I will be taking several days off from blogging. I will be on vacation, recovering from the busy summer I had this year.
I finished my work on the Self-Study and this is the first opportunity I have to be away from school for a few days.
If you send me an email, I will answer it after I return to the office.
I will resume writing for the blog after I return to the office.
Enjoy your summer.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Thursday, August 30, 2007
The History of Archaeology
Kris Hirst is writing a history of archaeology. In part 3 of the series, she writes about “The Tyranny of the Text.” She begins part 3 of the series by asking: “Is the Bible fact or fiction?”
Hirst wrote:
Read Hirst’s “The History of Archaeology,” Part 3 by clicking here.
Read the whole series by clicking here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tag: Archaeology
Hirst wrote:
This is one of the most common questions I get asked as an archaeologist and it is one for which I have yet to find a good answer. And yet the question is at the absolute heart of archaeology, central to the growth and development of archaeology, and it is the one that gets more archaeologists into trouble than any other. And, more to the point, it brings us back to the history of archaeology.
Read Hirst’s “The History of Archaeology,” Part 3 by clicking here.
Read the whole series by clicking here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tag: Archaeology
Mummies From Around The World
Time has a pictorial essay showing several mummies from around the world. Very interesting.
View the mummies by visiting Time.com.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Archaeology, Egypt, Mummies
View the mummies by visiting Time.com.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Archaeology, Egypt, Mummies
The Treasures of King Tut
The Evening Standard has published an article describing the upcoming exhibit of the treasures of Tutankhamun. The article contains a brief description of the exhibit and several beautiful pictures of some of the artifacts that will be shown.
What follows is an excerpt of the article:
Read the article and view the pictures by clicking here.
The discovery of King Tut’s tomb in 1922 was very significant because until its discovery, little was known about Tutankhamun. The tomb contained ancient furniture and many beautiful objects. The most famous of these objects was the golden death mask which covered his face. Tutankhamun was the 12th ruler of the Eighteenth Dynasty and the son of Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (also known as Akhenaten). Because King Tut died at a young age (according to estimates, he was 18 when he died), he is also known as the Boy King.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Archaeology, Egypt, King Tut, Tutankhamun
What follows is an excerpt of the article:
THE KING
Tutankhamun was king of Egypt, ascending the throne around 1333 BC, when he was about nine. As a child, he did not rule directly and had two advisers: a military general named Horemheb and a male relative named Aye. The young Pharaoh married Ankhesenpaaten, who may have been his sister, and they had two daughters, who were both stillborn and whose mummies were discovered in his tomb. Tutankhamun reigned for only nine years and died before his 20th birthday after suffering a mysterious head injury. Experts cannot agree on whether he was murdered or simply had an accident, despite carrying out exhaustive forensic tests. The Pharaoh's body was mummified by priests and embalmers in a process which typically took 70 days. During the process all his organs were removed and put in small coffins of their own, each intricately decorated, and his body was wrapped in fine Egyptian linen.
THE TOMB
The tomb of Tutankhamun was dug in the traditional burial place of Egyptian royals, the Valley of the Kings on the west bank of the Nile across from modern Luxor (Thebes).
It was discovered, nearly intact, in 1922 by the British archaeologist Howard Carter, having not been touched for more than 3,000 years. Even when, at the end of the 19th century, the valley was examined by archaeologists his tomb was overlooked because some workers' huts had been built over the entrance. Carter, who stumbled upon it as much by luck as judgement, found scores of artifacts, including Tutankhamun's gold crown (diadem), the golden mask which covered his mummified face, amulets, jewels, a knife and sheath and the king's games box.
It took Carter and the Egyptian authorities a decade to catalogue the 120 priceless objects removed from the tomb. Although Tutankhamun was of little historical interest, the find caused a sensation and made him one of the most famous pharaohs of all. In 1972, an exhibition of some of the treasures was held at the British Museum.
THE CURSE
Following the discovery of Tutankhamun, there were rumours of a deadly curse surrounding those who had helped open the coffin. Lord Carnarvon, the wealthy amateur archaeologist and dilettante who funded the expedition, died less then a year after the opening of the tomb. He was found dead on 5 April 1923 in a room at the Winter Palace Hotel in Luxor, giving credence to the "Mummy's Curse". It is thought he had contracted blood poisoning from an infected mosquito bite which developed into pneumonia. His room at the hotel has not been made available to guests since.
Up to six other people involved in the dig died over the next decade, including two of Lord Carnarvon's relatives and Howard Carter's secretary. Carter himself died, aged 64, from natural causes 17 years after the tomb was opened.
Read the article and view the pictures by clicking here.
The discovery of King Tut’s tomb in 1922 was very significant because until its discovery, little was known about Tutankhamun. The tomb contained ancient furniture and many beautiful objects. The most famous of these objects was the golden death mask which covered his face. Tutankhamun was the 12th ruler of the Eighteenth Dynasty and the son of Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (also known as Akhenaten). Because King Tut died at a young age (according to estimates, he was 18 when he died), he is also known as the Boy King.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Archaeology, Egypt, King Tut, Tutankhamun
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Mount Nebo
According to the book of Deuteronomy, after Moses declared the law to Israel and after he had finished the composition of the song to be presented to Israel (Deut. 32), the song in which Moses declared God’s faithfulness and Israel’s unfaithfulness, the Lord gave Moses instructions about his death. The Lord commanded Moses to ascend the Abarim mountains and go up to Mount Nebo and there, before he died, look at the extension of the land that He was about to give Israel as its inheritance (Deut 32:49). The people of Israel had been camping near Mount Nebo since they had entered Moabite territory, after their 40 years’ journey in the wilderness.
The book of Deuteronomy provides specific details about the location of Mount Nebo. Mount Nebo was located in the land of Moab, facing the city of Jericho, in the Abarim chain of mountains, on top of Pisgah (Deut. 32:49; 34:1). Mount Nebo and Mount Pisgah were part of the chain of mountains known as Abarim (see Deut. 3:27).
Pisgah appears in Numbers 21:20 as one of the places on the itinerary of the Israelites’ march through Moabite territory and in Deuteronomy 3:17 as one of the boundaries separating the tribes of Reuben and Gad. The site of Mount Nebo has been identified with Ras es-Siyagha, a mountain between the cities of Madeba and Heshbon. As a result of archaeological excavations at Ras es-Siyagha done by the Franciscan Bible School in the early 1930s, archaeologists have excavated a Byzantine church dedicated to the memory of Moses.
According to Jennings, the church was decorated with beautiful mosaics. The church also contained a quatrefoil baptistry (a baptistry decorated with four leaflets). In addition, “elaborate pictures of trees, fruits, birds, and animals, as well as geometric motifs and dedicatory inscriptions decorated the floors" (James E. Jennings, "Nebo," The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, ed. Edward M. Blaiklock and R. K. Harrison [Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1983], 332).
Evidently, Mount Nebo was located near the town of Nebo, a place on the eastern side of the Jordan. The book of Joshua declares that the territory of the tribe of Reuben included "the slope of Pisgah" (Josh. 13:20). The Book of Numbers says that the mountains of Abarim were located near Nebo (Num. 33:47). This town was part of the inheritance that Moses gave to the tribe of Reuben at the time of the division of the conquered land in the eastern side of the Jordan (Num. 32:38).
Possibly, both the town and the mountain were named after the god Nebo. According to Babylonian religious tradition, Nebo was the son Marduk, the chief god in the Babylonian pantheon. This association of Nebo with the Babylonia god may explain why the author of Numbers 32:38 declared that the name of the city was changed.
There at the top of Nebo Moses was to be gathered to his ancestors. Moses was going to die in the land of Moab without entering the promised land, which had been the focus of his ministry for 40 years. Because of his disobedience in Meribah, Moses had not honored the holiness of Yahweh in the presence of Israel (Num. 20:1-13; Deut. 1:37; 4:21). For this reason, Moses would contemplate the promised land from afar, without crossing the Jordan river with the new generation of Israelites.
After he had exhorted the people of Israel to be faithful and obedient to God's laws, Moses said his farewell to the people by blessing each tribe of Israel. Then, in obedience to God’s word, Moses left the plains of Moab, where the people were camped, and went up to Mount Nebo. From the top of Mount Nebo, the Lord showed Moses all the land of Canaan, the land that Israel was about to receive as its inheritance, as God had promised to Abraham. From the top of the mountain Moses was able to look at the land of Canaan. Even though it was impossible for Moses to see the complete extension of the land, the writer of Deuteronomy described the geographic limits of the land at it existed in his own day (Deut. 34:1-3). The description of the land follows a north-south direction.
The land of Gilead was on the east side of the Jordan River. This was the land where the Transjordanian tribes lived. Dan was the northernmost limit of the land of Canaan. This part of the land was later occupied by the tribe of Dan. Naphtali, Ephraim, and Manasseh represented the central part of the land. Judah was the southern limit. The Western Sea was the Mediterranean. Jericho, the city of palms (Josh. 6:16, 21; Judges 1:16), was the first city the Israelites conquered after they crossed the Jordan River. Zoar was situated at the south of the Dead Sea. The Negev was the wilderness of south Judah. After he was shown the extension of the promised land, Moses died in the land of Moab and was buried in a valley opposite Beth-Peor. Beth-Peor was the name of the valley where the Israelites had set their camp in preparation for crossing the Jordan River (Deut. 3:29; 4:46).
Thus, Mount Nebo is the site of an important event in Moses’ life and in the children of Israel’s life.
This article was published in the Biblical Illustrator (Fall 1999): 56-58. The Biblical Illustrator is published by Lifeway.com.
NOTE: My blog has moved to a new address. If you enjoyed reading this post, you can subscribe to my blog by visiting my web page or subscribing to my blog here:
Dr. Claude Mariottini
Subscription
Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Abarim, Deuteronomy, Moses, Mount Nebo, Pisga
The book of Deuteronomy provides specific details about the location of Mount Nebo. Mount Nebo was located in the land of Moab, facing the city of Jericho, in the Abarim chain of mountains, on top of Pisgah (Deut. 32:49; 34:1). Mount Nebo and Mount Pisgah were part of the chain of mountains known as Abarim (see Deut. 3:27).
Pisgah appears in Numbers 21:20 as one of the places on the itinerary of the Israelites’ march through Moabite territory and in Deuteronomy 3:17 as one of the boundaries separating the tribes of Reuben and Gad. The site of Mount Nebo has been identified with Ras es-Siyagha, a mountain between the cities of Madeba and Heshbon. As a result of archaeological excavations at Ras es-Siyagha done by the Franciscan Bible School in the early 1930s, archaeologists have excavated a Byzantine church dedicated to the memory of Moses.
According to Jennings, the church was decorated with beautiful mosaics. The church also contained a quatrefoil baptistry (a baptistry decorated with four leaflets). In addition, “elaborate pictures of trees, fruits, birds, and animals, as well as geometric motifs and dedicatory inscriptions decorated the floors" (James E. Jennings, "Nebo," The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, ed. Edward M. Blaiklock and R. K. Harrison [Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1983], 332).
Evidently, Mount Nebo was located near the town of Nebo, a place on the eastern side of the Jordan. The book of Joshua declares that the territory of the tribe of Reuben included "the slope of Pisgah" (Josh. 13:20). The Book of Numbers says that the mountains of Abarim were located near Nebo (Num. 33:47). This town was part of the inheritance that Moses gave to the tribe of Reuben at the time of the division of the conquered land in the eastern side of the Jordan (Num. 32:38).
Possibly, both the town and the mountain were named after the god Nebo. According to Babylonian religious tradition, Nebo was the son Marduk, the chief god in the Babylonian pantheon. This association of Nebo with the Babylonia god may explain why the author of Numbers 32:38 declared that the name of the city was changed.
There at the top of Nebo Moses was to be gathered to his ancestors. Moses was going to die in the land of Moab without entering the promised land, which had been the focus of his ministry for 40 years. Because of his disobedience in Meribah, Moses had not honored the holiness of Yahweh in the presence of Israel (Num. 20:1-13; Deut. 1:37; 4:21). For this reason, Moses would contemplate the promised land from afar, without crossing the Jordan river with the new generation of Israelites.
After he had exhorted the people of Israel to be faithful and obedient to God's laws, Moses said his farewell to the people by blessing each tribe of Israel. Then, in obedience to God’s word, Moses left the plains of Moab, where the people were camped, and went up to Mount Nebo. From the top of Mount Nebo, the Lord showed Moses all the land of Canaan, the land that Israel was about to receive as its inheritance, as God had promised to Abraham. From the top of the mountain Moses was able to look at the land of Canaan. Even though it was impossible for Moses to see the complete extension of the land, the writer of Deuteronomy described the geographic limits of the land at it existed in his own day (Deut. 34:1-3). The description of the land follows a north-south direction.
The land of Gilead was on the east side of the Jordan River. This was the land where the Transjordanian tribes lived. Dan was the northernmost limit of the land of Canaan. This part of the land was later occupied by the tribe of Dan. Naphtali, Ephraim, and Manasseh represented the central part of the land. Judah was the southern limit. The Western Sea was the Mediterranean. Jericho, the city of palms (Josh. 6:16, 21; Judges 1:16), was the first city the Israelites conquered after they crossed the Jordan River. Zoar was situated at the south of the Dead Sea. The Negev was the wilderness of south Judah. After he was shown the extension of the promised land, Moses died in the land of Moab and was buried in a valley opposite Beth-Peor. Beth-Peor was the name of the valley where the Israelites had set their camp in preparation for crossing the Jordan River (Deut. 3:29; 4:46).
Thus, Mount Nebo is the site of an important event in Moses’ life and in the children of Israel’s life.
This article was published in the Biblical Illustrator (Fall 1999): 56-58. The Biblical Illustrator is published by Lifeway.com.
NOTE: My blog has moved to a new address. If you enjoyed reading this post, you can subscribe to my blog by visiting my web page or subscribing to my blog here:
Dr. Claude Mariottini
Subscription
Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Abarim, Deuteronomy, Moses, Mount Nebo, Pisga
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
A God So Near
The following book review was published in Review and Expositor 101 (2004): 782-784.
