown to be borrowed from LBA Egyptian practices. According to Mazar (Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000 – 586 BCE, 328), “isolated from the source of their culture, the Philistines were inspired by the indigenous population and were assimilated into it.”

I don’t think the continuity of battle armor can be presumed to the degree that the reliefs from Medinet Habu can be appealed to to reject Goliath’s armor as non-Philistine. The close parallels to Neo-Assyrian scaled armor, shield bearers, and the like I think present a better context than Homeric epic, but that’s a discussion for another day.

Expedition Calls Out Prof. Gerson Galil

I’m sure many of you have seen this already, but on the Khirbet Qeiyafa expedition’s official website a blunt open letter is addressed to Dr. Galil, whose rather cavalier reconstruction of the Qeiyafa ostracon was publicized in a press release on 10 January of this year. The letter raises several concerns that immediately sprung to my mind when I first read the press release, but also adds some interesting information that makes the press release even more problematic. Here it is in full:

The Khirbet Qeiyafa expedition would like to draw your attention to a number of problematic statements that appeared in the Haifa University press release, dated January 10, 2010 (http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=2043). These statements raise several problems of ethics and scholarship, which unfortunately have created a serious public misunderstanding concerning the Qeiyafa ostracon.

Ethics

1. While the expedition is run by two directors, only one (Yosef Garfinkel) is mentioned. This is surprising, as last year co-director Saar Ganor spent some time on guiding a tour of Khirbet Qeiyafa for you and other members of the Department of Biblical Studies of Haifa University.
2. The letters that appear on the ostracon were deciphered by the epigraphist Dr. Haggai Misgav, who has published his reading in Hebrew and English. In the press release, however, you are presented as the person who deciphered the inscription, taking full credit for the entire reading. Again, this is surprising, as last year Haggai Misgav gave a presentation on the inscription at the Department of Biblical Studies of Haifa University.
3. In a few cases you give alternative readings of the inscription that were published by Dr. Ada Yardeni. These, again, are presented as your original reading.
4. From the very first reading of the inscription, the words אל תעש were understood by Haggai Misgav as an indication that the language of the inscription is Hebrew. In the press release this understanding is presented as your original contribution.
5. Prof. Shmuel Ahituv suggested in his publication that עבד (worship) is another indication for Hebrew. In the press release, however, this is presented as your own contribution.
6. When you examined the ostracon, you requested permission to take a few photographs for your personal use only. One of these photographs appears in the press release.

Scholarship

Your contribution consists not of reading or deciphering the inscription, but rather of speculative reconstruction of “missing” letters and words. Most of the third line and the center of the fifth line of the ostracon are illegible and the letters you suggest are entirely speculative. The main words that support your thesis (אלמנה, יתום, אביון) are reconstructed and do not appear as such in the legible parts of the ostracon.

On the basis of your own reconstruction, you draw conclusions, among others, about when the Bible was written. Does this sound like a scientific methodology?

Hurtado on Genre

Nick Norelli has a quote up from Larry Hurtado that I think is interesting:

In practical terms “genre” refers to the features of a writing that set up certain expectations in readers and that dispose them to treat a given writing in a particular way. Thus, for example, we know to suspend disbelief in reading stories in the modern genre of science fiction, whereas we should demand to know the experimental demonstration behind the results of a scientific paper. We know we are to react differently to the report of a violent murder in the newspaper than to the account of such a crime in a murder mystery novel. The practical question about the Gospels is whether they exhibit features from the wider literary practice of the time that appear to have been intended to dispose readers to respond to these writings in particular ways, or at least would have had such an effect upon readers.

Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, 279-80.

Of course, the question of genre is applicable to all texts and ought to be the first step a person takes in interpretation. Martin Goodman is fond of pointing this out.

Thanks for the quote, Nick.

ΙΑΩ in the Septuagint

I’m sitting in a workshop conducted by Emanuel Tov regarding the Greek texts from the Judaean Desert, and he’s introduced a fascinating theory. 4QLXXLevb shows a number of peculiar lexical patterns that overlap with uncial versions of Greek Leviticus. This has led scholars to focus on the relationship of the two. Some have argued they are two independent translations, which makes little sense in light of the lexical overlap. More likely is the theory that one is a revision of another. Tov has argued in chapter 23 of his new edition of The Greek and Hebrew Bible that 4QLXXLevb should be seen as earlier.

This has particularly interesting implications vis-à-vis the use of κυριος for the Tertragrammaton in the Septuagint. 4QLXXLevb exclusively uses ΙΑΩ (יו, Yaw). If the uncials are indeed revisions of the version preserved in cave 4, they have uniformly changed ΙΑΩ to κυριος. Tov believes the Old Greek originally used ΙΑΩ throughout the Pentateuch. He stated that his impression was that Christian revision is responsible for κυριος, but a student from Durham objected to this interpretation, arguing it is more likely of Jewish origin. After about 15 minutes Tov agreed that that sounded more logical.

