The Garden of Uzza

Biblica is an excellent journal that offers the best in academic biblical scholarship. The journal is available on line through Biblical Studies on the Web.

Biblica, Volume 87 (2006), pages 1-21, contains an article by Francesca Stavrakopoulou, AExploring the Garden of Uzza: Death, Burial and Ideologies of Kingship.@ This is the abstract of her article:

The Garden of Uzza (2 Kgs 21,18.26) is commonly regarded as a pleasure garden in or near Jerusalem which came to be used as a royal burial ground once the tombs in the City of David had become full. However, in this article it is argued that the religious and cultic significance of royal garden burials has been widely overlooked. In drawing upon comparative evidence from the ancient Near East, it is proposed that mortuary gardens played an ideological role within perceptions of Judahite kingship. Biblical texts such as Isa 65,3-4; 66,17 and perhaps 1,29-30 refer not to goddess worship, but to practices and sacred sites devoted to the royal dead.

If you are interested in reading this academic article, visit Biblical Studies on the Web by clicking here.

Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Garden of Uzza, 2 Kings 21:18

If Your Mother Says She Loves You

There is a principle among journalists that have guided their work for more than a generation. That principle declares: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out." The purpose of this journalistic principle is to help journalists not to make the kinds of mistakes that will be an embarrassment to them and to their newspapers.

Journalists should be skeptical when presenting facts, providing information, or even quoting from their sources. The first rule in journalism is: check it out. When a journalist fails to check the facts, misleading information will be communicated to people who probably will never check the accuracy of a statement.

The same good advice should apply to ministers in the preparation and delivery of their sermons. I have heard many ministers attribute a specific quotation from a psalm to David, as if David had written all the psalms in the Book of Psalms. I have also heard ministers attribute a certain proverb to the "wise Solomon" when the proverb was written by someone else.

Let me cite a classic example. Once I heard a minister explaining the identity of King Lemuel in Proverbs 31:1. Proverbs 31:1 reads: The sayings of King Lemuel-- an oracle his mother taught him. From the pulpit, that pastor said: "King Lemuel was a nickname for Solomon."

Amazing! That statement just proved to me that the pastor had not studied his text. He did not read any good book on Proverbs nor did he do any research on that passage. If he had studied the text and checked his facts, he would have discovered two interesting things.

First, he would have discovered that there was no king in Israel or Judah whose name was Lemuel. Second, he would have discovered that Lemuel was not a nickname for Solomon. The fact is, that pastor did not know his Bible and he placed the wrong information in the minds of his listeners, information which probably will be stored in their minds for a long time, information which probably will be passed on to another generation of listeners who also will not check the facts.

Those who write and preach have the responsibility of conveying the correct information to their readers and listeners. Those who communicate facts and information through print or from the pulpit cannot assume that people know the real facts.

This point was reinforced once again when I read a news story written by Jennifer Bugay, a correspondent for the Houston Daily Journal. In an article published on November 28, 2006, Ms. Bugay described two unique characteristics of Beth Ann Barron, a student at Perry High School. In her article, Ms. Bugay wrote:

The unique thing about her, is her wardrobe. She has worn a skirt everyday since she was a little girl. Even as a member of her school marching band, where the uniform is school colored trousers.

Barron's mother made a proper skirt to match the uniform, but her choice of uniform represents more than Perry's marching band. It is an expression of faith.

"Wearing skirts is the way I was raised. My mother does the same. The Old Testament says that women should not wear male garments. Wearing a skirt is modest, yet it shows more respect for me."

Another proud declaration of her Christian faith is her hair. Beth Ann does not cut her hair. She said she gets an occasional trim to help her hair grow, but she refuses to cut her hair short.

Her mother is the same. Beth Ann refers to the Old Testament admonition that a woman's hair be her covering. Beth Ann is growing her hair to match her mother.

Here is the statement that piqued my interest: Beth Ann refers to the Old Testament admonition that a woman's hair be her covering.

If Ms. Bugay had checked the facts, she would have discovered that this information is not found in the Old, but in the New Testament. Paul said: but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering (1 Corinthians 11:15). By not checking her facts, this journalist has introduced a falsehood into a good article, false information that will be remembered by many for years to come.