A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller, ed. by Brent S. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. xviii + 439 pp. $47.50. ISBN 1-57506-067-1.
This volume contains a collection of twenty-four essays dedicated to Patrick D. Miller, Charles T. Haley Professor of Old Testament Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. Professor Miller has made significant contributions to the study of the Psalms and the book of Deuteronomy. The essays written in Miller’s honor reflect the interest of the honoree. The articles deal with the books of Psalms and Deuteronomy and other topics that are related to the main focus of the festschrift. The theological emphasis of many of the articles reflects Miller’s concern to bring together the work of academia and the work of the church.
The book is divided into two sections. Part I, entitled “‘Near Whenever We Call’: God’s Nearness in Israel’s Crying Out (The Psalms and Beyond),” contains the following essays:
“Reading the Lament Psalms Backwards” by H. G. M. Williamson (pp. 3-15); “‘Without Our Aid He Did Us Make’: Singing the Meaning of the Psalms” by W. Sibley Towner (pp. 17-34); “The So-Called Elohist Psalter: A New Solution for an Old Problem” by Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger (pp. 35-51); “A Fairy Tale Wedding: A Feminist Intertextual Reading of Psalm 45” by Nancy R. Bowen (pp. 53-71); “Notes on Psalm 93: A Fragment of a Liturgical Poem Affirming Yahweh’s Kingship” by Frank Moore Cross (pp. 73-77); “There the Blessing: An Exposition of Psalm 133” by James Luther Mays (pp. 79-90); “Certainty, Ambiguity, and Trust: Knowledge of God in Psalm 139” by Carolyn Pressler (pp. 91-99); “Quoth the Raven: Psalm 147 and the Environment” by James Limburg (pp. 101-111); “Prayer and/a Self-Address: The Case of Hanna” by J. Gerald Janzen (pp. 113-27); “Naomi’s Cry: Reflection on Ruth 1:20-21” by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (pp. 129-43); “Jonah 2: A Prayer Out of the Deep” by Gerhard Sauter (pp. 145-52); “Songs in a New Key: The Psalmic Structure of the Chronicler’s Hymn (1 Chr 16:8-36)” by Mark A. Throntveit (pp. 153-70); and “Wild, Raging Creativity: The Scene in the Whirlwind (Job 38-41)” by Kathleen M. O’Connor (pp. 171-179).
Part II, entitled “‘As Just as This Entire Law’: God’s Nearness in the Torah (Deuteronomy and Beyond),” contains the following essays:
“Law in the Service of Life: A Dynamic Understanding of Law in Deuteronomy” by Terence E. Fretheim (pp. 183-200); “How Does Deuteronomy Do Theology? Literary Juxtaposition and Paradox in the New Moab Covenant in Deuteronomy 29-32” by Dennis T. Olson (pp. 201-213); “Keep/Observe/Do–Carefully–Today! The Rhetoric of Repetition in Deuteronomy” by Brent A. Strawn (pp. 215-40); “Divine Warrior Theology in Deuteronomy” by Richard D. Nelson (pp. 241-59); “Reading Deuteronomy 5 as Narrative” by Norbert Lohfink (pp. 261-81); “The Travail of Pardon: Reflections on slH” by Walter Brueggemann (pp. 283-97); “Circumcision of the Heart: The Journey of a Biblical Metaphor” by Werner E. Lemke (pp. 299-319); “Huldah, the Prophet: Reading a (Deuteronomistic) Woman’s Identity” by Renita J. Weems (pp. 321-39); “Prophets and Kings: A New Look at the Royal Persecution of Prophets against Its Near Eastern Background” by J. J. M. Roberts (pp. 341-54); “From Mountain to Mountain: The Reign of God in Daniel 2” C. L. Seow (pp. 355-74); and “Sola Scriptura? The Authority of the Bible in Pluralistic Environments” by Michael Welker (pp. 375-391).
The book concludes with a bibliography of the works of Patrick Miller written by Brent A. Strawn covering the years 1964-2001 (pp. 393-416). The 372 entries in the bibliography demonstrate the breadth and scope of Miller’s work and the influence he has exerted in Old Testament studies. The book also includes an index of authors and an index of Scriptures cited.
Because of limitations only a few articles are discussed here. Williamson’s essay begins the collection by offering an alternative interpretation to the accepted view that the psalms of a lament should be read from the perspective of the actual time of the suffering of the psalmist. He proposes the view that many of the psalms of lament should be understood from the situation presented at the end of these psalms. Thus, according to Williamson, the psalms of lament should be understood from the context of thanksgiving and celebration that arises after deliverance has been experienced and at the time the payment of the vows the psalmist had promised is made.
Fretheim’s article deals with a dynamic understanding of the laws of the Pentateuch and how individual laws can be applied to Christian faith and practice. Fretheim sees the laws of the Pentateuch as a gracious gift of God to Israel. These laws were given to Israel “for the sake of life, health, and well-being of individuals in community” (p. 184). Since life changes with time, the laws of the Pentateuch cannot be understood as unchangeable. The book of Deuteronomy offers many changes to the laws in the Book of the Covenant. These changes reflect the way God deals with his people. Since Christians also deal with the laws of the Pentateuch, Christians must study each and every law of the Pentateuch in order to discover whether these laws contribute to the health and well-being of the community.
Walter Brueggemann discusses the theme of Israel’s disobedience and divine pardon. Although Yahweh is known as a God who pardons the iniquity of his people, his pardon is not readily granted. Brueggemann declares that the issue of pardon is not a primary emphasis in Deuteronomy, for Israel was expected to obey the demands of the Law. The consequences of disobedience would be judgment and exile and Deuteronomy emphasizes that Yahweh was “unwilling to pardon” (Deut. 29:20) those who abandoned Yahweh to follow other gods This unwillingness to pardon was reaffirmed to Israel because of this sins of Manasseh. Brueggemann studies the biblical material to discover whether the concept of pardon was a theme in the theology of exile. At the end of his study, Brueggemann discovers that the biblical material concerning divine pardon goes from “absolute rejection . . . to a bid for repentance . . . through an insistence on the cruciality of obedience without pardon . . . to a full, unilateral pardon without reference to repentance” (p. 293).
These and the other essays contributed to this festschrift merit careful study for the contribution they make to Old Testament scholarship. The essays are a fitting recognition of the life and work of Patrick Miller and of the impact he has made on the life of his students and on those who admire his works.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Deuteronomy, Patrick Miller, Pentateuch
A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller, ed. by Brent S. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. xviii + 439 pp. $47.50. ISBN 1-57506-067-1.
This volume contains a collection of twenty-four essays dedicated to Patrick D. Miller, Charles T. Haley Professor of Old Testament Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. Professor Miller has made significant contributions to the study of the Psalms and the book of Deuteronomy. The essays written in Miller’s honor reflect the interest of the honoree. The articles deal with the books of Psalms and Deuteronomy and other topics that are related to the main focus of the festschrift. The theological emphasis of many of the articles reflects Miller’s concern to bring together the work of academia and the work of the church.
The book is divided into two sections. Part I, entitled “‘Near Whenever We Call’: God’s Nearness in Israel’s Crying Out (The Psalms and Beyond),” contains the following essays:
“Reading the Lament Psalms Backwards” by H. G. M. Williamson (pp. 3-15); “‘Without Our Aid He Did Us Make’: Singing the Meaning of the Psalms” by W. Sibley Towner (pp. 17-34); “The So-Called Elohist Psalter: A New Solution for an Old Problem” by Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger (pp. 35-51); “A Fairy Tale Wedding: A Feminist Intertextual Reading of Psalm 45” by Nancy R. Bowen (pp. 53-71); “Notes on Psalm 93: A Fragment of a Liturgical Poem Affirming Yahweh’s Kingship” by Frank Moore Cross (pp. 73-77); “There the Blessing: An Exposition of Psalm 133” by James Luther Mays (pp. 79-90); “Certainty, Ambiguity, and Trust: Knowledge of God in Psalm 139” by Carolyn Pressler (pp. 91-99); “Quoth the Raven: Psalm 147 and the Environment” by James Limburg (pp. 101-111); “Prayer and/a Self-Address: The Case of Hanna” by J. Gerald Janzen (pp. 113-27); “Naomi’s Cry: Reflection on Ruth 1:20-21” by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (pp. 129-43); “Jonah 2: A Prayer Out of the Deep” by Gerhard Sauter (pp. 145-52); “Songs in a New Key: The Psalmic Structure of the Chronicler’s Hymn (1 Chr 16:8-36)” by Mark A. Throntveit (pp. 153-70); and “Wild, Raging Creativity: The Scene in the Whirlwind (Job 38-41)” by Kathleen M. O’Connor (pp. 171-179).
Part II, entitled “‘As Just as This Entire Law’: God’s Nearness in the Torah (Deuteronomy and Beyond),” contains the following essays:
“Law in the Service of Life: A Dynamic Understanding of Law in Deuteronomy” by Terence E. Fretheim (pp. 183-200); “How Does Deuteronomy Do Theology? Literary Juxtaposition and Paradox in the New Moab Covenant in Deuteronomy 29-32” by Dennis T. Olson (pp. 201-213); “Keep/Observe/Do–Carefully–Today! The Rhetoric of Repetition in Deuteronomy” by Brent A. Strawn (pp. 215-40); “Divine Warrior Theology in Deuteronomy” by Richard D. Nelson (pp. 241-59); “Reading Deuteronomy 5 as Narrative” by Norbert Lohfink (pp. 261-81); “The Travail of Pardon: Reflections on slH” by Walter Brueggemann (pp. 283-97); “Circumcision of the Heart: The Journey of a Biblical Metaphor” by Werner E. Lemke (pp. 299-319); “Huldah, the Prophet: Reading a (Deuteronomistic) Woman’s Identity” by Renita J. Weems (pp. 321-39); “Prophets and Kings: A New Look at the Royal Persecution of Prophets against Its Near Eastern Background” by J. J. M. Roberts (pp. 341-54); “From Mountain to Mountain: The Reign of God in Daniel 2” C. L. Seow (pp. 355-74); and “Sola Scriptura? The Authority of the Bible in Pluralistic Environments” by Michael Welker (pp. 375-391).
The book concludes with a bibliography of the works of Patrick Miller written by Brent A. Strawn covering the years 1964-2001 (pp. 393-416). The 372 entries in the bibliography demonstrate the breadth and scope of Miller’s work and the influence he has exerted in Old Testament studies. The book also includes an index of authors and an index of Scriptures cited.
Because of limitations only a few articles are discussed here. Williamson’s essay begins the collection by offering an alternative interpretation to the accepted view that the psalms of a lament should be read from the perspective of the actual time of the suffering of the psalmist. He proposes the view that many of the psalms of lament should be understood from the situation presented at the end of these psalms. Thus, according to Williamson, the psalms of lament should be understood from the context of thanksgiving and celebration that arises after deliverance has been experienced and at the time the payment of the vows the psalmist had promised is made.
Fretheim’s article deals with a dynamic understanding of the laws of the Pentateuch and how individual laws can be applied to Christian faith and practice. Fretheim sees the laws of the Pentateuch as a gracious gift of God to Israel. These laws were given to Israel “for the sake of life, health, and well-being of individuals in community” (p. 184). Since life changes with time, the laws of the Pentateuch cannot be understood as unchangeable. The book of Deuteronomy offers many changes to the laws in the Book of the Covenant. These changes reflect the way God deals with his people. Since Christians also deal with the laws of the Pentateuch, Christians must study each and every law of the Pentateuch in order to discover whether these laws contribute to the health and well-being of the community.
Walter Brueggemann discusses the theme of Israel’s disobedience and divine pardon. Although Yahweh is known as a God who pardons the iniquity of his people, his pardon is not readily granted. Brueggemann declares that the issue of pardon is not a primary emphasis in Deuteronomy, for Israel was expected to obey the demands of the Law. The consequences of disobedience would be judgment and exile and Deuteronomy emphasizes that Yahweh was “unwilling to pardon” (Deut. 29:20) those who abandoned Yahweh to follow other gods This unwillingness to pardon was reaffirmed to Israel because of this sins of Manasseh. Brueggemann studies the biblical material to discover whether the concept of pardon was a theme in the theology of exile. At the end of his study, Brueggemann discovers that the biblical material concerning divine pardon goes from “absolute rejection . . . to a bid for repentance . . . through an insistence on the cruciality of obedience without pardon . . . to a full, unilateral pardon without reference to repentance” (p. 293).
These and the other essays contributed to this festschrift merit careful study for the contribution they make to Old Testament scholarship. The essays are a fitting recognition of the life and work of Patrick Miller and of the impact he has made on the life of his students and on those who admire his works.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Deuteronomy, Patrick Miller, Pentateuch
A Rare Coin Found at Gezer
In an article published in the Star-Telegram.com, Steven Ortiz, an associate professor of archaeology and biblical studies at Southwestern Baptist Seminary, is reporting that a dig at a fortification in Gezer has revealed collapsed mud-brick walls which were probably burned by the Assyrians in the eighth century B.C.
In addition, archaeologists also found a cylinder seal with the image of a king, with his outstretched bow in hand, and riding on a animal. Archaeologists also found a silver coin dating to the reign of Ptolemy IV (207-205 B.C.). According to Ortiz, the coin is only the third of its kind excavated in Israel.
According to Ortiz, the people working at Gezer “were quite surprised at the preservation of the Assyrian destruction.”
Read the complete news report by visiting the Star-Telegram.com.
Of course, Jim West is skeptical about the findings. Jim wrote:
I wonder what it would take to convince Jim that some archaeological findings may demonstrate that some events in the Bible are based on historical facts.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Archaeology, Gezer, Solomon
In addition, archaeologists also found a cylinder seal with the image of a king, with his outstretched bow in hand, and riding on a animal. Archaeologists also found a silver coin dating to the reign of Ptolemy IV (207-205 B.C.). According to Ortiz, the coin is only the third of its kind excavated in Israel.
According to Ortiz, the people working at Gezer “were quite surprised at the preservation of the Assyrian destruction.”
Read the complete news report by visiting the Star-Telegram.com.
