Future of ἐσθίω

Ἐσθίω, “to eat,” is one of those words you learn early on in your Greek studies. It is one of those words that opens the eyes of the naïve Greek student. Ἐσθίω becomes φάγομαι in the future tense. You kind of just learned it.

I’ve been reading through Genesis in the Septuagint and came across 6:21: “σὺ δὲ λήμψῃ σεαυτῷ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν βρωμάτων, ἃ ἔδεσθε . . .” “But you will take for yourself from all the food, which you will ἔδεσθε . . .” Now, it is clear from the context that ἔδεσθε is “to eat.” But I’ve never seen this form before in my reading. Apparently this form fell out of use from the classical era. At the time of the Septuagint, both forms are used interchangeably.

The More You Know . . .

Posted in Greek | 3 Comments

Accordance 10.2 and New LXX Releases

Screen Shot 2013-07-18 at 3.34.18 PMI realize that I am a bit behind with this post. As a matter of fact, the sale has come and gone on some of these products (they are still available at regular price). I would have posted earlier, but more important things were happening in my life! Now to the main reason for this post…

Back in Fall of 2010, I took a class on the Septuagint with Dr. Black and Dr. Cole. My assignment for that class was to analyze Ruth 2:4-17a. One of the aids I provided for the class was an interlinear I painstakingly created. This thing took at least 40 hours to put together and format. The result looked a bit like this:

Screen Shot 2013-07-18 at 3.35.40 PM

Now, Accordance does all this work for you simply by checking a couple boxes in the MT-LXX Interlinear module.

Screen Shot 2013-07-18 at 3.46.25 PM

 

Screen Shot 2013-07-18 at 3.46.57 PM

Furthermore, there is the Masoretic Text and Septuagint Parallel module. This module is based on The Revised CATSS Hebrew/Greek Parallel Text. Each Hebrew word is set alongside the equivalent Septuagint word. In instances where the two texts diverge, a notation is made and details are provided in the “Instant Details” pane. See below:

Screen Shot 2013-07-18 at 3.51.22 PM

 

Accordance has made studying the Septuagint much easier!

Posted in LXX | 2 Comments

Vocab Pro Vocabulary

Check out the new “Vocabulary” page on this blog. I have developed vocabulary for Van Pelt’s Aramaic, Mitchell’s Hebrew/Aramaic Frequency List, Black’s Learn to Read New Testament Greek, Metzger’s Lexical Aids, an LXX frequency list, and a vocabulary list based on all the words found in Philippians.

Also, I have provided a detailed instruction manual on how to install these vocabulary lists on your Vocab Pro application. Vocab Pro, in my opinion, is one of the most flexible and profession vocabulary flash card applications on the market.

I hope this helps both current and future learners of the biblical languages!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Literary Complexity of Jonah 1:4c

Yesterday, in my studies, I was struck by the level of complexity present in Jonah 1:4c. The clause reads וְהָ֣אֳנִיָּ֔ה חִשְּׁבָ֖ה לְהִשָּׁבֵֽר, “And the ship considered/thought about breaking apart.” Commentators seemingly across the board make the following claims about this three word clause:

