NET Bible Footnote on Prov 8:22

Almost two years ago I posted a criticism of a footnote in the NET Bible, specifically on Exod 21:6. I pointed out that the papers cited in the footnote did not at all support the conclusions that the footnote claimed they did. In fact, both papers explicitly rejected the conclusion that the footnote attributes to them. I emailed various people and commented on the NET forum, but the footnote has not been changed at all. I haven’t really looked at the NET Bible since then (except to check the above footnote), but someone recently referenced a note to Prov 8:22 from the NET Bible that struck me as equally problematic. I read through the articles they cited, and I see the exact same problem here. The footnote attributes its conclusions to articles that don’t even begin to support them. Additionally, those conclusions are simply false. The footnote deals with the meaning of the Hebrew word קנה, on which I presented at SBL last year. This is the entirety of the note:

There are two roots קָנָה (qanah) in Hebrew, one meaning “to possess,” and the other meaning “to create.” The earlier English versions did not know of the second root, but suspected in certain places that a meaning like that was necessary (e.g., Gen 4:1; 14:19; Deut 32:6). Ugaritic confirmed that it was indeed another root. The older versions have the translation “possess” because otherwise it sounds like God lacked wisdom and therefore created it at the beginning. They wanted to avoid saying that wisdom was not eternal. Arius liked the idea of Christ as the wisdom of God and so chose the translation “create.” Athanasius translated it, “constituted me as the head of creation.” The verb occurs twelve times in Proverbs with the meaning of “to acquire”; but the Greek and the Syriac versions have the meaning “create.” Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses (“appointed,” “given birth”) argue for the translation of “create” or “establish” (R. N. Whybray, “Proverbs 8:22-31 and Its Supposed Prototypes,” VT 15 [1965]: 504-14; and W. A. Irwin, “Where Will Wisdom Be Found?” JBL 80 [1961]: 133-42).

First, there are not two Hebrew roots קנה meaning separately “to possess” and “to create.” There is one root meaning “to possess” and in procreative contexts, “to beget.” Neither article cited supports the notion of two roots, and the second actually points out that an earlier author contemplated the possibility but dismissed it because there was no evidence. I know of no lexicon that indicates two roots for this verb. HALOT doesn’t do it. BDB doesn’t do it. TDOT doesn’t do it. I don’t think Clines does it. Gesenius doesn’t do it. Halayqa’s Comparative Lexicon of Ugaritic and Canaanite doesn’t do it. Nor does Ugaritic confirm that it is another root. Ugaritic actually confirms the opposite, that there is simply a procreative nuance to the verb. The Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín Ugaritic dictionary lists three senses for the single root qny:

1) “to acquire”; 2) “to create, forge”; 3) “to procreate”

Some authors reject the sense of “create,” including Irwin, whom the footnote cites as supporting the translation “create” or “establish.” Irwin, like Bruce Vawter in later decades, appears to find the premortal Christ in Proverbs’ Wisdom and so insists the being was begotten but also always existed. This goes back to a note in Gesenius’ lexicon, which points to a “Sermon on the Divine Sonship of the Messiah” for an argument against the idea of “create” for the root (in reality, it goes back to the early christological debates). This is linked with the modern fundamentalist obfuscation found in the footnote above, namely that “possess” avoids the problem of insisting God did not have wisdom forever. The real concern is whether or not Christ was created, and the footnote tries to skirt the problem by insisting that “wisdom existed before creation,” as if existing before the creation of the heavens and earth means “uncreated.” The possibility that something was created before the creation of the heavens and the earth is tacitly rejected here. (If one asks why there are depths before the creation of the heavens and the earth, though, the answer will always be that God created it beforehand.)

Finally, Whybray’s article has nothing to do with the meaning of the word קנה, and instead simply argues that other texts from the ancient Near East do not provide a source for the poetics of Proverbs 8.

Again, it appears the author of the NET’s footnote did not read the articles cited and most likely derived its conclusions from very superficial research or from conventional wisdom about the meaning of the word.