Of course, Jim West is skeptical about the findings. Jim wrote:
Perhaps it’s time to remind ourselves that without substantive evidence, the marriage of the Bible to scrapings in the dirt is tenuous at best; and the use of any and every bit of remains as linkage to the biblical narrative is disingenuous and ultimately misleading.
I wonder what it would take to convince Jim that some archaeological findings may demonstrate that some events in the Bible are based on historical facts.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Archaeology, Gezer, Solomon
Monday, August 27, 2007
Bible Maps: Book By Book
Today in an earlier post, I mentioned a site that presents maps of the lands of the Bible. Phil Harland at Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean mentions another site that also contains maps of the lands of the Bible. This site, however, is different. This site identifies places mentioned in the Bible book by book. The site also uses Google Maps to identify biblical places.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tag: Bible Maps
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tag: Bible Maps
Google’s Maps of the Bible
Hardy at Daily Hebrew has a post announcing a site which presents maps of the land of the Bible. The site is powered by Google Maps.
Check the Bible maps here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tag: Bible Maps
Check the Bible maps here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tag: Bible Maps
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Hosea 6:6 and the NIV
Peter Kirk wrote an excellent post in Better Bibles Blog titled “Hosea 6:6: harmonising with NT destroys OT.” His post continues my argument here and here that the NIV is inconsistent in translating some Hebrew words in the book of Hosea.
In his post, Peter shows that the translation of Hosea 6:6 in the NIV was influenced by the translator’s attempt at harmonizing the text in Hosea with the text in Matthew.
Peter wrote:
Read Peter’s article in its entirety by clicking here.
I agree with Peter’s view. And I also agree with his conclusion: “The NIV Old Testament is sadly marred in a number of places by misplaced attempts to harmonise with the New Testament.”
I encourage you to read Peter’s article.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary.
Tags: Exegesis, Hesed, Hosea, NIV, Translation
In his post, Peter shows that the translation of Hosea 6:6 in the NIV was influenced by the translator’s attempt at harmonizing the text in Hosea with the text in Matthew.
Peter wrote:
I suspect that the real reason is because 6:6 is quoted in the New Testament, in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7. But the quotation is taken from the LXX rendering of this verse which is itself apparently a mistranslation. That is, the Greek word eleos used to render Hebrew hesed, here and in most other places in LXX and by Matthew, does not normally have the same meaning as hesed. Rather, it means "mercy", and so in Matthew is correctly translated "mercy". The problem apparently came when the translators decided that the text in Hosea must be adjusted to fit Matthew's use of the verse, as they understood it. Unfortunately by doing so they managed to completely mess up their translation of Hosea, removing the clear markers of cohesion in this prophecy and destroying its sense.
Read Peter’s article in its entirety by clicking here.
I agree with Peter’s view. And I also agree with his conclusion: “The NIV Old Testament is sadly marred in a number of places by misplaced attempts to harmonise with the New Testament.”
I encourage you to read Peter’s article.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary.
Tags: Exegesis, Hesed, Hosea, NIV, Translation
Friday, August 24, 2007
The Jews from India: The Tribe of Manasseh is Found
On September 19, 2005, I wrote a post about the Mizo Jews from India who claimed to be the descendants of the lost Tribe on Manasseh. In that post, I wrote:
Read that post, “Found: A Lost Tribe of Israel,” by clicking here.
This week, several of the Bnei Manashe have returned to Israel. In an article published today in the Arutz Sheva, many more Mizo Jews will be making their “Aliyah” (Jewish immigration to Israel) in the next few months.
The following is an excerpt from the news report:
During the past century, millions of Jews have returned to Israel. They came from the east and from the west. They came from the north and now they are coming from the south. It seems that the prophetic dream is being fulfilled: Jews are coming back “from the ends of the earth.”
My only question is: are the Mizo Jews members of the lost tribe of Manasseh?
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Aliyah, Lost Tribes, Mizo Jews
Are the Mizo Jews the descendants of the lost tribe of Manasseh? Jewish scholars are divided over the claims of the Bnei Menashe. A report by an anthropologist claiming that there are similarities between the rituals of the Jewish people prescribed in Leviticus and the cultic practices of the Mizo Jews has provided a ray of hope for those who claim that the Mizo Jews are one of the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel.
Read that post, “Found: A Lost Tribe of Israel,” by clicking here.
This week, several of the Bnei Manashe have returned to Israel. In an article published today in the Arutz Sheva, many more Mizo Jews will be making their “Aliyah” (Jewish immigration to Israel) in the next few months.
The following is an excerpt from the news report:
Seventy-eight members of India's Bnei Menashe community entered Israel by bus from Jordan on Thursday and 40 more were scheduled to arrive at Ben-Gurion Airport early Friday morning on an El Al flight from Mumbai (Bombay), according to Shavei Israel Chairman Michael Freund, whose organization organized the operation.The prophets often mentioned that the scattered people would be regathered and return to their land. For instance, Deutero Isaiah said: “Do not fear, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and from the west I will gather you; I will say to the north, ‘Give them up,’ and to the south, ‘Do not withhold; bring my sons from far away and my daughters from the end of the earth’” ( Isaiah 43:5-6). The prophet Ezekiel said: “I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries, and bring you into your own land” (Ezekiel 36:24).
The Bnei Menashe claim descent from the tribe of Menashe, one of the ten tribes exiled from the Land of Israel by the Assyrian empire over 2,700 years ago. They reside primarily in the two Indian states of Mizoram and Manipur, along the border with Burma and Bangladesh. In recent years alone, over 800 members of the community have made Aliyah, thanks largely to the efforts of Shavei Israel, a Jerusalem-based group that reaches out and assists “lost Jews” seeking to return to the Jewish people. They reside mainly in Kiryat Arba, south of Jerusalem, and Beit El and Ofrah, north of Jerusalem.
The existence of the Bnei Menashe, known in India as the Manmassi tribe, was publicized in the Jewish world about 30 years ago by Rabbi Eliyahu Avichayil. When it was observed that the tribe's members maintained certain ancient traditions unlike any observed in the Indian subcontinent, investigation revealed that the rituals were of Jewish origin
During the past century, millions of Jews have returned to Israel. They came from the east and from the west. They came from the north and now they are coming from the south. It seems that the prophetic dream is being fulfilled: Jews are coming back “from the ends of the earth.”
My only question is: are the Mizo Jews members of the lost tribe of Manasseh?
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Aliyah, Lost Tribes, Mizo Jews
The UFOs Are Here
Do you believe in UFOs?
I don’t, but read this story that appeared in About.com:
Now, look at the video of the UFOs.
Note: This post is not meant to be an endorsement of the existence of UFOs. It is just for fun.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tag: UFO
I don’t, but read this story that appeared in About.com:
The hottest UFO report making the Internet rounds right now is a www.youtube.com video allegedly taken in the country of Haiti. This 20 second video supposedly shows two cutting edge UFOs flying over the palm trees of the tropical paradise. It is a great film to watch, but the question is: "Is it real?" Well... it depends on who you listen to. Most of the folks I have discussed this video with say it is an obvious hoax. Yet, again, those who believe that the video is real are very adamant about its authenticity. This certainly falls into the category of "too good to be true." This distinction should not even be considered. Is it not possible for there to be a good clear video of a UFO?
Now, look at the video of the UFOs.
Note: This post is not meant to be an endorsement of the existence of UFOs. It is just for fun.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tag: UFO
Thursday, August 23, 2007
The Development of the New Testament
Kevin P. Edgecomb in biblicalia has a very interesting post in which he gives the reasons for the writing of the books of the New Testament.
The following are two excerpts from his post:
Good post.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Canon, New Testament
The following are two excerpts from his post:
So, I would like to suggest that the writing of the individual New Testament books, their preservation, and subsequent canonization as part of the New Testament was all a part of the growth of the deposit of faith, part of the safeguarding of the original apostolic regula fidei...............................................................
In summary, the writing of the New Testament documents occurred for the reason of defense of the faith, as the further clarification of the very rule of faith (regula fidei) established by the apostles when the local church communities were founded in the first century.
Good post.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Canon, New Testament
A Case for the Death Penalty
Michael Medved, in an article in Townhall.com, makes a case for the death penalty by saying that those who use the Bible to oppose the death penalty ignore the teachings of the Bible on this issue.
The following is an excerpt of his article:
Read Michael Medved’s article by visiting Townhall.com.
As a Christian, I have my own views about the death penalty. Christians are divided on this issue and they cannot agree whether the state has the right to impose the death penalty upon those who take a life.
The fact is, that notwithstanding the different ways Christians interpret the Bible’s teaching on the death penalty, the state has the right to enact laws imposing the death penalty upon those who commit murder. Medved makes a strong argument for this view and I tend to agree with him.
As a Christian I may oppose the death penalty because I believe that the power of God in Christ can transform any person, including hardened criminals. But I also believe that the state has the right and the authority to demand justice on behalf of victims by requiring the death penalty for murderers.
Any discussion of the death penalty must begin with the most important biblical passage on this issue: “Murder is forbidden. Any person who murders must be put to death. You must execute anyone who murders another person, for to kill a person is to kill a living being made in God's image” (Genesis 9:5-6).
Where do you stand on this issue?
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Death Penalty, Genesis 9:5-6, Michael Medved, Murder
The following is an excerpt of his article:
This point came home to me with unusual force during synagogue services this last Saturday. The weekly portion of the Bible which was read out loud this week by all Jews, everywhere, included verses (Deuteronomy 19: 11-13) that leave little doubt as to the Old Testament's insistence on the death penalty. Scripture declares that "if there be a man who hates his fellow, and ambushes him mortally, and he dies" then the killer cannot escape to one of the established "Cities of Refuge" intended for perpetrators of accidental death. With a pre-mediated murder, the Bible says: "Your eye shall not pity him; you shall remove the innocent blood from Israel; and it shall be good for you."
Concerning this passage, the authoritative Twelfth Century sage, Maimonides, offers an explanation with haunting contemporary resonance: "The verse concludes that by executing the murderer, the nation will insure that it shall be good for you, because compassion for a murderer breeds further bloodshed, since it frees him from death and sets an example for others, who may be tempted to follow his example."
In other words, misplaced compassion for a pre-meditated murderer brings cruel consequences for future innocent victims - as recent academic studies of the death penalty and its powerful deterrent impact very clearly indicate.
In response to the Old Testament's direct (and frequently repeated) authorization of capital punishment, Christian opponents of the death penalty claim that Jesus replaced the harsh Mosaic law of justice with a new Gospel of forgiveness and mercy. They cite the famous Gospel injunction to "turn the other cheek" or the suggestion that "he who is without sin should cast the first stone," without acknowledging that these exhortations apply to individual conduct and not to governmental authorities. In the New Testament, in fact, Paul makes clear in Romans 13:4 that believers should not expect society to abolish capital punishment: "But if you do evil, be afraid; for (the governing authority) does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister; an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."
Moreover, the same section of Matthew's Gospel that includes the celebrated exhortations to "love thine enemy" and "turn the other cheek" begins with Christ's unequivocal declaration (Matthew 5: 17-18) that he has no intention of abrogating properly interpreted Old Testament law: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
In this context, the early Church unhesitatingly endorsed the death penalty. Clement of Alexandria, the great scholar and teacher of the Second Century, declared that "if someone falls into incurable evil - when taken possession of by wrong or covetousness - it will be for his good if he is put to death." In the Fourth Century, St. Jerome (venerated by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans alike) wrote that execution of "murderers, blasphemers and poisoners" is not "shedding of blood, but administration of laws." Aquinas also strongly reasoned for the death penalty, and as recently as the Catechism of Trent (1566), the Catholic Church unequivocally affirmed that "lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent."
Read Michael Medved’s article by visiting Townhall.com.
As a Christian, I have my own views about the death penalty. Christians are divided on this issue and they cannot agree whether the state has the right to impose the death penalty upon those who take a life.
The fact is, that notwithstanding the different ways Christians interpret the Bible’s teaching on the death penalty, the state has the right to enact laws imposing the death penalty upon those who commit murder. Medved makes a strong argument for this view and I tend to agree with him.
As a Christian I may oppose the death penalty because I believe that the power of God in Christ can transform any person, including hardened criminals. But I also believe that the state has the right and the authority to demand justice on behalf of victims by requiring the death penalty for murderers.
Any discussion of the death penalty must begin with the most important biblical passage on this issue: “Murder is forbidden. Any person who murders must be put to death. You must execute anyone who murders another person, for to kill a person is to kill a living being made in God's image” (Genesis 9:5-6).
Where do you stand on this issue?
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Death Penalty, Genesis 9:5-6, Michael Medved, Murder
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The Review of Biblical Literature
James R. Davila
The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other?
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5139
Reviewed by Johann Cook
Jeremiah: Preacher of Grace, Poet of Truth
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5779
Reviewed by Mitchel Modine
Masters of the Word: Traditional Jewish Bible Commentary from the First through the Tenth Centuries
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5583
Reviewed by Alex P. Jassen
Paul Lawrence
The IVP Atlas of Bible History
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5738
Reviewed by Christoph Stenschke
Lee Martin MacDonald
The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5678
Reviewed by David Chapman
Melvin K. H. Peters, ed.
XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies,
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5694
Reviewed by Michael Tilly
Peter Schäfer
Jesus in the Talmud
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5783
Reviewed by Catherine Hezser
Mark D. Thompson
A Clear and Present Word: The Clarity of Scripture
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5722
Reviewed by Francois Viljoen
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tag: Book Reviews
Singing the Praises of the NIV
In my last two posts, I have pointed out inconsistencies in the way the NIV translates some Hebrew words (check here and here). These inconsistencies are not helpful to pastors who preach and teach from the NIV. They are also not helpful to lay people who use only one version of the Bible and do not use other versions to compare translations of specific verses.
Today I want to sing the praises of the NIV. I do not do this very often because in many places, the translation of the NIV does not reflect the intent of the original writers of the biblical text. In previous posts, I have pointed out some of the problems I have with the NIV.