I still remember a sermon preached more than twenty years ago. A preacher (he even had a Ph.D.) was trying to explain Jonah 3:3: Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city. In his sermon, in order to emphasize that Nineveh was a great city, he said that the walls of the city were more than 100 feet high. Now, that was a big exaggeration and this is the reason I never forgot his statement.

But, how many other people heard the same statement and believed that the walls of Nineveh were that high will never be known. They will forever believe a lie because, probably, the preacher never checked his facts.

So, preacher, before you prepare a sermon, check your facts.

The lesson that all of us must learn is this: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Technorati Tags: Journalism, King Lemuel, Checking Facts, Jonah 3, Preparing Sermons

The Temple Mount: Archaeological Discoveries

Students of the Bible are particularly interested in the excavations being carried out in Jerusalem, especially in the area around the Temple Mount. An article published recently by The ChronicleHerald.com of Halifax, Nova Scotia gives a list of the items uncovered in the rubble removed from the Temple Mount. Among these are:

1. The imprint of a seal thought to have belonged to a priestly Jewish family mentioned in the Old Testament’s Book of Jeremiah.

2. A mother-of-pearl cross left by early Christians of the Byzantine period, with an engraving of the figure of Jesus.

3. Coins from the Jewish revolt that preceded the destruction of the Second Temple by Roman legions in 70 AD emblazoned with the words “Freedom of Zion.”

4. Arrowheads shot by Babylonian archers 2,500 years ago, and others launched by Roman siege machinery 500 years later.

5. Coins issued by the Muslim ruler who built the golden-capped Dome of the Rock in the seventh century.

6. A 19th-century Christian pendant struck by the Jesuit order, bearing the emblem of the holy grail.

7. A tiny Roman flask with images of a helmeted soldier and an elegantly coiffed woman.

8. A clay goat’s head from the Roman period, likely used to worship the god Pan.

9. A two millennia-old jar handle with the impression of a five-pointed star and the Hebrew inscription “Jerusalem.”

10. A sculpted stone from the frieze of a 2,000-year-old Herodian building — perhaps, archeologists suggest, from the temple itself.

The Washington Post has a longer article detailing the history and the controversy associated with digging in the Temple area. To read the article, click here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Archaeological Discoveries, Temple Mound

Revisiting Isaiah 50:1: The Problem of Divorce in the Old Testament

A few days ago I read Wayne Leman’s review of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) published on Better Bible Blog on Monday, April 11, 2005. Wayne reviewed how the HCSB translated several verses in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. Among those verses reviewed was Isaiah 50:1:

Where is your mother's divorce certificate that I used to send her away?

In his review of this verse, Wayne wrote:

Inaccurate: "send her away" is not an accurate English wording to communicate the original Hebrew (figurative) meaning of what is done when divorcing someone.

Suggested revision: "get rid of her" or, simply, "divorce her"

The purpose of this article is to defend the translation proposed by the HCSB. Wayne’s criticism of the HCSB’s translation does not do justice to the complicated problem of divorce in the Old Testament.

First, it is important to notice that all translations, ancient and modern, support the HCSB’s translation. For instance, this is the translation of Isaiah 50:1 in the ESV, NIV, and the RSV:

ESV: Thus says the LORD: “Where is your mother's certificate of divorce, with which I sent her away?”

NIV: This is what the LORD says: "Where is your mother's certificate of divorce with which I sent her away?”

RSV: Thus says the LORD: "Where is your mother's bill of divorce, with which I put her away?”

Even the Septuagint agrees with the classical translation of this verse:

LXX: Thus saith the Lord, Of what kind is your mother's bill of divorcement, by which I put her away?

Second, in order to understand the reason these translations are right and Wayne’s proposal is unacceptable, one must look at the issue of divorce in the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament it was the husband who ended a marriage since the woman did not have the right to separate herself from her husband. When a man wanted to terminate an unacceptable marriage, he would simply send his wife away. Since a woman was considered the possession of her husband, she could not marry again because she was still legally married to her husband.