  1. Hebrew is a VSO (Verb-Subject-Object) language; English, in case you were wondering, is an SVO language. When the default subject-predicate order is altered, it is cause for attention. In Jonah 1:4c shifts our attention away from the LORD and the storm that he just hurled onto the ship and the effect that the storm has upon it. The author grabs our attention by fronting the subject.
  2. Now that the author has our attention, he shows off his rhetorical flair. The finite verb חִשְּׁבָ֖ה, “it thought,” and the infinitive לְהִשָּׁבֵֽר, “to break,” have similar sounds. Trible notes that these similar sounding syllables is a literary device known as assonance. For those of you that don’t know Hebrew, here are the words transliterated chiššebâ lehiššābēr. Notice the vowels i, e, and a in chiššebâ are similar to e, i, a in lehiššābēr.
  3. Assonance is not the only literary device here. Sasson notes the presence of onomatopoeia, “the formation of a word according to the sound that it makes.” Sasson writes that chiššebâ lehiššābēr “captures the sound of planks cracking when tortured by raging waters. Such aural bravura must have pleased a listening audience that also included all who sounded their words as they read” (96).
  4. Personification is also employed by the author. The verb חשב, “to think,” is never used in the Hebrew Bible with inanimate subjects except in this instance. That is to say, ships don’t think. When an author attributes human characteristics to non-human entities, he or she is often doing so for some rhetorical purpose.
  5. This brings us to the final literary device present in Jonah 1:4b. The author’s decision to personify the boat’s “reaction” to the Lord’s storm creates irony, “an event characterized by an incongruity, or a contrast, between reality (what is) and appearance (what seems to be).” Jonah, the prophet of the Lord, goes down into the ship. He has, heretofore, ignored his divine commission. In verse five, he goes down even further into the inner parts of the ship, and then he falls asleep. He refuses to engage with the Lord. Everyone else and everything else around him has the proper reaction to the Lord’s storm. The sailors fear, cry out to their gods, and lighten the ship from her cargo. The captain calls upon Jonah to invoke his God for help. And the ship itself thinks about breaking apart. The ship, like the sailors, is afraid of the storm and creaks and moans in the face of assured destruction.

If scholarship is right on these points, it goes to show you how important it is to study the original languages and to do so with great diligence. Careful attention to the details pays great dividends.

Posted in Hebrew, Jonah, Literary Analysis | Tagged | 5 Comments

What Do Sailhamer and Theophilus Have in Common?

John Sailhamer is a familiar name around the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary campus. Even after he left for Golden Gate Seminary ~7 years ago, his thought left an indelible imprint on the student body. That is not to say that all agree with his methodology or some of his more “fanciful” interpretations of the Old Testament. Ask any Old Testament Studies major about his opinions on the works of Sailhamer and I assure you, he will have one. One student prefers the canonical theological approach of Childs; the other wholly endorses the compositional theological framework of Sailhamer. Students are not alone here. One hears rumblings of disagreement from the faculty halls. All this to say, I was introduced to Sailhamer’s interpretations fairly early on in my MDiv training.

One of his more memorable interpretations is his understanding of לְעָבְדָ֖הּ וּלְשָׁמְרָֽהּ in Genesis 2:15. Should it be translated “to work and till it [the garden]” or “to worship and obey [God]”? Sailhamer opts for the later. He writes,

The man is put in the Garden to worship and obey him. The man’s life in the Garden was to be characterized by worship and obedience; he was to be a priest, not merely a worker and keeper of the Garden.

In support of his argument, Sailhamer notes three things. First, the ה ָ   ending on “to work” and “to till” is feminine. It, therefore, cannot agree with the word “garden” as it is a masculine noun. Second, work is described as a result of the Fall in Genesis 3. Third, Deuteronomy 30:15-18 claims that Israel must be obedient in order to live long in the land that God is giving her. This is similar to the stipulations given Adam and Eve. Obedience = life in Eden.

Agree with Sailhamer’s understanding of Genesis 2:15 or not, I found an early form of this interpretation in Theophilus’ To Autolycus as I was reading this afternoon. In Book II, Chapter 24 we read,

Τῷ δὲ εἰπεῖν, “ἐργάζεσθαι,” οὐκ ἄλλην τινὰ ἐργασίαν δηλοῖ ἀλλ᾿ ἢ τὸ φυλάττειν τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅπως μὴ παρακούσας ἀπολέσῃ ἑαυτόν, καθὼς καὶ ἀπώλεσε διὰ ἁμαρτίας.

And by the expression, “till it,” no other kind of labor is implied than the observance of God’s command, lest, disobeying, he should destroy himself, as indeed he did destroy himself, by sin.

The Septuagint text, the text that Theophilus most like used, reads,

Καὶ ἔλαβεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὃν ἔπλασεν, καὶ ἔθετο αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ ἐργάζεσθαι αὐτὸν καὶ φυλάσσειν.

And the LORD God took the man, who he formed, and put him in the garden to work it and to keep it.

Even though the pronoun αὐτὸν, “it,” agrees with παραδείσῳ, “Garden,” (masculine singular), Theophilus treats τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ, “the commandment of God” as the referent for αὐτὸν, “it.” Man, according to Theophilus, is to obey God’s commandment and to keep it.