One place where I believe the NIV is superior to the NRSV, the RSV, and the ESV is in Isaiah 40:9. The verse in these three translations reads as follows:
Isaiah 40:9 (NRSV): “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings, lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Here is your God!’”
Isaiah 40:9 (RSV): “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings, lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Behold your God!’”
Isaiah 40:9 (ESV): “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good news; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good news; lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Behold your God!’”
Isaiah 40:9 (NIV): “You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, ‘Here is your God!’”
In the NRSV, the RSV, and the ESV, it is Zion (Jerusalem) who is commanded to go to a high mountain, and it is Zion (Jerusalem), who, as the herald of good news, is commanded to proclaim to the cities of Judah the advent of YHWH.
These three translations differentiate between the messenger who proclaims good news on God’s behalf in verse 6 and Zion as the messenger who proclaims good news to the cities of Judah.
In Hebrew, the construct form of the verb is difficult to understand. It literally means: “Messenger of Zion.” The Greek Septuagint translates: “The one bringing good news to Zion.” The Latin Vulgate translates: “You who evangelizes Zion.”
The verb mebasseret is a participle feminine. In Hebrew, the participle feminine form of the verb is used to denote an office or an occupation such as sophereth, the office of the sopher or scribe (Ezra 2:55; Neh. 7:5). Thus, the mebasseret in Isaiah 40:9 is a title that should be applied to someone who was appointed to proclaim good news to Zion and not to Zion as the one appointed to proclaim good news to the cities of Judah.
Thus, I believe that the NIV translation, which regards Zion as the receiver, and not the proclaimer of the good news, is a better translation.
The text in Isaiah is not calling upon Jerusalem to make known the good news to the cities of Judah. Rather, the messenger of God is to proclaim the good news to Jerusalem; he is to announce to Jerusalem (and in a sense, to the people of Israel), that after many years of lying desolate and waste, that her time of servitude has come to an end and that the time of release would soon come to pass (Isaiah 40:2).
The translation found in the NRSV, the RSV, and the ESV is awkward, because it gives Jerusalem the duty to proclaim to the other cities of Judah that the exile was over for the nation. It is also awkward to believe that the city of Jerusalem was called to go up to a high mountain and proclaim to the other cities of Judah that the Lord was about to bring the people back to the land.
Thus, when it comes to Isaiah 40:9, I have to sing the praises of the NIV. And this commendation of the NIV has something important to say about Bible translations. Every translation of the Bible has its strengths and weaknesses. No translation of the Bible is perfect, not even the King James Version.
Serious students of the Bible must learn how to use more than one version of the Bible and compare translations to gain a better perspective of the intent of the original writer. When translations differ, and they will differ, Bible students must consult good exegetical commentaries to gain a better perspective of what the biblical writers were trying to communicate to their readers and to us.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Bible, Exegesis, Isaiah 40:9, NIV, Translations, Versions
Today I want to sing the praises of the NIV. I do not do this very often because in many places, the translation of the NIV does not reflect the intent of the original writers of the biblical text. In previous posts, I have pointed out some of the problems I have with the NIV.
One place where I believe the NIV is superior to the NRSV, the RSV, and the ESV is in Isaiah 40:9. The verse in these three translations reads as follows:
Isaiah 40:9 (NRSV): “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings, lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Here is your God!’”
Isaiah 40:9 (RSV): “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings, lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Behold your God!’”
Isaiah 40:9 (ESV): “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good news; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good news; lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Behold your God!’”
Isaiah 40:9 (NIV): “You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, ‘Here is your God!’”
In the NRSV, the RSV, and the ESV, it is Zion (Jerusalem) who is commanded to go to a high mountain, and it is Zion (Jerusalem), who, as the herald of good news, is commanded to proclaim to the cities of Judah the advent of YHWH.
These three translations differentiate between the messenger who proclaims good news on God’s behalf in verse 6 and Zion as the messenger who proclaims good news to the cities of Judah.
In Hebrew, the construct form of the verb is difficult to understand. It literally means: “Messenger of Zion.” The Greek Septuagint translates: “The one bringing good news to Zion.” The Latin Vulgate translates: “You who evangelizes Zion.”
The verb mebasseret is a participle feminine. In Hebrew, the participle feminine form of the verb is used to denote an office or an occupation such as sophereth, the office of the sopher or scribe (Ezra 2:55; Neh. 7:5). Thus, the mebasseret in Isaiah 40:9 is a title that should be applied to someone who was appointed to proclaim good news to Zion and not to Zion as the one appointed to proclaim good news to the cities of Judah.
Thus, I believe that the NIV translation, which regards Zion as the receiver, and not the proclaimer of the good news, is a better translation.
The text in Isaiah is not calling upon Jerusalem to make known the good news to the cities of Judah. Rather, the messenger of God is to proclaim the good news to Jerusalem; he is to announce to Jerusalem (and in a sense, to the people of Israel), that after many years of lying desolate and waste, that her time of servitude has come to an end and that the time of release would soon come to pass (Isaiah 40:2).
The translation found in the NRSV, the RSV, and the ESV is awkward, because it gives Jerusalem the duty to proclaim to the other cities of Judah that the exile was over for the nation. It is also awkward to believe that the city of Jerusalem was called to go up to a high mountain and proclaim to the other cities of Judah that the Lord was about to bring the people back to the land.
Thus, when it comes to Isaiah 40:9, I have to sing the praises of the NIV. And this commendation of the NIV has something important to say about Bible translations. Every translation of the Bible has its strengths and weaknesses. No translation of the Bible is perfect, not even the King James Version.
Serious students of the Bible must learn how to use more than one version of the Bible and compare translations to gain a better perspective of the intent of the original writer. When translations differ, and they will differ, Bible students must consult good exegetical commentaries to gain a better perspective of what the biblical writers were trying to communicate to their readers and to us.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Bible, Exegesis, Isaiah 40:9, NIV, Translations, Versions
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
The Inconsistencies of the NIV - Part 2
In my post yesterday, I pointed out the inconsistency of the NIV in translating the word da‘at elohim in the book of the prophet Hosea. In that post I mentioned the problems preachers have when using the NIV in trying to arrive at a proper understanding of the biblical text.
Today I want to study another inconsistency found in the NIV that, to me at least, obfuscates the original meaning of the biblical text and sends a confusing message to a reader who cannot read the biblical text in its original language.
Again, in my comparison, I will use three other translations. I will compare the NIV with the NRSV, the ESV, and the TNIV. I could have used other translations, but my focus is on the NIV.
I use the NIV as the model for comparison since many people in my congregation have chosen to use the NIV because of the simplified language it uses to convey the biblical message. To readers whose first language is not English, the NIV is easy to understand. However, because of the inconsistency of the NIV, at times, the message the NIV presents is not as clear as it should be.
Another example of inconsistency in the NIV’s translation of Hosea is found in the use of the word hesed. The following is a translation of hesed in Hosea 4:1:
Hosea 4:1 (NIV): “Hear the word of the LORD, you Israelites, because the LORD has a charge to bring against you who live in the land: ‘There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land.’”
In this verse, the NIV translates the word hesed as love. The word hesed is difficult to translate in English because the word has a wealth of meanings in Hebrew. The correct understanding of hesed is attained only in a study of the context of where the word is used. However, as H. J. Zobel has shown in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 5:47, “the one who receives an act of hesed responds with a similar act of hesed, or at least that the one who demonstrates hesed is justified in expecting an equivalent act in return.”
In a study of the word hesed in Isaiah, “Rereading Isaiah 40:6,” I wrote:
In Hosea 4:1, the NRSV translates hesed as “loyalty;” the ESV as “steadfast love,” and the TNIV as “love.” Love or steadfast love is a good translation, but “loyalty” is a better translation.
On the other hand, the NIV translates the same word, hesed, as “mercy” in Hosea 6:6:
Hosea 6:6 (NIV): “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.”
In this verse the translations differ:
NRSV: “For I desire steadfast love.”
ESV: “For I desire steadfast love.”
TNIV: “For I desire mercy.”
In my opinion, the HCSB has a better translation: “For I desire loyalty.”
The word “mercy” does not convey in English what the biblical author was trying to communicate to his audience. In English, the word “mercy” means a compassionate treatment of a person, to be kind or forgiving to someone.
This is not what the biblical writer was trying to convey to his readers. If the NIV had been consistent and used “love” here as it used it in 4:1, the message would be the same. However, the inconsistency of the NIV leaves the reader at a loss because they will believe that what the Lord requires from his people is that they be compassionate to fellow Israelites when in reality God was requiring the people’s loyalty to the relationship established by the covenant.
In Hosea 12:6 the NIV translates hesed as “love” and in Hosea 10:12, the NIV translates hesed as “unfailing love.” At least “unfailing love” in the NIV is better than “kindness” in the ASV, “piety” in the NAB, and “goodness” in the TNK.
There are several lessons to be learned here for pastors who do not know Hebrew. The first lesson is: consult more than one translation when studying the biblical text. Check several translations and compare how the biblical text is translated. Second, consult good exegetical commentaries. Since translations differ, commentaries will also differ. A good exegetical commentary will provide a brief study to the meaning of important theological words in the text.
The third and final lesson is that it is never too late to study biblical languages. No one needs to be a scholar in Hebrew or Greek, but a basic knowledge of the language will help pastors know how to consult an interlinear translation of the biblical text or check the meaning of specific words in a Hebrew or Greek lexicon.
When it comes to biblical translations, the saying remains true: “trust, but verify.”
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Hesed, Hosea, NIV, Preaching, Translation
Today I want to study another inconsistency found in the NIV that, to me at least, obfuscates the original meaning of the biblical text and sends a confusing message to a reader who cannot read the biblical text in its original language.
Again, in my comparison, I will use three other translations. I will compare the NIV with the NRSV, the ESV, and the TNIV. I could have used other translations, but my focus is on the NIV.
I use the NIV as the model for comparison since many people in my congregation have chosen to use the NIV because of the simplified language it uses to convey the biblical message. To readers whose first language is not English, the NIV is easy to understand. However, because of the inconsistency of the NIV, at times, the message the NIV presents is not as clear as it should be.
Another example of inconsistency in the NIV’s translation of Hosea is found in the use of the word hesed. The following is a translation of hesed in Hosea 4:1:
Hosea 4:1 (NIV): “Hear the word of the LORD, you Israelites, because the LORD has a charge to bring against you who live in the land: ‘There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land.’”
In this verse, the NIV translates the word hesed as love. The word hesed is difficult to translate in English because the word has a wealth of meanings in Hebrew. The correct understanding of hesed is attained only in a study of the context of where the word is used. However, as H. J. Zobel has shown in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 5:47, “the one who receives an act of hesed responds with a similar act of hesed, or at least that the one who demonstrates hesed is justified in expecting an equivalent act in return.”
In a study of the word hesed in Isaiah, “Rereading Isaiah 40:6,” I wrote:
The word hesed is related to the covenant God established with Israel at Sinai. The word hesed refers to the commitment that binds two parties to a relationship.
In his book, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), Gordon Clark says that hesed is an "action performed, in the context of a deep and enduring commitment between two persons or parties" (p. 267). Since faithfulness to a relationship is a character of God, God also expects his people to be as committed to the relationship as he is.
When the word is applied to God, it refers to his faithfulness to the relationship. Thus, the word is best translated "faithfulness," "unfailing love," "loyalty." When the word is applied to human beings, it refers to the loyalty and commitment that people should bring to that relationship. In this case, a good translation of hesed should be "commitment," "loyalty." A strong relationship is built on commitment. Israel should be as loyal and committed to the covenant as God was.
In Hosea 4:1, the NRSV translates hesed as “loyalty;” the ESV as “steadfast love,” and the TNIV as “love.” Love or steadfast love is a good translation, but “loyalty” is a better translation.
On the other hand, the NIV translates the same word, hesed, as “mercy” in Hosea 6:6:
Hosea 6:6 (NIV): “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.”
In this verse the translations differ:
NRSV: “For I desire steadfast love.”
ESV: “For I desire steadfast love.”
TNIV: “For I desire mercy.”
In my opinion, the HCSB has a better translation: “For I desire loyalty.”
The word “mercy” does not convey in English what the biblical author was trying to communicate to his audience. In English, the word “mercy” means a compassionate treatment of a person, to be kind or forgiving to someone.
This is not what the biblical writer was trying to convey to his readers. If the NIV had been consistent and used “love” here as it used it in 4:1, the message would be the same. However, the inconsistency of the NIV leaves the reader at a loss because they will believe that what the Lord requires from his people is that they be compassionate to fellow Israelites when in reality God was requiring the people’s loyalty to the relationship established by the covenant.
In Hosea 12:6 the NIV translates hesed as “love” and in Hosea 10:12, the NIV translates hesed as “unfailing love.” At least “unfailing love” in the NIV is better than “kindness” in the ASV, “piety” in the NAB, and “goodness” in the TNK.
There are several lessons to be learned here for pastors who do not know Hebrew. The first lesson is: consult more than one translation when studying the biblical text. Check several translations and compare how the biblical text is translated. Second, consult good exegetical commentaries. Since translations differ, commentaries will also differ. A good exegetical commentary will provide a brief study to the meaning of important theological words in the text.
The third and final lesson is that it is never too late to study biblical languages. No one needs to be a scholar in Hebrew or Greek, but a basic knowledge of the language will help pastors know how to consult an interlinear translation of the biblical text or check the meaning of specific words in a Hebrew or Greek lexicon.
When it comes to biblical translations, the saying remains true: “trust, but verify.”
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Hesed, Hosea, NIV, Preaching, Translation
Monday, August 20, 2007
Nadia Abu El-Haj’s Tenure: The Controversy Continues
Several days ago, I wrote a blog dealing with the controversy surrounding the tenure appointment of Nadia Abu El-Haj. Cecilie Surasky at MuzzleWatch, commenting on the campaign to deny Nadia Abu El-Haj tenure at Barnard, asks: “Is tenure process no longer the domain of academic peers?”
The following is an excerpt from her comments:
Read also the post written by Richard Silverstein in Tikun Olam (mentioned above).
I have not read El-Haj’s book and cannot judge whether the book is biased. However, in academic circles the system of tenure is designed to protect dissenting views similar to the ones espoused by El-Haj.