A divorced woman was destitute and without the legal protection of her husband. Often, a divorced woman was also refused readmission into her family because the bridal price paid by the husband caused the woman to be legally under the control of her husband. Without the support of her husband or her family, divorced women were forced to beg and to become prostitutes in order to survive.

In order to deal with this problem, the Deuteronomic reform under Josiah enacted a law to protect divorced women. The law reads:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD (Deuteronomy 24:1-4 ESV).

This Deuteronomic law gives a man the right to put his wife away, but whenever he sends her away, he must provide her with a certificate of divorce. The certificate of divorce allows a divorced woman to remarry if she so desires.

The issues of divorce and sending away appear in the New Testament. In Matthew 19:3 a Pharisee asked Jesus: Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause? Jesus’ answer did not please the Pharisee. So he asked another question: Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away? (Matthew 19:7).

The issue raised in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and in Matthew 19:1-8 is based on the fact that when a man sends his wife away (and this is not figurative language), he is not divorcing her, he is merely sending her away without any legal protection. When a man sends a woman away, the woman is still married to her husband. This is the reason she cannot belong to another man: she is still married.

The Hebrew makes a difference between sending a woman away and divorcing her. In Hebrew, the word שלח (shalah) means “to send away” while the word כרתות (keritut) means to dissolve the marriage by giving the woman a certificate of divorce.

The word shalah appears in Malachi 2:16. However, translators are divided on how to translate the word. These are some of the versions that translate shalah as “putting away” or “sending away”: LXX, ASV, KJV, and JPS. These are some of the versions that translate shalah as “divorce”: ESV, NIV, RSV, and NRSV. The reason Yahweh hates “sending away” is because sending away is an illegal separation: the woman was put out of the house of her husband without a certificate of divorce.

In addition to Deuteronomy 24:1, the words shalah and keritut appear together in Jeremiah 3:8:

She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce (Jeremiah 3:8 ESV).

The two words also appear together in Isaiah 50:1:

Thus says the LORD: Where is your mother's certificate of divorce, with which I sent her away? (Isaiah 50:1 ESV).

It is clear then that in the Old Testament “sending away” does not necessarily mean “divorce.” It means that a man “gets rid of” his wife and sends her away from his house without any legal protection.

Thus, Wayne suggested revisions, “get rid of her” or “divorce her” would not be correct because his suggestions do not reflect the practice of divorce in the Old Testament. The expression “get rid of her” could be used in Malachi 2:6 because the sending away was an illegal separation, but not in Isaiah 50:1 because the woman was legally divorced.

The expression “divorce her” could not be used in Malachi 2:16 because the separation was illegal. The same expression also cannot be used in Isaiah 50:1 because once the woman was legally divorced (this is the intent of the certificate of divorce) the woman was sent away from her former husband’s house. Wayne’s proposal, Where is your mother's divorce certificate that I used to divorce her? may not indicate that she was sent away from her husband’s house.

I support the HCSB’s translation.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags:Divorce,HCSB,Holman Bible,Deuteronomy 24:1,Isaiah 50:1,Malachi 2:6

Toilets, Qumran, and the Essenes

In an article written by Alan Boyle, Science Editor for MSNBC, Israeli anthropologist Joe Zias and James Tabor, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte report the discovery of latrines at Qumran. Below is an excerpt of the article:

One of the less sanitary aspects of life in Jesus' day has come into play in the debate over who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, how they lived and how they died.

The latest evidence comes from a site that two researchers have identified as the communal latrine for Qumran, the ancient settlement near the caves where the 2,000-year-old scrolls were found.

Israeli anthropologist Joe Zias and James Tabor, a biblical scholar at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, say the unusual placement of the latrine would be consistent with the theory that Qumran was inhabited by a hard-core Jewish sect known as the Essenes. They even speculate that the latrine's unsanitary conditions may have contributed to ill health among the sect's members.

The prevailing view among archaeologists has been that Essenes at a Qumran monastery were the keepers of the Dead Sea Scrolls — but that view has come under increasing challenge in recent years, with some experts saying Qumran was a fortress or a pottery-making center that had nothing to do with the Essenes.

