Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Chaim Cohen, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Yochanan Muffs, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Vol. 1: Pp. xxxvii + 548; vol. 2: Pp. x + 522. $99.50 (cloth).

2013 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-298
Author(s):  
Lisbeth S. Fried
Author(s):  
Brian Doak

The book of Job is the longest and most thematically and linguistically challenging of the “wisdom books” in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. In the book’s prologue (Job 1–2) the narrator introduces readers to a man named Job (Hebrew ‘iyyōb; etymology unclear). Job’s prosperity extends into all areas of his life, and seems at least potentially linked to his moral status as completely righteous and blameless before God. The earthly scene then gives way to a heavenly setting, where a figure called “the accuser” (literally “the satan”; haśśātān) appears before God. God boasts about Job’s righteousness, but the accuser counters, suggesting that Job’s moral achievement has been merely the byproduct of God’s protection. The accuser and God enter into a bet: Job’s children will be killed, Job’s possessions stripped, and Job’s body afflicted with a painful disease—all to see whether Job will curse God. Job initially responds to the distress with pious statements, affirming God’s authority over his life. In a state of intense suffering, Job is joined by three friends—Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, and then eventually a fourth, Elihu—who offer rounds of speeches debating the reasons for Job’s situation (Job 3–37). Job responds to the friends in turn, alternately lamenting his situation and pleading for a chance to address God directly and argue his case as an innocent man. The friends accuse Job of committing some great sin to deserve his fate; they urge repentance, and defend God as a just ruler. God enters the dispute in a forceful whirlwind (Job 38), and proceeds for several chapters (Job 38–41) to overwhelm Job with resounding statements on creation (38:1–38), animal life (38:39–40:14), and visions of two powerful creatures, Behemoth (40:15–24) and Leviathan (41:1–11). The book ends with Job acknowledging to God the fact that he is overmatched in the face of divine power. God condemns the friends for not speaking “what is right, as my servant Job has” (42:7), and then restores Job’s lost possessions and children (42:10–17). Job has enjoyed a rich reception history in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and, perhaps more than any other book in the Bible except Genesis, as a world literary classic in its own right. Within the Bible, it is the most bracing statement on the problem of suffering, as it presents a situation wherein a clearly righteous person suffers immensely—putting it at odds with more straightforward descriptions of why people suffer in Proverbs, Deuteronomy, and other texts. Scholarly research on Job has focused on the book’s place among other ancient Near Eastern wisdom materials, on questions of language (given the large amount of difficult Hebrew terms in the book), on historical-critical concerns about authorship and the way the book may have come together in its present form, and on the history of the translation of the text into Greek and other ancient languages. In the 21st century, interpreters have increasingly taken up readings of Job that situate it among concerns related to economics, disability, gender, and the history of its reception in many different eras and communities.


Author(s):  
Rachel Hallote

When the artistic canon of the Southern Levant coalesced in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, scholars thought of the region, then Ottoman Palestine, as the locus of the Bible. The small-scale nature of the archaeological finds as well as their relative dearth reinforced a reliance on biblical narratives as a framework for understanding the culture of the region. Moreover, early scholarship did not recognize the complex regionalism of the Southern Levant or the diversity of its populations. Consequently, the artistic canon that developed did not represent the historical and archaeological realities of the region. This chapter examines the history of how the artistic canon of the Southern Levant formed over the past century of scholarship, why various scholars of the early and middle twentieth century included particular items in the canon, and why these now entrenched representations may or may not be helpful to the discipline’s future.


2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-166
Author(s):  
Richard Pleijel

In this paper, the translation of the Biblical Hebrew word nephesh is discussed in light of new research. The starting point for the paper is a 1976 article in The Bible Translator that discusses the translation of nephesh based on the idea that it is a monistic entity referring to human beings as such. It is shown that this view was most representative for the exegetical consensus of the time of the article. However, a fair amount of new research points out new directions for interpreting nephesh as an entity or essence that was perceived as being separable from the body. This is also confirmed by research on cognate ancient Near Eastern concepts. It is argued that this should affect our way of translating the word nephesh.