The university system is a market of ideas. Students are exposed to different views and some of them are radical views that deny some of the very things that made this country great. Students are free to accept those views or reject them but controversial views cannot be suppressed from an academic setting.
I favor the system of tenure and believe that El-Haj should be granted tenure on the merits of her scholarship, not on the merits of her political views. The professors at Bernard should consider El-Haj’s scholarship and the potential contribution she can make to scholarly dialogue and then consider whether she deserves tenure.
I just wonder if those same professors at Bernard would grant tenure to conservative Christian scholars on the basis of their scholarship.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Academic Freedom, Facts on the Ground, Nadia Abu el-Haj, Tenure
The following is an excerpt from her comments:
As an undergrad, in my class on Jewish historiography with arguably the country’s best-known Jewish scholar, Jacob Neusner, we learned how Jewish historiography served as a secular replacement for Judaism as a mechanism for preserving the narrative of Jews as the chosen people. I wrote an entire paper on it and got an A. The basic concept seems to me to be hardly different from El-Haj’s critique of Israeli archeologists. At the time, however, I don’t recall an outcry about Neusner because of his thesis.
For a substantive, line by line vetting of the distortions in the petition that opponents of El-Haj have posted, read Tikun Olam’s excellent analysis. Silverstein also talks about archeologists Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein, who, like El-Haj, “also take on the Israeli archaeological establishment and its sacred cow notion of a glorious united Davidic kingdom.” Their work certainly has created a stir, but is well within the tradition of Neusner and other scholars who, like good academics, seek to look beyond myth-making.
Read also the post written by Richard Silverstein in Tikun Olam (mentioned above).
I have not read El-Haj’s book and cannot judge whether the book is biased. However, in academic circles the system of tenure is designed to protect dissenting views similar to the ones espoused by El-Haj.
The university system is a market of ideas. Students are exposed to different views and some of them are radical views that deny some of the very things that made this country great. Students are free to accept those views or reject them but controversial views cannot be suppressed from an academic setting.
I favor the system of tenure and believe that El-Haj should be granted tenure on the merits of her scholarship, not on the merits of her political views. The professors at Bernard should consider El-Haj’s scholarship and the potential contribution she can make to scholarly dialogue and then consider whether she deserves tenure.
I just wonder if those same professors at Bernard would grant tenure to conservative Christian scholars on the basis of their scholarship.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Academic Freedom, Facts on the Ground, Nadia Abu el-Haj, Tenure
The Inconsistencies of the NIV - Part 1
Preaching is not easy. Preaching from the Old Testament is very difficult. The reason many pastors do not preach often from the Old Testament is because they are not familiar with the society and culture of the people who populate the pages of the Bible. Many pastors also are not familiar with the original languages of the biblical text. The art of preaching requires from the preacher a meticulous study of the biblical text.
Since many pastors do not know Hebrew, they depend on an English translation to provide in their language what the original writers were trying to communicate in theirs. And here is where the problems begin. At times, an idea in the biblical text cannot be easily transferred into English. Thus, the reader may not understand all the nuances of a text as the original writer intended.
The worse case scenario is when translators of the biblical text mistranslate the text or fail to convey the correct meaning of the biblical text in their translations. In this case, the pastor who depends on one English translation may fail to understand the real message the original writer was trying to convey to his audience.
I was confronted with this problem again when I was preparing a sermon on Hosea to preach to my congregation a few Sundays ago. Most people in my congregation use the NIV. Since we have many people whose first language is not English, the NIV was chosen to be used in church because the language used in the translation is easy to understand.
The problem with the NIV is that it is not consistent in translating words from Hebrew to English. Most people in the pew will never notice the problems in the NIV because they use only one translation. Most pastors will not notice the problem either unless they read the biblical text in several different translations and compare them or if they use an interlinear Hebrew-English to look at how Hebrew words are used in the translation of the text.
The following is one example taken from the book of Hosea. I will use the NIV first, and then compare the NIV translation with three other translations.
Hosea 4:1 (NIV): “Hear the word of the LORD, you Israelites, because the LORD has a charge to bring against you who live in the land: ‘There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land.’”
Here the NIV translates the Hebrew words da‘at elohim as “acknowledgment of God.” The Hebrew word da‘at means “knowledge.” The expression da‘at elohim is an expression used to describe the special relationship between God and Israel that comes out of the covenant relationship. When Hosea said that Israel did not have knowledge of God, the prophet was declaring that Israel had failed to abide by the demands of their covenantal relationship with God.
In English, the word use by the NIV, “acknowledgment,” means “to admit the truth or fact of,” and “a formal declaration of an act.” The NIV translation seems to imply that Israel was declaring that there was no God in the land. The NIV translation is confusing because it does not clearly convey the intent of the original writer.
Both the NRSV and the ESV have “knowledge of God.” Only the NIV and TNIV have “acknowledgment.”
In Hosea 4:6, the NIV reads: “My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. "Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests.” Here the NIV translates the same word, da‘at, as “knowledge.” This translation is correct, because what the people lacked and what the people rejected was “knowledge,” not “acknowledgment.”
The NRSV and the ESV translate the word da‘at here as “knowledge” and so does the TNIV. However, both the NIV and the TNIV translated da‘at as “acknowledge” in Hosea 6:6 and as “approval” in Hosea 8:4.
This inconsistency of the NIV is troublesome because the average reader may not understand the usage of the same Hebrew words with different meanings in English. The average reader is certain to miss the emphasis the prophet was trying to convey by his use of da‘at and thus, they fail to grasp the magnitude of the sins of Israel.
Tomorrow I will show another example from Hosea of the inconsistency of the NIV in translating the biblical text.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Hosea, NIV, Preaching, Translation
Since many pastors do not know Hebrew, they depend on an English translation to provide in their language what the original writers were trying to communicate in theirs. And here is where the problems begin. At times, an idea in the biblical text cannot be easily transferred into English. Thus, the reader may not understand all the nuances of a text as the original writer intended.
The worse case scenario is when translators of the biblical text mistranslate the text or fail to convey the correct meaning of the biblical text in their translations. In this case, the pastor who depends on one English translation may fail to understand the real message the original writer was trying to convey to his audience.
I was confronted with this problem again when I was preparing a sermon on Hosea to preach to my congregation a few Sundays ago. Most people in my congregation use the NIV. Since we have many people whose first language is not English, the NIV was chosen to be used in church because the language used in the translation is easy to understand.
The problem with the NIV is that it is not consistent in translating words from Hebrew to English. Most people in the pew will never notice the problems in the NIV because they use only one translation. Most pastors will not notice the problem either unless they read the biblical text in several different translations and compare them or if they use an interlinear Hebrew-English to look at how Hebrew words are used in the translation of the text.
The following is one example taken from the book of Hosea. I will use the NIV first, and then compare the NIV translation with three other translations.
Hosea 4:1 (NIV): “Hear the word of the LORD, you Israelites, because the LORD has a charge to bring against you who live in the land: ‘There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land.’”
Here the NIV translates the Hebrew words da‘at elohim as “acknowledgment of God.” The Hebrew word da‘at means “knowledge.” The expression da‘at elohim is an expression used to describe the special relationship between God and Israel that comes out of the covenant relationship. When Hosea said that Israel did not have knowledge of God, the prophet was declaring that Israel had failed to abide by the demands of their covenantal relationship with God.
In English, the word use by the NIV, “acknowledgment,” means “to admit the truth or fact of,” and “a formal declaration of an act.” The NIV translation seems to imply that Israel was declaring that there was no God in the land. The NIV translation is confusing because it does not clearly convey the intent of the original writer.
Both the NRSV and the ESV have “knowledge of God.” Only the NIV and TNIV have “acknowledgment.”
In Hosea 4:6, the NIV reads: “My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. "Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests.” Here the NIV translates the same word, da‘at, as “knowledge.” This translation is correct, because what the people lacked and what the people rejected was “knowledge,” not “acknowledgment.”
The NRSV and the ESV translate the word da‘at here as “knowledge” and so does the TNIV. However, both the NIV and the TNIV translated da‘at as “acknowledge” in Hosea 6:6 and as “approval” in Hosea 8:4.
This inconsistency of the NIV is troublesome because the average reader may not understand the usage of the same Hebrew words with different meanings in English. The average reader is certain to miss the emphasis the prophet was trying to convey by his use of da‘at and thus, they fail to grasp the magnitude of the sins of Israel.
Tomorrow I will show another example from Hosea of the inconsistency of the NIV in translating the biblical text.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Hosea, NIV, Preaching, Translation
Sunday, August 19, 2007
A Busy Summer
Last week I took a few days off from blogging in order to finish some writing assignments that were pressing on me. For the past several days I have been working on writing an introduction to the books of Joel and Jonah for the People's Bible, a study Bible to be published by Fortress Press. I finished writing the two introductions and submitted the manuscripts to the editors. I also finished writing my last article for the New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. In total, I have written more than thirty articles for the NIDB.
I still have several projects to finish before I take a brief vacation and before I begin classes in September. My wife and I are celebrating our fortieth anniversary in October. To celebrate our anniversary, we will take time off to travel to a place we have never been before. This means that soon I will be taking some time off again from blogging.
This has been a very busy summer. My work on the Self-Study here at the seminary was very time-consuming. I had planned to read several new books and write two articles. However, time did not allow me to read and write as much as I had planned to, but I am satisfied with what I have accomplished.
In the next few days I will write two posts on inconsistencies in the NIV and how it may affect the work of pastors.
Enjoy the rest of your summer.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Blog, Blogging
I still have several projects to finish before I take a brief vacation and before I begin classes in September. My wife and I are celebrating our fortieth anniversary in October. To celebrate our anniversary, we will take time off to travel to a place we have never been before. This means that soon I will be taking some time off again from blogging.
This has been a very busy summer. My work on the Self-Study here at the seminary was very time-consuming. I had planned to read several new books and write two articles. However, time did not allow me to read and write as much as I had planned to, but I am satisfied with what I have accomplished.
In the next few days I will write two posts on inconsistencies in the NIV and how it may affect the work of pastors.
Enjoy the rest of your summer.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Blog, Blogging
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
1 Samuel 28: The Medium of Endor - Part 2
NOTE:
Today’s blog was written by Maggie Cole, one of my students at Northern Baptist Seminary. This article is the introduction to a larger paper, “The Medium of Endor: Hope for the Hopeless,” which Maggie wrote for my class OT 450 Women in the Old Testament. Maggie describes herself as a person with an insatiable curiosity focused on science and theology. Seeing no conflicts between the two, she enjoys a professional career as an applied ecologist who has worked in the natural resources management field for more than 20 years and has been a part-time student at Northern Baptist Seminary since 2005. Maggie is fascinated with the role of oral tradition in religion. At the present she is working on the Gilgamesh Epic. Maggie is married, has two teenage sons, and lives in the Chicago area.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
The story in 1 Samuel 28:3-25 opens with a frustrated Saul who refused to accept that God’s will no longer provided him with any guidance, especially concerning his upcoming battle with the Philistines. Saul looked for a mistress of ancestral spirits, a necromancer, one who could raise the spirit of Samuel to assist him in his quest for knowledge.[1] However, Saul, as king, could not approach such a person openly, because he had condemned the very practice that he now desired to use. Therefore, Saul disguised himself so that the medium would not recognize him and flee. Here Saul is depicted as not only violating his own law but, by removing his royal garments to put on a disguise, he is portrayed as symbolically shedding his royal dignity.[2]
It is often mentioned by commentators of the text that, since Saul’s servants found the necromancer with ease, that this could indicate that she may have been well known in the community and that the practice of consulting the dead may have been a popular form of religious practice for many people in Israel.[3]
The actual encounter between the king and the necromancer indicates that the medium was willing to perform the act the king had requested.[4] The narrator gives the woman a voice in the matter to help the reader learn that, although she was willing, she also was suspicious, cautious and fearful. She said to the stranger that the king had “cut off the mediums and spiritists from the land” (1 Samuel 28:9), so she looked to her client for a sign of good faith that he would not reveal her actions to the wrong people.[5] Saul reassured her in Yahweh’s name that she was in no danger. Satisfied with his oath, the woman tends to her job. She summoned the dead, the prophet Samuel was raised and appeared to Saul, although the details concerning how this was accomplished are avoided by the narrator.
The narrator was careful to mention that when the medium saw Samuel, she screamed. The specific interpretation of this response is an important factor in determining her possible state of mind, the author’s intent, and the reader’s response to the text. Therefore, what caused her startling reaction has been studied at length.[6] The traditional interpretation is that her cry was a response to the persecutor-king being revealed. Others believe that the narrator was giving the woman a “spark of clairvoyance or intuition” in her ability to recognize Saul.[7] Others believe that it was Samuel who helped the medium recognize that the visitor was Saul.[8] Either way, when the woman saw the presence of this “elohim,” when she detected a great and awful force in the room, something unexpected happened to her. Whatever it was, the appearance of Samuel helped the medium recognize Saul whom she greatly feared.
In response to the medium’s recognizing Saul, the narrator again gives her a voice, presumably to chastise Saul for deceiving her. Saul reassured the woman and refocused her shattered attention to describing the vision, thus indicating she could see it but he could not. She called Samuel an “elohim,” a word which has been interpreted as meaning a divine or numinous being,[9] indicating a greater spirit. Saul asked for more details about the elohim and the woman described it as wearing a sacred, divine garment which clearly identified the being with the prophet Samuel.[10]
While Samuel and Saul were speaking to each other, the medium departed to the background of the narrative. Some scholars allow for the purposeful backing away of the medium, interpreting her removal as being the action of a good psychotherapist who “gives her client room for his own process,”[11] while others see her absence as being Samuel’s victory over her evil.[12] After Samuel reiterated Saul’s unworthiness, he added the prophecy that Saul and his sons would die on the battlefield the next day. Saul fell flat on the ground in distress, for he trusted Samuel’s words since they could only be truthful and prophetic.