 

 

 

On “Context”

A mantra I see repeated by many interpreters of the Bible is “context, context, context.” While it’s true that a proper context is crucial to exegesis, the interpreters who shout this mantra the loudest are usually the ones doing it completely wrong. First, what “context” actually means is often overlooked. To the lay interpreter, context often just means the interpretive lens provided by the harmonization of a text or a larger literary collection. When used this way, the appeal to “context” is often a pretense for the application of a hermeneutic slight of hand. Whether the text in question involves the Old Testament or the New, texts from different authors, different time periods, and vastly different worldviews are often appealed to in an attempt to impose  an interpretive framework specifically designed to preclude or support a given reading.

This framework is disguised as the text’s “context,” even though it is often an entirely artificial lens derived from notions that “scripture interprets scripture,” or that the “overall” or “central” message must govern exegesis of any given verse. This is specious for more reasons than one (begs the question, presupposes univocality, etc.), but most egregiously, it rests on the notion that the parts of a text should be understood in light of its whole. An example of this kind of claim I have used before is the notion actually asserted in a conversation I had that “you have to look at the picture on the box to see how the pieces fit together.” In other words, you have to know what the texts mean overall before you can understand what an individual verse means. Brilliant. Since the whole is made up of the sum of the parts, the former should not overrule the latter, especially if the parts constitute independently produced literary units, as is the case with collections like the Old Testament or the New. When the whole unilaterally dictates the interpretation of the parts, you’re spiral down into the black hole of the hermeneutic circle.

Certainly fundamental patterns that reoccur within a single author or single genre’s text/s merit serious consideration when it comes to interpreting an anomalous-looking portion, but the offenders to whom I refer rarely maintain that kind of methodological discipline. Usually their “context” is much more broadly based and seems to align conveniently with conservative dogmas, like sola gratia or strict monotheism. When a text that conflicts with these principles is brought up, the “central message of the Old/New Testament” is asserted as overruling or contextualizing the text to the degree that it no longer says what it seems to say, even if it means asserting that the true meaning of the text can only be found between the lines, and can only be illuminating by the imposition of the (artificial) “context” provided by the collection as a whole.

As an example, in a recent discussion on a message board a poster was vehemently arguing that John’s soteriology was not “works-based” because John only requires that an individual believe in order to be saved, and believing is not a “work.” John 6:28–29 was brought up:

They said to him, “What should we do, that we might work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Now, what a “work” is vis-à-vis a “works-based” soteriology is debatable, and this verse doesn’t necessarily put the kibosh on the argument that believing isn’t a work, but the response to this appeal was that John’s soteriology, and that of the New Testament as a whole, is not “works-based,” and so this verse must mean something else. The poster insisted that this must be sarcasm on Jesus’ part, meant to poke at the Jews’ preoccupation with the works of the law. In other words, he only used the word “work” sarcastically since it was the word the works-centered Jews used in their question. The poster stated that although he could not prove it, he thinks that Jesus winked at his disciples when he said this.

In making this argument the poster not only begs the question, but presupposes a univocal soteriology in the New Testament from beginning to end, and aligns that soteriology with modern notions of sola gratia. In doing so the poster must reject the straightforward meaning of all texts that conflict with those assumptions as sarcasm, irony, or some other rhetorical tool that leaves the actual meaning of the comments in between the lines. It takes the imposition of a “context” derived from the univocal reading of a secondary gathering of texts composed independently of each other to draw out the true meaning of the text. This is not what context means, though; this is a hermeneutic puppet show. To properly understand context one must be willing to avoid the presumption of univocality and be willing to look at literature outside of the Bible itself. After all, the texts of the New Testament had to operate for decades within their own literary contexts before they were ever brought together into a collection.

Robert Cargill on the Jordan Codices and An Invitation

Bob Cargill has some thoughts up in a new post that directs readers to Tom Verenna’s recent video on the Jordan Codices. As an archaeologist who deals regularly with questions of authenticity, Cargill provides some insight into patterns common to amateur archaeologists/scholars trying to promote artifacts for their own monetary or ideological profiteering:

Like most unprovenanced “discoveries,” the Jordan Lead Codices are continuing to be exposed for what they are: a book-selling, documentary-pitching, money making, religious profiteering scheme, which uses a hungry media to prey on the faithful and the public, and employs the tried-and-true formula of 1) a sensational press release (without academic peer-review or scholarly evaluation), followed by 2) a pseudoscientific data dump that attempts to dilute and drown out the logic and actual science put forth by scholars responding to and debunking the claim (at least until the book gets released).