Author(s):  
Stephen Breck Reid ◽  
Rebecca Poe Hays

The location of a book in the canon gives the reader clues to the genre and interpretation of the book. The Jewish canon places the poetry of the book of Psalms as the introduction to the division of the bible known as the Ketubim (writings). The Christian canon(s) place the Psalter between Job and Proverbs, accenting the Psalms’ place among the wisdom texts. Scholarly consensus understands the Psalter as a collection of collections of sung poetic prayers that range over a wide period of authorship, provenance, and redaction. Associated with ongoing worship in Israel, most psalms were continually reapplied to new situations. The earliest psalms antedate the period when Israel and Judah were ruled by an indigenous king, the monarchy (1030–583 bce), and the latest are from the period defined by the cultural and political hegemony of Greece, the Hellenistic period (323–63 bce). The book of Psalms functioned as the prayer book of the second temple period (521 bce–66 ce) and the repository of poetic instruction. The first audience of the completed book is the emerging population of what was then the Persian province of Yehud during this period. Prior to the rise of form criticism in the early 20th century, scholarship focused on the Psalms as expressions of individual religious poets, much as Keats, Dickinson, or Countee Cullen. Form criticism, shaped by the work of Herman Gunkel, focused on the social location of the various literary genres in the cult, but this approach still viewed the Psalter as assemblage or medley without structure or order. During the mid-20th century a focus emerged with an interest in the “shape and shaping” of the Psalter. The rise of postmodernity has led some to pursue post-Gunkel approaches to the book of Psalms that attend to matters such as the poetic language and the relationship to other ancient Near Eastern poetry and imagery. While many scholars still utilize form-critical language to discuss the Psalter, they tend to examine each psalm as a distinct literary composition and product of Israel’s religious tradition rather than forcing them into specific genres and corresponding life settings.


Author(s):  
Avraham Faust

The term “biblical archaeology” has meant different things to different people at different times. During most of its history, the term was used broadly and included archaeological (and archaeology-related) activities in the biblical lands, mainly the Near East but even beyond it, from prehistory to the medieval period. Later, the term was seen as parochial, narrow, and religiously loaded, and many felt uncomfortable using it, sometimes calling for a “secular archaeology” (e.g., William Dever), and preferring instead terms such as “Syria-Palestinian archaeology,” “Near Eastern archaeology,” or “archaeology of the Levant.” The change has also been connected with the decrease in the historical value attributed to the biblical narratives, and to political correctness. The term, nevertheless, is still widely used, and many scholars speak today about “new biblical archaeology.” Geographically, the new term is narrower, covering mainly the Land of Israel (also known as the southern Levant, Palestine, or the Holy Land; roughly covering the area of modern Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority). Chronologically, it still covers a long period, but a difference exists between Israeli usage and American/European usage. Both “groups” begin the era with the start of the Bronze Age (although all agree that there was nothing “biblical” in those periods). For Israeli scholars, however, the biblical period refers to the time covered in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), and it ends by the Late Iron Age, or the Persian period. For most American and European scholars, especially in the past, the term embraced the Hellenistic period, the Roman period, and perhaps even the Byzantine period. Today, however, scholars specialize either in the early periods (Bronze and Iron Ages) or in the later (Hellenistic-Byzantine) periods, and the term “biblical archaeology” is becoming synonymous with the Bronze and Iron Ages (including the Persian period). Indeed, these are the periods that will receive most attention here. Although originally the “child” of biblical studies and archaeology, in its current usage the term is not necessarily connected with the Bible; rather, it relates to studies of a certain era in a certain region. Due to the wide definitions of biblical archaeology, and in light of the differences in meanings associated with it, the boundaries between biblical archaeology and other disciplines are not always clear cut, and they have changed over the course of the discipline’s history. Therefore, the following sections will address some works that are not archaeological in nature. Notably, this article will usually not refer to excavation reports or technical ceramic studies.


Author(s):  
Joshua A. Berman

Scholars of biblical law have long seen the inconsistencies among the law corpora of the Pentateuch as signs of schools and communities in conflict. This chapter offers an introductory foundation for the following five chapters on biblical and ancient Near Eastern law. It demonstrates that the dominant approach to the critical study of biblical law—that is, as statutory law—is based on anachronistic, nineteenth-century notions of how law works and how legal texts are formulated. The chapter traces the history of legal thought in that century, and how it shaped (a better term might be distorted) how we view the ancient legal texts of the Bible and the Near East, and recovers premodern understandings of how law works and how legal texts are to be read in accordance with common-law jurisprudence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document