At this point, it becomes important to ask who actually raised Samuel: the medium of Endor or Yahweh? It is possible to agree with those who claim the author intended for the readers to think the necromancer had the ability to do this amazing feat, but being a modern reader, I agree with those scholars who say that it was actually Yahweh who intervened on this unique occasion.[13] It was simply God’s will to speak to and answer Saul again through Samuel. I strongly disagree with any discussion that considers there was an evil force behind the raising of Samuel because the prophet could only work for Yahweh, even in death. Further, Yahweh did not break his own laws against necromancy nor did he condone necromancy by doing this. He just chose to exert his will which cannot be judged or boxed in by laws or human ideas. This event would not be the first time God did something that was contrary to our expectations of him.
After Samuel told Saul of his impending death, the medium returns to the story. Here the narrator allows her to be seen as a compassionate and caring host, and possibly even as a motherly figure. Apparently, after witnessing or sensing that something powerfully unique had happened, she understood Saul’s tremendous distress. She requested the king to listen to her, a woman, who sympathized with his fallen state.
The serving of the meal seems literarily appropriate here. Saul’s kingship began with a meal provided by Samuel (1 Samuel 9:19-24), now it ends with a meal served by “the prophetic mediator of Samuel’s word of doom.”[14] The medium offered Saul food which was initially rejected. By insisting that Saul eat, the woman became the “no-nonsense hostess,” evoking appropriate social protocol that eventually wins him over.[15] She prepared a fattened calf and unleavened bread for him to eat, a banquet which appeared to be fit for a king, a banquet that became the last supper for a condemned man.[16]
The reference to the fattened calf, or stall-fed calf, is unusual in the context of the story; it is possible that it has some symbolism attached to it. Some scholars believe the woman’s meal represents an idolatrous sacrifice used to “outwit and outmaneuver her adversary to save her own life.”[17] From the necromancer’s perspective, the slaughter was indicative of a cultic ritual leading to a blood meal offering to the dead.[18] On the other hand, since the medium was treating Saul with respect and dignity, it is also possible that she was offering a sacrificial meal fit for a dying king.[19] This act depicts the medium of Endor assisting Saul in the death process. The presence of the woman at night tending to a dying man can be seen as an acknowledgment of the natural order of things under God’s control.[20] In the end, the food strengthened him enough so that he could go on his way to face his final day.
From a theological, political, and literary perspective, the interpretation of these designated roles in the Bible make perfect sense. Overall, commentators usually interpret this story as showing Saul in his final days without any spiritual guidance. His consistent disobedience to Yahweh and the loss of his kingship had already occurred back in 1 Samuel 15 when Samuel first informed him of his impending fate. Chapter 28 serves as a rhetorical device to remind the reader that Saul is a pathetic, lost soul, who is disobedient to God and who seeks out a woman necromancer to engage in a practice that he himself supposedly outlawed. The entire story drives home the point of the biblical writer who wanted to depict Saul as a hypocrite and a most desperate man whose defiant behavior against Yahweh proved he was no longer fit to be king. Because of this overriding theme of diminishing Saul, the narrative has been interpreted by scholars as a Deuteronomistic polemic against Saul. However, even though Saul has no hope of living beyond the next day, the author saves Saul’s dignity in 31:11-13 when he declares that after his death, Saul’s body was claimed and returned to Jabesh Gilead for burial. Later, even David gets involved in saving Saul’s dignity by returning Saul’s bones to his father’s ancestral tomb (2 Samuel 21:13-14). Saul may have failed as a king, but he was given some level of respect in death.
Since biblical redactors are responsible for the final outcome of the text, this story served to demonstrate the reason Saul was a failed king. The author’s intent was to provide the reader with a protagonist in the character of the medium, but then he gives her the voice of a conscientious, compassionate person so that she will be contrasted with a disobedient king.
By showing the reader the necromancer’s compassionate acts and by restraining from outright condemnation of her practice, the writer was not trying to convey to the readers that the woman was good. 1 Samuel15:23 equates rebellion with divination.[21] The writer effectively projected necromancy into an older narrative specifically to have it condemned by a powerful prophet of Yahweh.[22] This projection purposely makes necromancy seem like an age-old battle for Israel even though it may have actually been tolerated for a long time.
The redactor’s purpose was to promote David. While he did this, he continued to denigrate Saul and eventually linked him to the illegal practice of necromancy. Most scholars point out that there were other legitimate means of consulting Yahweh, but necromancy totally fell out of favor. Perhaps this is because those who controlled Yahwism’s destiny wanted to silence their competition.
Maggie Cole
Tags: Endor, Medium, Necromancer, Samuel, Saul, Spiritism
Notes:
1. Diana V. Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOT Sup, 121: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 242.
2. J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Vol II (Assen:Van Gorcum & Company, 1986), 600
3. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, 597.
4. Athlaya Brenner and Fokkelien Van Dijk-Hemmes, On Gendering Texts: Female and Male Voices in the Hebrew Bible ( Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993), 67.
5. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, 603.
6. K. Smelik, “The Witch of Endor: 1 Samuel 28 in Rabbinic and Christian Exegesis till 800 A.D.,” Vigiliae Christianae 33 (1979): 169-179.
7. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, 607.
8. W.A.M. Bueken, “1 Samuel 28: The Prophet as Hammer of Witches.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6 (1978): 8-9.
9. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, 608.
10. Bledstein, Adrien Janis, “Tamar and the Coat of Many Colors,” in Samuel and Kings, ed. Athalya Brenner (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 72-73.
11. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, 609.
12. W.A.M. Bueken, "1 Samuel 28," 8-9.
13. David Payne, I & II Samuel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), 143-145.
14. Susan Pigott, “1 Samuel 28-Saul and the Not so Wicked Witch of Endor,” Review and Expositor 95 (1998): 440.
15.. Graeme Auld, “1 and 2 Samuel” in Eerdman’s Commentary on the Bible, ed. John Rogerson (Grand Rapids:Wm Eerdman’s Publishing Co, 2003), 228.
16. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, 620.
17. Pamela T. Reis, “Eating the Blood: Saul and the Witch of Endor,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 73 (1997): 14.
18. Reis, Eating the Blood, 18.
19. Pigott, “1 Samuel 28-Saul and the Not so Wicked Witch,” 440.
20. Theresa Angert-Quilter and Lynne Wall, “The ‘Spirit Wife’ at Endor,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 92 (2001): 62.
21. Pigott, “1 Samuel 28-Saul and the Not so Wicked Witch,” 441.
22. Brian B. Schmidt, “The “Witch of Endor, 1 Samuel 28, and Ancient Near Eastern Necromancy,” in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, ed. Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki (Brill: Leiden, 1995), 127.
Today’s blog was written by Maggie Cole, one of my students at Northern Baptist Seminary. This article is the introduction to a larger paper, “The Medium of Endor: Hope for the Hopeless,” which Maggie wrote for my class OT 450 Women in the Old Testament. Maggie describes herself as a person with an insatiable curiosity focused on science and theology. Seeing no conflicts between the two, she enjoys a professional career as an applied ecologist who has worked in the natural resources management field for more than 20 years and has been a part-time student at Northern Baptist Seminary since 2005. Maggie is fascinated with the role of oral tradition in religion. At the present she is working on the Gilgamesh Epic. Maggie is married, has two teenage sons, and lives in the Chicago area.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
1 Samuel 28: The Medium of Endor - Part 2
The story in 1 Samuel 28:3-25 opens with a frustrated Saul who refused to accept that God’s will no longer provided him with any guidance, especially concerning his upcoming battle with the Philistines. Saul looked for a mistress of ancestral spirits, a necromancer, one who could raise the spirit of Samuel to assist him in his quest for knowledge.[1] However, Saul, as king, could not approach such a person openly, because he had condemned the very practice that he now desired to use. Therefore, Saul disguised himself so that the medium would not recognize him and flee. Here Saul is depicted as not only violating his own law but, by removing his royal garments to put on a disguise, he is portrayed as symbolically shedding his royal dignity.[2]
It is often mentioned by commentators of the text that, since Saul’s servants found the necromancer with ease, that this could indicate that she may have been well known in the community and that the practice of consulting the dead may have been a popular form of religious practice for many people in Israel.[3]
The actual encounter between the king and the necromancer indicates that the medium was willing to perform the act the king had requested.[4] The narrator gives the woman a voice in the matter to help the reader learn that, although she was willing, she also was suspicious, cautious and fearful. She said to the stranger that the king had “cut off the mediums and spiritists from the land” (1 Samuel 28:9), so she looked to her client for a sign of good faith that he would not reveal her actions to the wrong people.[5] Saul reassured her in Yahweh’s name that she was in no danger. Satisfied with his oath, the woman tends to her job. She summoned the dead, the prophet Samuel was raised and appeared to Saul, although the details concerning how this was accomplished are avoided by the narrator.
The narrator was careful to mention that when the medium saw Samuel, she screamed. The specific interpretation of this response is an important factor in determining her possible state of mind, the author’s intent, and the reader’s response to the text. Therefore, what caused her startling reaction has been studied at length.[6] The traditional interpretation is that her cry was a response to the persecutor-king being revealed. Others believe that the narrator was giving the woman a “spark of clairvoyance or intuition” in her ability to recognize Saul.[7] Others believe that it was Samuel who helped the medium recognize that the visitor was Saul.[8] Either way, when the woman saw the presence of this “elohim,” when she detected a great and awful force in the room, something unexpected happened to her. Whatever it was, the appearance of Samuel helped the medium recognize Saul whom she greatly feared.
In response to the medium’s recognizing Saul, the narrator again gives her a voice, presumably to chastise Saul for deceiving her. Saul reassured the woman and refocused her shattered attention to describing the vision, thus indicating she could see it but he could not. She called Samuel an “elohim,” a word which has been interpreted as meaning a divine or numinous being,[9] indicating a greater spirit. Saul asked for more details about the elohim and the woman described it as wearing a sacred, divine garment which clearly identified the being with the prophet Samuel.[10]
While Samuel and Saul were speaking to each other, the medium departed to the background of the narrative. Some scholars allow for the purposeful backing away of the medium, interpreting her removal as being the action of a good psychotherapist who “gives her client room for his own process,”[11] while others see her absence as being Samuel’s victory over her evil.[12] After Samuel reiterated Saul’s unworthiness, he added the prophecy that Saul and his sons would die on the battlefield the next day. Saul fell flat on the ground in distress, for he trusted Samuel’s words since they could only be truthful and prophetic.
At this point, it becomes important to ask who actually raised Samuel: the medium of Endor or Yahweh? It is possible to agree with those who claim the author intended for the readers to think the necromancer had the ability to do this amazing feat, but being a modern reader, I agree with those scholars who say that it was actually Yahweh who intervened on this unique occasion.[13] It was simply God’s will to speak to and answer Saul again through Samuel. I strongly disagree with any discussion that considers there was an evil force behind the raising of Samuel because the prophet could only work for Yahweh, even in death. Further, Yahweh did not break his own laws against necromancy nor did he condone necromancy by doing this. He just chose to exert his will which cannot be judged or boxed in by laws or human ideas. This event would not be the first time God did something that was contrary to our expectations of him.
After Samuel told Saul of his impending death, the medium returns to the story. Here the narrator allows her to be seen as a compassionate and caring host, and possibly even as a motherly figure. Apparently, after witnessing or sensing that something powerfully unique had happened, she understood Saul’s tremendous distress. She requested the king to listen to her, a woman, who sympathized with his fallen state.
The serving of the meal seems literarily appropriate here. Saul’s kingship began with a meal provided by Samuel (1 Samuel 9:19-24), now it ends with a meal served by “the prophetic mediator of Samuel’s word of doom.”[14] The medium offered Saul food which was initially rejected. By insisting that Saul eat, the woman became the “no-nonsense hostess,” evoking appropriate social protocol that eventually wins him over.[15] She prepared a fattened calf and unleavened bread for him to eat, a banquet which appeared to be fit for a king, a banquet that became the last supper for a condemned man.[16]
The reference to the fattened calf, or stall-fed calf, is unusual in the context of the story; it is possible that it has some symbolism attached to it. Some scholars believe the woman’s meal represents an idolatrous sacrifice used to “outwit and outmaneuver her adversary to save her own life.”[17] From the necromancer’s perspective, the slaughter was indicative of a cultic ritual leading to a blood meal offering to the dead.[18] On the other hand, since the medium was treating Saul with respect and dignity, it is also possible that she was offering a sacrificial meal fit for a dying king.[19] This act depicts the medium of Endor assisting Saul in the death process. The presence of the woman at night tending to a dying man can be seen as an acknowledgment of the natural order of things under God’s control.[20] In the end, the food strengthened him enough so that he could go on his way to face his final day.
From a theological, political, and literary perspective, the interpretation of these designated roles in the Bible make perfect sense. Overall, commentators usually interpret this story as showing Saul in his final days without any spiritual guidance. His consistent disobedience to Yahweh and the loss of his kingship had already occurred back in 1 Samuel 15 when Samuel first informed him of his impending fate. Chapter 28 serves as a rhetorical device to remind the reader that Saul is a pathetic, lost soul, who is disobedient to God and who seeks out a woman necromancer to engage in a practice that he himself supposedly outlawed. The entire story drives home the point of the biblical writer who wanted to depict Saul as a hypocrite and a most desperate man whose defiant behavior against Yahweh proved he was no longer fit to be king. Because of this overriding theme of diminishing Saul, the narrative has been interpreted by scholars as a Deuteronomistic polemic against Saul. However, even though Saul has no hope of living beyond the next day, the author saves Saul’s dignity in 31:11-13 when he declares that after his death, Saul’s body was claimed and returned to Jabesh Gilead for burial. Later, even David gets involved in saving Saul’s dignity by returning Saul’s bones to his father’s ancestral tomb (2 Samuel 21:13-14). Saul may have failed as a king, but he was given some level of respect in death.
Since biblical redactors are responsible for the final outcome of the text, this story served to demonstrate the reason Saul was a failed king. The author’s intent was to provide the reader with a protagonist in the character of the medium, but then he gives her the voice of a conscientious, compassionate person so that she will be contrasted with a disobedient king.