As the manipulative nature of this kind of campaign is exposed, “archaeological hucksters” tend to react by appealing to argumentum ad hominem and a sense among laypersons of distrust for putative academic elitism and bias:

(Keep in mind, the archaeological hucksters often get a little bent out of shape when scholars call them on their nonsense and criticize their claims, and the hucksters’ responses can often take the form of personal attacks coupled with unwarranted claims of religious/ethnic persecution (i.e., anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-whatever).

This is exactly the case with the comments from observers and from the admin on the Jordan Codices Facebook page. The admin recently made the following claim:

Note: We have had many requests for more photographs; however, we have been prevented from fulfilling this requests by those who have chosen to abuse the copyright of the photographs by lifting them for their own personal and commercial websites, in certain instances, misrepresenting and misinterpreting the photographs. Unfortunately the actions of a few has affected the enjoyment of many.

When it was pointed out multiple times in comments that the law prevents any kind of copyright claims on said photos, the admin simply deleted the comments:

The only post of the above two that remains is the one calling bibliobloggers “bastards.” Elkington responded to that post thanking the poster for his “sentiment.” The fact is, there is nothing in the promulgation of the photos on the internet that at all complicates sharing more photos, unless, of course, you just don’t want the actual contents of the codices to be further analyzed. This is obviously the reason the most recent photos Elkington released had pieces of paper obscuring the pages of the codices.

The only post of the above that remains is the one calling bibliobloggers “bastards.” Elkington responded to that post thanking the poster for his “sentiment” and stating the following:

Unfortunately there are those out there who are not satisfied with just keeping to their own opinions but must seek to go one step further and force them upon others. It is most unchristian: an irony really given that Christ preached love and tolerance. It makes you wonder why if they do believe that the codices are fake why they are investing so much emotion and persistence in trying to demonstrate their view, whilst ignoring the hard science of the metal reports. As we have requested, in the introduction to this page, we are seeking reasoned and responsible, well mannered debate – not the ill-mannered personal attacks that these misguided fellows have sought. They have our sympathy – as the first century Rabbi Hillel once stated: The ignorant man sins with a clear conscience.

This is part of the personal attack concomitant with this kind of fraud, but notice Elkington asserts that the “hard science of the metal reports” vindicates him, even though the comments he continues to delete show conclusively that Elkington has altered the relevant report to bring it in line with his claims where it originally falsified them. Other comments are equally pejorative:

They’re cockey, unfair, narrow-minded, accusatory, impatient, hot under the collar, and seem to delight in hastily jumping to conclusions before all the facts are on the table. For the sake of inflated pride, they put a higher priority on wanting to be “proven” right, rather than on dispassionately and evenhandedly weighing all the unfolding pros and cons of a given controversy.

The original source message is a strong powerful force of love and peace, of grace and dignity, and to attack that is strangely symptomatic of the crucifiction, so think about that before you write your abuse and post abusive videos – you are no better than Judas and Pontius Pilate – you are history repeating itself in a destructive way.

The first group of challengers is comprised of those scholarly types who early on in this process jumped to the conclusion that the Jordan Codices are fakes, based on very limited information: Now, as a result of “jumping the gun,” their reputations and egos are in jeopardy if it turns out the codices actually are authentic ancient artifacts. These persons must continually “fire away” as they attempt to reconvince themselves and their followers that they “got it right” the first time.

I agree about your evaluation of people who are so desperate to prove these are forgeries. You’d think professional and academic people or those involved in theology would have an open and inquisitive mind about these artifacts before judging.

Why are these people putting so much effort in when they are absolutely convinced they are fakes. That You Tube posting must have taken some time and effort to put together. Why???

Some of these comments ask about motivations, but they can expect no answer when the administration has barred critics from comment. The posts show nothing more than assumptions about what must be driving those who are trying to set the record straight. They all do not appear the least bit concerned that the Elkington has already shown himself phenomenally ignorant of Greek as well as Hebrew in the conclusions he asserts are coming from the world’s leading experts. They do not appear concerned that the Jordan Codices admin has been shown conclusively to have misrepresented scientific data in favor of the authenticity of the codices. Since that falsified information is the only evidence that has ever existed to support the antiquity of the codices’ images and texts, what is compelling them to assert a need to suspend of judgment, or to assert that we’re the ones jumping to conclusions?