Theophilus’ interpretation is similar to Sailhamer’s in that God is not concerned with Adam and Eve’s ability and willingness to farm but with his obedience to God’s command to not eat from the tree. The two interpreters diverge in that Sailhamer views this as a twofold command: to worship and to obey. Theophilus understands the passage as commanding one thing: obedience. He treats φυλάσσειν, “to keep,” as a further explanation of ἐργάζεσθαι, “to obey”: “And God put man in the Garden to obey, that is, to keep God’s commandment.”

Posted in Biblical Studies, Greek, Old Testament Studies | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Quote of the Day: Theophilus on the Nature of God

You will say, then, to me, “Do you, who see God, explain to me the appearance of God.” Hear, O man. The appearance of God is ineffable and indescribable, and cannot be seen by eyes of flesh. For in glory He is incomprehensible, in greatness unfathomable, in height inconceivable, in power incomparable, in wisdom unrivaled, in goodness inimitable, in kindness unutterable. For if I say He is Light, I name but His sovereignty; if I call Him Word, I name but His sovereignty; if I call Him Mind, I speak but of His wisdom; if I say He is Spirit, I speak of His breath; if I call Him Wisdom, I speak of His offspring; if I call Him Strength, I speak of His sway; if I call Him Power, I but mention His goodness; if I call Him Kingdom, I but mention His glory; if I call Him Lord, I mention His being judge; if I call Him Judge, I speak of Him as being just; if I call Him Father, I speak of all things as being from Him; if I call Him Fire, I but mention His anger. You will say, then, to me, “Is God angry?” Yes; He is angry with those who act wickedly, but He is good, and kind, and merciful, to those who love and fear Him; for He is a chastener of the godly, and father of the righteous; but he is a judge and punisher of the impious.

Posted in Quotes | Tagged | Leave a comment

Thecla: A Martyr?

Saint_Thekla_the_Protomartyr-protector-of-computer-related-professionsIn Acts of Paul and Thecla A 1:14 (44:14) the phrase ἡ ἁγία μάρτυς Θέκλα, “the holy martyr Thecla” appears. The meaning of the word μάρτυς evolves over time from the act of testifying to dying for a cause. Around the time of the composition of Acts of Paul and Thecla, the word was used to describe those individuals that suffered the penalty of death because of their testimony about Christ. This specialized meaning is even attested later in Acts of Paul and Thecla A 2:1 (45:1) where she is called ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ πρωτομάρτυς, “the first woman martyr of God.” Surely we are not to think that she was the first woman to simply give witness to the truthfulness of the Christian gospel. Something more is in view.

What makes the use of μάρτυς interesting here, though, is the fact that Thecla never died as a result of her testimony. It is said that she was burned at the stake and was fed to the wild beasts in the arena only to be miraculously delivered by God. After these acts of testing, she lives another 70 years and dies, presumably, of natural causes.

What are we to make of the use of μάρτυς then? Should BDAG include an entry like, “One who testifies at the assured cost of his/her life though miraculously delivered by an act of God?”

Posted in Early Church Writings, Greek | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

LXX Translation of the Hebrew רעע in Jonah

The Septuagint translator handles God’s repentance with great caution. Up until Jonah 3:8, he consistently renders רעע, “evil, disaster, calamity”, with κακός, “evil, bad, trouble”. This stereotypical rendering breaks down in chapter three and four. The chart below contains all instances of רעע in the Hebrew Vorlage and their Greek translations:

 