By showing the reader the necromancer’s compassionate acts and by restraining from outright condemnation of her practice, the writer was not trying to convey to the readers that the woman was good. 1 Samuel15:23 equates rebellion with divination.[21] The writer effectively projected necromancy into an older narrative specifically to have it condemned by a powerful prophet of Yahweh.[22] This projection purposely makes necromancy seem like an age-old battle for Israel even though it may have actually been tolerated for a long time.
The redactor’s purpose was to promote David. While he did this, he continued to denigrate Saul and eventually linked him to the illegal practice of necromancy. Most scholars point out that there were other legitimate means of consulting Yahweh, but necromancy totally fell out of favor. Perhaps this is because those who controlled Yahwism’s destiny wanted to silence their competition.
Maggie Cole
Tags: Endor, Medium, Necromancer, Samuel, Saul, Spiritism
Notes:
1. Diana V. Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOT Sup, 121: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 242.
2. J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Vol II (Assen:Van Gorcum & Company, 1986), 600
3. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, 597.
4. Athlaya Brenner and Fokkelien Van Dijk-Hemmes, On Gendering Texts: Female and Male Voices in the Hebrew Bible ( Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993), 67.
5. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, 603.
6. K. Smelik, “The Witch of Endor: 1 Samuel 28 in Rabbinic and Christian Exegesis till 800 A.D.,” Vigiliae Christianae 33 (1979): 169-179.
7. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, 607.
8. W.A.M. Bueken, “1 Samuel 28: The Prophet as Hammer of Witches.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6 (1978): 8-9.
9. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, 608.
10. Bledstein, Adrien Janis, “Tamar and the Coat of Many Colors,” in Samuel and Kings, ed. Athalya Brenner (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 72-73.
11. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, 609.
12. W.A.M. Bueken, "1 Samuel 28," 8-9.
13. David Payne, I & II Samuel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), 143-145.
14. Susan Pigott, “1 Samuel 28-Saul and the Not so Wicked Witch of Endor,” Review and Expositor 95 (1998): 440.
15.. Graeme Auld, “1 and 2 Samuel” in Eerdman’s Commentary on the Bible, ed. John Rogerson (Grand Rapids:Wm Eerdman’s Publishing Co, 2003), 228.
16. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, 620.
17. Pamela T. Reis, “Eating the Blood: Saul and the Witch of Endor,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 73 (1997): 14.
18. Reis, Eating the Blood, 18.
19. Pigott, “1 Samuel 28-Saul and the Not so Wicked Witch,” 440.
20. Theresa Angert-Quilter and Lynne Wall, “The ‘Spirit Wife’ at Endor,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 92 (2001): 62.
21. Pigott, “1 Samuel 28-Saul and the Not so Wicked Witch,” 441.
22. Brian B. Schmidt, “The “Witch of Endor, 1 Samuel 28, and Ancient Near Eastern Necromancy,” in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, ed. Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki (Brill: Leiden, 1995), 127.
Monday, August 13, 2007
1 Samuel 28: The Medium of Endor - Part 1
NOTE:
Today’s blog was written by Maggie Cole, one of my students at Northern Baptist Seminary. This article is the introduction to a larger paper, “The Medium of Endor: Hope for the Hopeless,” which Maggie wrote for my class OT 450 Women in the Old Testament. Maggie describes herself as a person with an insatiable curiosity focused on science and theology. Seeing no conflicts between the two, she enjoys a professional career as an applied ecologist who has worked in the natural resources management field for more than 20 years and has been a part-time student at Northern Baptist Seminary since 2005. Maggie is fascinated with the role of oral tradition in religion. At the present she is working on the Gilgamesh Epic. Maggie is married, has two teenage sons, and lives in the Chicago area.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Over the centuries the woman from Endor in 1 Samuel 28 has been called a medium, necromancer, spiritist,[1] a raiser of spirits,[2], ghost wife,[3] a mistress of ghosts,[4] a witch, [5] and other names that depict the practitioner of a ritual that has become unacceptable in Judaism and Christianity. It is often assumed that she had to have been a law breaker, evil, a self preservationist,[6] and a demon communicator who “borrowed her resources not from herself, nor from the Lord her God, but from demons and from the mysterious forces of nature.”[7]
On the opposite end of the spectrum stand several more complimentary descriptions of this same woman such as the perfect hostess,[8] a wise woman,[9] a spirit wife,[10] a wifely character, [11] a compassionate, loyal, and even motherly character.[12] One has to wonder why this secondary character in 1 Samuel 28, the medium of Endor, demands so much attention from its scholarly and not-so scholarly readers. The purpose of this paper is to study some of the interpretations that address the medium’s literary function and purpose in 1 Samuel 28.
The book of Samuel is devoted to the rise of the Israelite monarchy beginning with Saul and David. It is at the end of Saul’s life that the Medium of Endor appears (1 Samuel 28). Essentially, the medium makes a brief appearance in the narrative about Saul’s kingship the night before the end of his life. Her role at this junction in the story is critical in demonstrating Saul’s total failure as a king.
Consistently, interpretations of 1 Samuel 28:3-25 focus on the events surrounding the death of Saul by the hands of the Philistines on Mount Gilboa. Indeed, when exploring this text, most readers are drawn more closely to the dilemma faced by Saul as he dealt with the Philistine threat and with David’s ambitions. Readers find it difficult to remain focused on the woman, the medium of Endor, because the biblical writers only intended for her to provide a window into the mind of Saul, which she does so beautifully. So well did the biblical writers accomplish their task that even the modern reader cannot help but view King Saul and the prophet Samuel as the primary focus of this story while the woman from Endor slips into a secondary character role whose entire existence is seen only in light of Saul’s story, especially his failure and demise.
To reach beyond the traditional interpretation of the text, a holistic exegesis requires that different perspectives be assumed when examining this story. Therefore, the interpretation of the text will begin by looking at the historical and cultural significance of the dreaded necromancer and address several questions raised by the text. These questions include whether the necromancer was a real person or a literary component simply added to enhance the story and how the answer to this question might affect what one thinks of her, and what crucial role this narrative played in explaining the circumstances surrounding the end of Saul’s life.
In order to fully appreciate the interaction between Saul, Samuel, and the medium of Endor, the woman who practiced necromancy, it is essential to understand not only what necromancy was, but why it was considered so evil in Israel. Necromancy, communicating with the dead, was presumably a popular way in Israel for people to consult with the spirits of the dead.[13] Necromancy is linked to ancestor worship and the cult of the dead.[14] The understanding of these practices among the people of Israel provides the proper background for understanding the issues raised in 1 Samuel 28.
A study of ancient cults of the dead shows that the practice of consulting the dead existed in a legitimate way in the ancient Near East and in early Israel. The possible origins and preservation of the practices associated with the cult of the dead are discussed in length by both Lewis[15] and Bloch-Smith.[16] Some scholars believe that necromantic practices were a part of Israel’s early religion.[17] The marked graves mentioned in Genesis 35:20 may have served as places for cultic activities, including consulting the dead.[18] Jacob is portrayed as pouring oil on spots where his ancestors’ deity appeared (Genesis 28:15-18; Genesis 35:13-14). Some texts demonstrate earlier traditions of caring for the dead, such as when Moses denied post-mortem care to the Korahites (Numbers 16:31-40). Ancestor sacrifice is even accepted by David (1 Samuel 20:6).
The dead were thought to have more power and knowledge than the living, and if someone could raise the dead to foretell the future, one could manipulate this power for one’s own benefit.[19] The conjuring up of Samuel is a good example of the practice of consulting the dead and this practice may have been accepted in Israel until the Deuteronomist and Priestly writers rejected the practice.[20] From a Deuteronomistic perspective, it is possible to understand that as the worship of Yahweh evolved, necromancy may have been eventually rejected because it interfered with the people’s effort to seek Yahweh’s will. It is also likely that necromancy became linked to the unacceptable Canaanite religion[21] or to practices found in Mesopotamia [22] As necromancy became associated more and more with foreign practices and as it was perceived as interfering with seeking God, then the practice of consulting the dead became synonymous with the magical practices of “outsiders.”
Magicians were considered to be “outsiders.” Magical actions themselves were not the focus of the biblical authors, but rather their focus lies on the conformity of the “outsider” to the Israelite religion.[23] Those whose “magical” practices deviated from the normally accepted Israelite practices were thought of as powered by something other than Yahweh, a practice which undermined the religious foundations of Israelite religion.[24] The understanding of this concept is crucial in the proper understanding of the medium and her work and how she was portrayed by the authors whose motives may have been related to the failures of Saul as king. The medium’s mere presence in an oracle of doom against Saul demonstrates her popular status in the community[25] and provides a hint at the popularity of necromancy in Israel.
Scholars see this section of the book as “deuteronomistic narrative material.”[26] Some scholars favor the view that this narrative is “a literary construct of the mid-first millennium” linked to 1 Samuel 15 and thus to the Deuteronomist and his redaction of the book.[27] According to this view, total rejection of necromancy in Israel is thought to have reached a pinnacle about the time the practice became connected with Israel’s worst king, Manasseh.[28] After the Book of the Law was discovered in the Temple during Josiah’s reform, attempts to discredit the practice of necromancy may have resulted in the redaction of many earlier writings. The Deuteronomic reform introduced legislation condemning the practice and purposely introduced necromancy into the narrative so that Saul and the practice of consulting the dead would be condemned by Samuel.[29]
There is, however, evidence of older laws against black magic found as early as the Covenant Code: “You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live” (Exodus 22:18). The Priestly law condemned those who practiced necromancy in Israel: “A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death” (Leviticus 20:27).[30]
In addition, a medium’s presence among the Israelites becomes a source of defilement: “Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them” (Leviticus 19:31). Since the work of mediums and sorcerers was considered an opposition to God’s work, warnings to those who would seek out band listen to them are found in Deuteronomy 18:10-11; Micah 5:12; and Jeremiah 27:9. For instance, Deuteronomy 18:10-11 says: “Let no one be found among you who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.” The Chronicler, however, makes a special point of linking Saul’s death with his consultation of a necromancer (Chronicle 10:13-14).
There is evidence in the Old Testament to suggest that necromancy may have been an old popular religious practice in Israel. The practice of consulting the dead was tolerated in Israel in the same way the worship of foreign deities was tolerated. This practice, however, found strong opposition from the Deuteronomic historian who used the practice to diminish Saul’s kingship by associating him with the practice of necromancy. The rejection of the practice of consulting the dead by Samuel may be an indication that the story of the medium of Endor probably was a literary addition to Saul’s narrative for apologetic purposes. Also, since the case of the medium of Endor is the only biblical example of the practice of necromancy that is seen as “uncontested” by the narrator, this has lent further credence to the conclusion that the medium was only used as a rhetorical device by the redactor to characterize Saul’s doom.[31]
Maggie Cole
Tags: Endor, Medium, Necromancer, Samuel, Saul, Spiritism
Notes:
1. Bill Arnold, “Necromancy and Cleromancy in 1 and 2 Samuel,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (2004): 200.
2. Athlaya Brenner and Fokkelien Van Dijk-Hemmes, On Gendering Texts: Female and Male Voices in the Hebrew Bible ( Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993), 68.
3. Tony Cartledge, 1 and 2 Samuel (Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishers, 2001), 320.
4. J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Vol II (Assen:Van Gorcum & Company, 1986), 607.
5. Pamela T. Reis, “Eating the Blood: Saul and the Witch of Endor,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 73 (1997): 3.
6. Reis, Eating the Blood, 4.
7. Abraham Kuyper, Women of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zandervan, 1936), 100.
8. Cheryl Brown, No Longer Be Silent: First Century Jewish Portraits of Biblical Women (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 201.
9. Brenner and Van Dijk-Hemmes, On Gendering Texts, 69.
10. Theresa Angert-Quilter and Lynne Wall, “The ‘Spirit Wife’ at Endor,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 92 (2001): 60.
11. Alice Bach, Woman, Seduction, and Betrayal in Biblical Narrative (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 176.
12. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, 620.
13. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, 597.
14. Arnold, Necromancy and Cleromancy, 203.
15. Theodore J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
16. Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs About the Dead (JSOT Sup, 123; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).
17. Arnold, Necromancy and Cleromancy, 201.
18. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 113.
19. Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 102.
20. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 127.
21. Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 102.
22. Brian B. Schmidt, “The “Witch of Endor, 1 Samuel 28, and Ancient Near Eastern Necromancy,” in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, ed. Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki (Brill: Leiden, 1995), 118.
23. Stephen D. Ricks, “The Magician as Outsider in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.” in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, ed. Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki (Brill: Leiden, 1995), 131-132.
24. Ricks, The Magician as Outsider, 132, 134.
25. Ricks, The Magician as Outsider, 138.
26. Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 104.
27. Schmidt, The Witch of Endor, 112-114.
28. Graaeme Auld, “1 and 2 Samuel,” Eerdman’s Commentary on the Bible, ed. John Rogerson (Grand Rapids:Wm Eerdman’s Publishing Co, 2003), 228.
29. Schmidt, The Witch of Endor, 127.
30. Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 99.
31. Arnold, Necromancy and Cleromancy, 199.
Today’s blog was written by Maggie Cole, one of my students at Northern Baptist Seminary. This article is the introduction to a larger paper, “The Medium of Endor: Hope for the Hopeless,” which Maggie wrote for my class OT 450 Women in the Old Testament. Maggie describes herself as a person with an insatiable curiosity focused on science and theology. Seeing no conflicts between the two, she enjoys a professional career as an applied ecologist who has worked in the natural resources management field for more than 20 years and has been a part-time student at Northern Baptist Seminary since 2005. Maggie is fascinated with the role of oral tradition in religion. At the present she is working on the Gilgamesh Epic. Maggie is married, has two teenage sons, and lives in the Chicago area.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
1 Samuel 28: The Medium of Endor - Part 1
Over the centuries the woman from Endor in 1 Samuel 28 has been called a medium, necromancer, spiritist,[1] a raiser of spirits,[2], ghost wife,[3] a mistress of ghosts,[4] a witch, [5] and other names that depict the practitioner of a ritual that has become unacceptable in Judaism and Christianity. It is often assumed that she had to have been a law breaker, evil, a self preservationist,[6] and a demon communicator who “borrowed her resources not from herself, nor from the Lord her God, but from demons and from the mysterious forces of nature.”[7]
On the opposite end of the spectrum stand several more complimentary descriptions of this same woman such as the perfect hostess,[8] a wise woman,[9] a spirit wife,[10] a wifely character, [11] a compassionate, loyal, and even motherly character.[12] One has to wonder why this secondary character in 1 Samuel 28, the medium of Endor, demands so much attention from its scholarly and not-so scholarly readers. The purpose of this paper is to study some of the interpretations that address the medium’s literary function and purpose in 1 Samuel 28.