I cannot respond to request for motivations or other answers on Facebook, but I invite any and all who think there is a possibility the codices are authentic to comment here. Your comments will not be deleted, edited, or ignored. I’m not a fundamentalist by a long shot and I have absolutely nothing to lose or gain by the falsification or authentication of these codices. I am perfectly willing to fully and honestly respond to any inquiries. If David or any others are honestly looking for sincere and dispassionate dialogue (or photos of the codices!), you can find it here. You cannot find it on Facebook.

Short Video on Jordan Codices

Tom Verenna has a video up on the Jordan Codices that explains a few of the more critical problems with the claims being made by Elkington through Facebook:

Here is a more detailed explanation of the manipulation that has taken place with the Oxford materials report. This is a claim that Elkington made on the Facebook page regarding the Oxford materials report (it is a response to a post that has been deleted):

The metal was re-melted in antiquity. If you read the report carefully, it states this fact. It then concludes that the metal is of ancient provenance and that the corrosion is uniform across the entire surface.

Does the report support this claim? This is the scan of one of the pages from that report that Elkington has placed on the Jordan Codices Facebook page:

Here is his transcription of this page:

The third sentence under the Corrosion section would seem to support Elkington’s claim that analysis suggest an ancient provenance:

Most of the other leaves show a surface which flakes off quite easily and can expose a very clean and just slightly oxidized surface with the characteristic of lead that has been buried where it would be expected that the surface crust would be thicker and that there would be greater penetration of the metal leaving, at least, a pitted surface.

If the syntax of this sentence seems off to you, you’re not alone. The second half of the sentence seems to be describing a situation that is expected but not observed, rather than a situation that has been observed. According to the sentence above the “where” is to be understood locatively, but it seems to be operating as a subordinating conjunction. A closer look at the scan, which has been intentionally made virtually illegible by Elkington, solves the problem:

The highlighted sentence reads:

In the present writer’s view this is not characteristic of lead that has been buried where it would be expected that the surface crust would be thicker and that there would be greater penetration of the metal leaving, at least, a pitted surface.

Elkington’s transcription removes the last portion of the sentence prior to the highlighted text and combines the resulting fragment with the second half of the highlighted sentence. Basically, the word “characteristic” in the highlighted sentence is moved back and replaces the word “characters” in the previous sentence, removing the portion of the report that conflicts with an ancient provenance for the codices. Will Elkington argue for haplography as a result of homoioarcton? Possibly, but it can be no coincidence that the edited text supports a fundamental claim that Elkington highlights and emphasizes elsewhere. Elkington has demonstrably altered the report to support his assertions. This is flagrant and egregious deception, and it shows quite conclusively that Elkington is willing to lie and to openly and transparently manipulate scientific data to make his codices appear ancient. They simply are not. Elkington is a demonstrable fraud and a dilettant (he is monstrously ignorant of basic principles of Greek and Hebrew). His deception needs to be exposed. Too many innocent people have been taken in by this man’s baseless claims, and they will soon begin to line his pockets with book royalties.

PS – A link to the video above was posted on the Jordan Codices page a few minutes ago by Mark Goodacre, associate professor of New Testament at Duke University:

It has already been removed by Elkington, along with the other comment (which Elkington does not seem to understand):

PPS – Since Dr. Goodacre’s post, two more professors, Jim West of Quartz Hill School of Theology and James Davila of St. Andrews University have posted the link, only to have it unceremoniously removed. Dorothy Lobel King, an actual archaeologist, pointed out that Elkington cannot, by law, claim copyrights on photos of the artifacts. That comment was also removed:

 

 

Syntax Confusion in the Dead Sea Scrolls

How would you break down the syntax of this sentence from 4Q397 ii 1:

אנחנו אומרים שהם שאין בהם טהרה

It seems to me we’re either missing a relative clause or we have an extra relative pronoun. Qumran syntax can get pretty hairy.

Accordance is Giving Away a MacBook Air

 Like Joel, I will shamelessly point you to a link that will give me an entry into the contest for each person who clicks on it. Joel already gets enough freebies, though. Click on my link.