Greek Rendering

English Translation

1:2c ὅτι ἀνέβη ἡ κραυγὴ τῆς κακίας αὐτῆς πρός με because the cry of its evil went up to me
1:7c καὶ ἐπιγνῶμεν τίνος ἕνεκεν ἡ κακία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἐν ἡμῖν and let us know on whose account this evil/calamity is among us
1:8bc Ἀπάγγειλον ἡμῖν τίνος ἕνεκεν ἡ κακία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἐν ἡμῖν Tell us on whose account this evil/calamity is among us
3:8c καὶ ἀπέστρεψαν ἕκαστος ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ τῆς πονηρς καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀδικίας τῆς ἐν χερσὶν αὐτῶν And each returned from his evil way and from the unrighteousness which was in their hands
3:10a καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν, ὅτι ἀπέστρεψαν ἀπὸ τῶν ὁδῶν αὐτῶν τῶν πονηρν And God saw their deeds, that they returned from their evil ways
3:10b καὶ μετενόησεν ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ τῇ κακίᾳ And God repented from the evil/calamity
4:1a καὶ ἐλυπήθη Ιωνας λύπην μεγάλην And Jonah grieved with a great grief
4:2e διότι ἔγνων ὅτι σὺ ἐλεήμων καὶ οἰκτίρμων, μακρόθυμος καὶ πολυέλεος καὶ μετανοῶν ἐπὶ ταῖς κακίαις. for I knew that you are merciful and compassionate, longsuffering and very merciful, and one who repents from calamities/evil things.
4:6 καὶ ἀνέβη ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς τοῦ Ιωνα τοῦ εἶναι σκιὰν ὑπεράνω τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ τοῦ σκιάζειν αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τῶν κακν αὐτοῦ And it went up above the head of Jonah to be a shade above his head in order to shade him from his evil/calamity

 

The semantic range of the Hebrew word רעע is broad enough to incorporate both moral reprehensibility and a disaster or calamity.[1] This is no less true of the Greek word κακία.[2] Yet, the translator does not feel comfortable describing God’s actions or his prophet’s actions in the same way as he describes Nineveh’s evil. Instead, he uses πονηρός, a morally charged term unlike κακός, to describe Nineveh’s moral corruption. He then switches back to κακός when referring to the calamity God planned for Nineveh.[3] Such a shift ensures that the reader will not draw the wrong conclusion about the character of God. The Hebrew God is not corrupt. He is not evil. This concern for God’s dignity extends to his prophet. Jonah, in 4:1a, is exceedingly displeased/evil. Septuagint Jonah depicts Jonah as exceedingly grieved, “καὶ ἐλυπήθη Ιωνας λύπην μεγάλην”, by God’s grace. Both translations get God and Jonah off the hook for possible impropriety. The translator takes liberties to smooth out the narrative’s rough edges.


[1] F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs ed. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006), 947-8.

[2] Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, BDAG (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 500.

[3] Evidence that this is an intentional choice on the part of the translator is in Jonah 1:2c, where he uses κακός to describe the moral corruption of Nineveh. Perhaps he did not see the dilemma in chapter three, or he though that the chapters were sufficiently removed from one another that the connection would be weakened.

Posted in Jonah, LXX | Leave a comment

Art in the LXX Jonah Psalm

Two clauses caught my attention as I began my work in Jonah 2 today. Turn with me in your Hebrew and Greek texts.

Jonah 2:4 in the Hebrew text reads:

 וְנָהָ֖ר יְסֹבְבֵ֑נִי

and the river surrounded me

:Jonah 2:4 in the LXX version reads

καὶ ποταμοί με ἐκύκλωσαν

and the waters/rivers me surrounded

Jonah 2:6 in the Hebrew version reads:

תְּה֖וֹם יְסֹבְבֵ֑נִי

the deep surrounds me

:Jonah 2:6 in the Greek version reads

ἄβυσσος ἐκύκλωσέν με ἐσχάτη

the abyss surrounds me the last/deepest

Notice how the Greek translator takes the opportunity to use the flexible word order in Greek to surround the pronoun με, “me”.

In the first construction, we would expect to see με after the verb ἐκύκλωσαν as is the typical unmarked Greek word order (object after verb) and as is the case in the Hebrew text.

In the second construction, the translator adds the adjective ἐσχάτη. We would expect to see the adjective closer to the noun it modifies, ἄβυσσος. Yet, it occurs at the end of the construction. Once again, με is surrounded by the various grammatical constituents in the clause, just as με, Jonah, is surrounded by the waters and the abyss.