A German’s Take on American Religiosity

Here’s an entertaining quote about American religiosity from a book by Hans-Dieter Gelfert entitled Typisch amerikanisch: Wie die Amerikaner wurden, was sie sind (17):

Europeans must see American religiosity as naïve, if not primitive. Here, the educated are helped primarily by enlightened theologians who reinterpret Christian doctrine for everyday use, but at the same time for philosophically abstract ethics. At the same time there are pastors who believe that they can get by without mentioning God’s name. It’s quite different in America, where the Bible is still the Word of God.

Those stupid Americans.

Tessa Rajak on Josephus’ Rewritten Bible

Today I attended the first ever public seminar of the European Seminar on Advanced Jewish Studies. Martin Goodman and Alison Salvesen convened the session, and Tessa Rajak spoke on the Vorlage of Josephus’ rewritten Bible. Her paper was basically a revision of some doctoral work she had done long ago. She argued that Josephus seems to have used either a primarily Hebrew Vorlage with some secondary Greek readings thrown in, or a primary Greek Vorlage with some secondary Hebrew readings thrown in.

In the discussion portion Emanuel Tov pounced on this dichotomy and asked Tessa to choose one or the other (he advocates a primarily Greek Vorlage). Tessa could point to several verses which demanded a Greek origin, but admitted she could not point to any that demanded a Hebrew source. Good times.

Richard Dawkins and Aid for Haiti

I recently received the following email from The Reason Project:

Help for Haiti

It is widely imagined that, in times of crisis, religious people render aid in disproportion to their numbers. Richard Dawkins has now created an opportunity for non-believers to put the lie to this myth.

One hundred percent of the funds raised will go to Doctors Without Borders and/or The Red Cross (you decide). But giving in this way will send an additional message: one need not believe in God to care about one’s fellow human beings.

Non-Believers Giving Aid

First, I’d like to say that contributing to the relief efforts in Haiti is important no matter the motivation. If you haven’t had the opportunity to contribute yet, or you have more you can give, please use the link above as an opportunity to donate.

Second, that those who self-identify as religious donate more, on average, to charitable causes is supported by every study I’ve ever seen conducted. It’s hardly a myth. That the religious donate more, on average, even to non-religious charities is also supported by the data, undermining the assumption that contributions by religious people are mostly made as part of tithing or other donation requirements (see the data to the contrary here). The link provided in the email also contains the following statements:

Preachers and televangelists, mullahs and imams, often seem almost to gloat over natural disasters – presenting them as payback for human transgressions, or for ‘making a pact with the devil’.

This doesn’t happen “often.” It happens, which is shameful, but not often, and it does not come from a representative portion of religious communities.

Earthquakes and tsunamis are caused not by ‘sin’ but by tectonic plate movements, and tectonic plates, like everything else in the physical world, are supremely indifferent to human affairs and sadly indifferent to human suffering. Those of us who understand this reality are sometimes accused of being indifferent to that suffering ourselves.Of course the very opposite is the truth: we do not hide behind the notion that earthly suffering will be rewarded in a heavenly paradise, nor do we expect a heavenly reward for our generosity: the understanding that this is the only life any of us have makes the need to alleviate suffering even more urgent.

The implication, of course, being that religious folks who donate to charities do so out of a desire for a reward in the eternities, and not out of actual concern and altruism (it also seems to be that religious folks don’t know that plate tectonics are responsible for earthquakes).

The myth that it is only the religious who truly care is sustained largely by the fact that they tend to donate not as individuals, but through their churches.

I don’t believe I’ve ever seen the “myth” of more charitable contributions on the part of religious people cast as “it is only the religious who truly care.” People on both sides of this discussion contribute for good reasons and for bad reasons, and the studies that have been done on this generally contact individuals, not churches.

Non-believers, by contrast, give as individuals: we have no church through which to give collectively, no church to rack up statistics of competitive generosity.

Again, giving on behalf of religious people is characterized as anything but altruistic. The irony, however, is that this website is explicitly trying to “rack up statistics of competitive generosity.”

Non-Believers Giving Aid is not a church (that’s putting it mildly) but it does provide an easy conduit for the non-religious to help those in desperate need, whilst simultaneously giving the lie to the canard that you need God to be good.

This organization may not be a church, but it is still an attempt to organize and give collectively. Dawkins’ group seems to be insisting it’s manipulative when a church does it, but it’s ok for a secular organization, even if half of the motivation is explicitly competitive. I think it’s obvious that it’s ok no matter who does it.

I hope this movement is successful if for no other reason than it will create better opportunities for those suffering in Haiti to find help. My own church is sending a  team of doctors and millions of dollars worth of supplies, in addition to the money being donated by members. Dawkins is contributing several thousands of dollars of his own money to cover the PayPal fees so that 100% of the money donated through his organization can go toward Haiti. I am interested to see how his challenge plays out.

As a post script, there is a free way for everyone to contribute to movements aimed at fighting hunger, breast cancer, and illiteracy, and contributing to supporting the rainforest, child health, and animal rescue. Make thehungersite.com your homepage and click on the link every day. The ads that pop up pay for contributions with each daily click, and there are several different pages you can click on each time. The site is perfectly legit and has been operating for over a decade.