The book of Samuel is devoted to the rise of the Israelite monarchy beginning with Saul and David. It is at the end of Saul’s life that the Medium of Endor appears (1 Samuel 28). Essentially, the medium makes a brief appearance in the narrative about Saul’s kingship the night before the end of his life. Her role at this junction in the story is critical in demonstrating Saul’s total failure as a king.
Consistently, interpretations of 1 Samuel 28:3-25 focus on the events surrounding the death of Saul by the hands of the Philistines on Mount Gilboa. Indeed, when exploring this text, most readers are drawn more closely to the dilemma faced by Saul as he dealt with the Philistine threat and with David’s ambitions. Readers find it difficult to remain focused on the woman, the medium of Endor, because the biblical writers only intended for her to provide a window into the mind of Saul, which she does so beautifully. So well did the biblical writers accomplish their task that even the modern reader cannot help but view King Saul and the prophet Samuel as the primary focus of this story while the woman from Endor slips into a secondary character role whose entire existence is seen only in light of Saul’s story, especially his failure and demise.
To reach beyond the traditional interpretation of the text, a holistic exegesis requires that different perspectives be assumed when examining this story. Therefore, the interpretation of the text will begin by looking at the historical and cultural significance of the dreaded necromancer and address several questions raised by the text. These questions include whether the necromancer was a real person or a literary component simply added to enhance the story and how the answer to this question might affect what one thinks of her, and what crucial role this narrative played in explaining the circumstances surrounding the end of Saul’s life.
In order to fully appreciate the interaction between Saul, Samuel, and the medium of Endor, the woman who practiced necromancy, it is essential to understand not only what necromancy was, but why it was considered so evil in Israel. Necromancy, communicating with the dead, was presumably a popular way in Israel for people to consult with the spirits of the dead.[13] Necromancy is linked to ancestor worship and the cult of the dead.[14] The understanding of these practices among the people of Israel provides the proper background for understanding the issues raised in 1 Samuel 28.
A study of ancient cults of the dead shows that the practice of consulting the dead existed in a legitimate way in the ancient Near East and in early Israel. The possible origins and preservation of the practices associated with the cult of the dead are discussed in length by both Lewis[15] and Bloch-Smith.[16] Some scholars believe that necromantic practices were a part of Israel’s early religion.[17] The marked graves mentioned in Genesis 35:20 may have served as places for cultic activities, including consulting the dead.[18] Jacob is portrayed as pouring oil on spots where his ancestors’ deity appeared (Genesis 28:15-18; Genesis 35:13-14). Some texts demonstrate earlier traditions of caring for the dead, such as when Moses denied post-mortem care to the Korahites (Numbers 16:31-40). Ancestor sacrifice is even accepted by David (1 Samuel 20:6).
The dead were thought to have more power and knowledge than the living, and if someone could raise the dead to foretell the future, one could manipulate this power for one’s own benefit.[19] The conjuring up of Samuel is a good example of the practice of consulting the dead and this practice may have been accepted in Israel until the Deuteronomist and Priestly writers rejected the practice.[20] From a Deuteronomistic perspective, it is possible to understand that as the worship of Yahweh evolved, necromancy may have been eventually rejected because it interfered with the people’s effort to seek Yahweh’s will. It is also likely that necromancy became linked to the unacceptable Canaanite religion[21] or to practices found in Mesopotamia [22] As necromancy became associated more and more with foreign practices and as it was perceived as interfering with seeking God, then the practice of consulting the dead became synonymous with the magical practices of “outsiders.”
Magicians were considered to be “outsiders.” Magical actions themselves were not the focus of the biblical authors, but rather their focus lies on the conformity of the “outsider” to the Israelite religion.[23] Those whose “magical” practices deviated from the normally accepted Israelite practices were thought of as powered by something other than Yahweh, a practice which undermined the religious foundations of Israelite religion.[24] The understanding of this concept is crucial in the proper understanding of the medium and her work and how she was portrayed by the authors whose motives may have been related to the failures of Saul as king. The medium’s mere presence in an oracle of doom against Saul demonstrates her popular status in the community[25] and provides a hint at the popularity of necromancy in Israel.
Scholars see this section of the book as “deuteronomistic narrative material.”[26] Some scholars favor the view that this narrative is “a literary construct of the mid-first millennium” linked to 1 Samuel 15 and thus to the Deuteronomist and his redaction of the book.[27] According to this view, total rejection of necromancy in Israel is thought to have reached a pinnacle about the time the practice became connected with Israel’s worst king, Manasseh.[28] After the Book of the Law was discovered in the Temple during Josiah’s reform, attempts to discredit the practice of necromancy may have resulted in the redaction of many earlier writings. The Deuteronomic reform introduced legislation condemning the practice and purposely introduced necromancy into the narrative so that Saul and the practice of consulting the dead would be condemned by Samuel.[29]
There is, however, evidence of older laws against black magic found as early as the Covenant Code: “You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live” (Exodus 22:18). The Priestly law condemned those who practiced necromancy in Israel: “A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death” (Leviticus 20:27).[30]
In addition, a medium’s presence among the Israelites becomes a source of defilement: “Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them” (Leviticus 19:31). Since the work of mediums and sorcerers was considered an opposition to God’s work, warnings to those who would seek out band listen to them are found in Deuteronomy 18:10-11; Micah 5:12; and Jeremiah 27:9. For instance, Deuteronomy 18:10-11 says: “Let no one be found among you who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.” The Chronicler, however, makes a special point of linking Saul’s death with his consultation of a necromancer (Chronicle 10:13-14).
There is evidence in the Old Testament to suggest that necromancy may have been an old popular religious practice in Israel. The practice of consulting the dead was tolerated in Israel in the same way the worship of foreign deities was tolerated. This practice, however, found strong opposition from the Deuteronomic historian who used the practice to diminish Saul’s kingship by associating him with the practice of necromancy. The rejection of the practice of consulting the dead by Samuel may be an indication that the story of the medium of Endor probably was a literary addition to Saul’s narrative for apologetic purposes. Also, since the case of the medium of Endor is the only biblical example of the practice of necromancy that is seen as “uncontested” by the narrator, this has lent further credence to the conclusion that the medium was only used as a rhetorical device by the redactor to characterize Saul’s doom.[31]
Maggie Cole
Tags: Endor, Medium, Necromancer, Samuel, Saul, Spiritism
Notes:
1. Bill Arnold, “Necromancy and Cleromancy in 1 and 2 Samuel,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (2004): 200.
2. Athlaya Brenner and Fokkelien Van Dijk-Hemmes, On Gendering Texts: Female and Male Voices in the Hebrew Bible ( Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993), 68.
3. Tony Cartledge, 1 and 2 Samuel (Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishers, 2001), 320.
4. J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Vol II (Assen:Van Gorcum & Company, 1986), 607.
5. Pamela T. Reis, “Eating the Blood: Saul and the Witch of Endor,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 73 (1997): 3.
6. Reis, Eating the Blood, 4.
7. Abraham Kuyper, Women of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zandervan, 1936), 100.
8. Cheryl Brown, No Longer Be Silent: First Century Jewish Portraits of Biblical Women (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 201.
9. Brenner and Van Dijk-Hemmes, On Gendering Texts, 69.
10. Theresa Angert-Quilter and Lynne Wall, “The ‘Spirit Wife’ at Endor,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 92 (2001): 60.
11. Alice Bach, Woman, Seduction, and Betrayal in Biblical Narrative (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 176.
12. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, 620.
13. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, 597.
14. Arnold, Necromancy and Cleromancy, 203.
15. Theodore J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
16. Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs About the Dead (JSOT Sup, 123; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).
17. Arnold, Necromancy and Cleromancy, 201.
18. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 113.
19. Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 102.
20. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 127.
21. Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 102.
22. Brian B. Schmidt, “The “Witch of Endor, 1 Samuel 28, and Ancient Near Eastern Necromancy,” in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, ed. Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki (Brill: Leiden, 1995), 118.
23. Stephen D. Ricks, “The Magician as Outsider in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.” in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, ed. Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki (Brill: Leiden, 1995), 131-132.
24. Ricks, The Magician as Outsider, 132, 134.
25. Ricks, The Magician as Outsider, 138.
26. Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 104.
27. Schmidt, The Witch of Endor, 112-114.
28. Graaeme Auld, “1 and 2 Samuel,” Eerdman’s Commentary on the Bible, ed. John Rogerson (Grand Rapids:Wm Eerdman’s Publishing Co, 2003), 228.
29. Schmidt, The Witch of Endor, 127.
30. Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 99.
31. Arnold, Necromancy and Cleromancy, 199.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
The Tenure of Nadia Abu el-Haj
Emmet Trueman, the writer of a blog called Solomonia, called my attention to the controversy surrounding the tenure appointment of Nadia Abu el-Haj at Columbia University.
Abu el-Haj is the author of Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society, a very controversial book that deals with archaeology in Israel. In her book, Abu el-Haj considers Israel to be an illegitimate, “colonial settler” enterprise.
Abu el-Haj wrote in her book that “what was considered to have been ancient Jewish national existence and sovereignty in their homeland” is “a tale best understood as the modern nation’s origin myth transported into the realm of history.”
In his evaluation of Abu el-Haj’s book, Trueman wrote:
The issue of tenure in universities and seminaries is directly related to the issue of academic freedom. Academic freedom is concerned with free inquiry in the classroom. However, academic freedom does not obviate the requirements for responsible scholarship.
Professors should be free to discuss controversial issues in the classroom. However, when a professor writes on controversial issues, it becomes imperative that the professor does not violate standards set by an institution to guide the work of its professors.
Theological schools and universities have different criteria for granting tenure to their professors. In theological schools professors must teach within the parameters of a doctrinal statement. Faculty members are free to teach, carry on research, and publish in their area of competence. Faculty members in a theological school also represent their institution. For this reason, faculty members agree to subscribe to a doctrinal standard that will guide their work in and out of the classroom.
Faculty members in a state university are free from these limitations. In secular universities professors have the freedom to teach and write in their area of competence and they do so without harassment or limitations. Joffe’s review of Abu el-Haj’s book indicates that the book is biased, ill-informed, and without scholarly merit because she is writing outside of her area of competence. However, because of the university's system of academic freedom, it is doubtful that Nadia Abu el-Haj will be denied tenure.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Academic Freedom, Alexander Joffe, Facts on the Ground, Nadia Abu el-Haj, Tenure
Abu el-Haj is the author of Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society, a very controversial book that deals with archaeology in Israel. In her book, Abu el-Haj considers Israel to be an illegitimate, “colonial settler” enterprise.
Abu el-Haj wrote in her book that “what was considered to have been ancient Jewish national existence and sovereignty in their homeland” is “a tale best understood as the modern nation’s origin myth transported into the realm of history.”
In his evaluation of Abu el-Haj’s book, Trueman wrote:
Although it may seen incredible that a book could commit a more flagrant violation of scholarly standards than to dismiss the vast body of archaeological and documentary evidence for the existence of the ancient Jewish and Israelite kingdoms, Abu El Haj manages to do so when she excuses the deliberate destruction of archaeological sites when it is done by Palestinians for political purposes. In Abu El Haj's view, deliberately destroying ancient buildings is not to be condemned, it is to be “analyzed as a form of resistance to the Israeli state.”An extensive and critical review of Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society was written by Alexander H. Joffe and published in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies 64 (2005) 297-304. Those interested in reading a scholarly review of Abu el-Haj’s book can read it here in a PDF format.
The deliberate destruction of archaeological artifacts, “Needs to be understood in relation to a colonial-national history in which modern political rights have been substantiated in and expanded through the material signs of historic presence. In destroying the tomb, Palestinian demonstrators eradicated one’'fact on the ground.’”
The issue of tenure in universities and seminaries is directly related to the issue of academic freedom. Academic freedom is concerned with free inquiry in the classroom. However, academic freedom does not obviate the requirements for responsible scholarship.
Professors should be free to discuss controversial issues in the classroom. However, when a professor writes on controversial issues, it becomes imperative that the professor does not violate standards set by an institution to guide the work of its professors.
Theological schools and universities have different criteria for granting tenure to their professors. In theological schools professors must teach within the parameters of a doctrinal statement. Faculty members are free to teach, carry on research, and publish in their area of competence. Faculty members in a theological school also represent their institution. For this reason, faculty members agree to subscribe to a doctrinal standard that will guide their work in and out of the classroom.
Faculty members in a state university are free from these limitations. In secular universities professors have the freedom to teach and write in their area of competence and they do so without harassment or limitations. Joffe’s review of Abu el-Haj’s book indicates that the book is biased, ill-informed, and without scholarly merit because she is writing outside of her area of competence. However, because of the university's system of academic freedom, it is doubtful that Nadia Abu el-Haj will be denied tenure.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Academic Freedom, Alexander Joffe, Facts on the Ground, Nadia Abu el-Haj, Tenure
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Stealing Your Blog
Do you know that some people may be stealing what you write and making money with the content of your blog? This is happening every day. As Elinor Mills wrote:
Do you want to know more?
Read: Please don't steal this Web content.
Read also: Finding Stolen Content and Copyright Infringements
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Blog, Blogging, Plagiarism
This is automated digital plagiarism in which software bots can copy thousands of blog posts per hour and publish them verbatim onto Web sites on which contextual ads next to them can generate money for the site owner.
Do you want to know more?
Read: Please don't steal this Web content.
Read also: Finding Stolen Content and Copyright Infringements
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Blog, Blogging, Plagiarism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)