Posted in Greek, Jonah, LXX | 1 Comment

The Discourse Boundaries of Jonah 2

[Two days ago I posted on the discourse structure of Septuagint Jonah chapters 1 and three (they are parallel). This post continues my work through outlining the macrostructure of LXX Jonah by providing justification for Jonah 2:1-11 as a unit]

The beginning of Jonah chapter two is deceiving. The coordinating conjunction καὶ, “and,” seems to continue the preceding narrative without interruption. No overt elements are used by the author/translator to indicate a shift. Yet, a closer look reveals a shift in the narrative participants and geographic setting, the presence of poetry, and a chiastic structure that defines the unit as a whole.

The boat, which serves as a prop in chapter one, falls out of the narrative, or rather, Jonah has fallen out of it (1:15). As Jonah descends into the depths of the sea, the Lord appoints a fish to swallow his disobedient prophet (2:1). The general setting of the narrative remains the same: Jonah is still out at sea. The specific setting, though similar to the boat of chapter one, has changed. The great fish now houses Jonah for the duration of the chapter. The narrative participants in chapter two must also be noted. While two of the characters, Jonah and the Lord, remain unchanged, the sailors are absent. The narrator is now concerned with Jonah’s interaction with the Lord. Will Jonah survive in the great fish? Will the Lord deliver Jonah? What does the prophet have to say for himself?

The presence of poetry and a chiastic structure in chapter two also provide evidence that the text should be divided at this point. Jonah’s prayer to God is composed in the form of a psalm, or poetry. The shift from narrative to poetry is a significant one, as it is a shift from an unmarked surface structure to a marked structure.[1] The poetry of verses 3-10 provides a clear beginning and end to Jonah’s prayer to God. Although poetry, as a marked surface structure normally outranks prose as a structuring device, that is not true here. Jonah’s psalm is not independent of the surrounding narrative. The narrative found in 2:1-2 and 2:11 frames the psalm as a part of a  chiastic unit:

A   Καὶ προσέταξεν κύριος    κήτει μεγάλῳ καταπιεῖν     τὸν Ιωναν·

And appointed   the-Lord a-fish great     to-swallow   Jonah,

B   καὶ  ἦν   Ιωνας ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τοῦ      κήτους τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας.

and was Jonah in the belly   of-the  fish      three days     and three nights.

B’  καὶ προσηύξατο Ιωνας πρὸς κύριον    τὸν θεὸν αὐτοῦ   ἐκ     τῆς κοιλίας τοῦ   κήτους

And prayed        Jonah to      the-Lord the God  of-him  from the belly    of-the fish.

A’   καὶ   προσετάγη      τῷ κήτει, καὶ ἐξέβαλε     τὸν Ιωναν ἐπὶ    τὴν ξηράν.

And was-appointed the fish,   and it-vomited       Jonah upon the dry-land.

The Septuagint translator strengthens the chiastic structure of chapter two. Hebrew Jonah 2:11 reads, וַיֹּמֶר יְהוָה לַדָּג, “And the Lord spoke to the fish.” The shift from וַיֹּאמֶר, “And he spoke” to προσετάγη “it was appointed” makes the implicit connection between A and A’ explicit.

The dominate poetic section spanning from verse three to verse ten poses a difficulty in relation to this chiastic structure. The appearance of the psalm after B’ disrupts the symmetry of the chiasm. Phyllis Trible writes,

The psalm disrupts the narrative structure. Locked within the confines of an exquisite chiasm, it provides a glaring instance of symmetrophobia. The poetry occurs not in the center of the chiastic narrative (after B) but between two lines (B’ and A’) whose counterparts (A and B) are not so divided. Thus the psalm throws the episode off balance. [2]

Trible concedes the point that the psalm might not have been part of the original composition. Nevertheless, the psalm belongs in the final form of the book as it clearly functions to create dissonance and irony between the words and actions of Jonah. The unbalanced structure is intended to communicate discomfort and unease in the mind of the reader. Can Jonah’s confession and repentance be trusted?


[1] Robert E. Longacre,  and Shin Ja J. Hwang, “A Textlinguistic Approach to the Biblical Hebrew Narrative of Jonah” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. by Robert D. Bergen, (Dallas: SIL International, 1994), 342.

[2] Phyllis Trible, 162.

Posted in Biblical Studies, Discourse Analysis, Greek, Hebrew, LXX, Old Testament Studies | Tagged | Leave a comment