One of the most vigorous critics of the Essene connection, University of Chicago historian Norman Golb, told MSNBC.com that the latest report from Tabor and Zias "does nothing" to prove that the Essenes lived and worked in Qumran.

"The recent finding of a latrine can, at the most, show no more than that the inhabitants of the area were human beings who practiced some form of sanitation," Golb said.

So what do ancient potty practices have to do with the mystery of Qumran? Although the findings of Zias and Tabor may not be a smoking gun, they represent an intriguing blend of textual analysis and "CSI"-style forensics — intriguing enough to be accepted for publication in Revue de Qumran, an international journal on Dead Sea Scroll science.

Toiletries in texts

It all started with Tabor's reflection on historical texts: The book of Deuteronomy, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves, considered bathroom duties to be unclean in the sight of God. Thus, the faithful were told that their latrines had to be placed far enough away from the community to be out of sight. Various references specify distances of 1,000 to 3,000 cubits (1,500 to 4,500 feet, or 457 to 1,370 meters), preferably to the northwest of the community.

According to the 1st-century historian Josephus, the Essenes in Jerusalem strictly observed this custom. He marveled at the Essenes' religious and intestinal fortitude, noting that they refused to "go to stool" on the Sabbath — and Tabor speculated that this was because the latrine was farther away than Jews were allowed to travel on the holy day.

Years ago, it struck Tabor that Essenes at Qumran should have had a similar practice. "I thought, 'They must have been doing this if they believed it so fervently. Has anyone ever gone out and looked for this?'" he recalled.

Looking at a map, Tabor saw there was a prime site about 1,640 feet (500 meters) northwest of the Qumran site, sheltered from view behind a bluff. When he walked up to the site, he could see that one area of soil had a significantly different coloration. But how could he prove that it was a latrine, where the Essenes felt it was their religious duty to dig a trench, do their business and shovel dirt back on top?

That's when Tabor called upon Zias, a "bioarchaeologist" who has taken on other biblical puzzles such as the mechanics behind Roman-style crucifixion.

Parasites in ancient poop?

Zias took 10 soil samples — four from the site identified by Tabor, and six from elsewhere in the area as control samples — and had them analyzed by Stephainie Harter-Lailheugue, a French parasitologist from the Centre National de la Recerche Scientifique.

Three of the four samples from the suspected latrine contained desiccated eggs from parasitic worms commonly found in human stool samples (tapeworms, roundworms and pinworms). Meanwhile, none of the control samples turned up evidence of human-specific parasites.

Zias said that would indicate "heavy and continual use" of the site as a latrine.

Usually, the parasites in fecal matter would die out due to exposure to the elements in the Dead Sea region, Zias said. That's what happens to the waste left behind by modern-day Bedouins, for example. But Zias said the Essenes' practice of covering up their waste may have actually preserved the parasites.

Yet another curious twist strengthened the Qumran connection: Similar traces of parasites were found in a soil sample taken from inside the settlement, at a spot that Zias and Tabor think served as an emergency restroom for the Essenes.

As he put together the story, Zias came around to the view that Qumran was actually a pretty unsanitary place to live. "This should be a warning to religious people that you can take things a little bit too far," he told MSNBC.com.

Godliness vs. cleanliness

As time went on, pathogens would likely build up in the latrine, Zias said.

"What happened was that 20 to 40 people went out there every day over a period of 100 years," he explained in a University of North Carolina news release. "By burying their fecal matter, they actually preserved the microorganisms and parasites. In the sunlight, the bacteria and parasites get zapped within a fairly short amount of time, but buried, the parasites can live in the soil for up to a year. Then people pick up things by walking through fecally contaminated soil — it's like a toxic waste dump, and if you have any cuts on your feet..."

If the people who used the latrines were indeed Essenes, their religious practice would require them to undergo a ritual washing when they returned to the settlement. For modern-day Westerners, that sounds like good hygiene. But 1st-century Qumran was a different environment, and such practices would actually make matters worse, Zias said.

Water would typically stand in the ritual pools for months at a time, replenished only by three months' worth of winter rains. When the residents immersed themselves in the pools, they'd leave behind bacteria and parasite eggs. The warm water and sediment would serve as a fertile breeding ground for the pathogens, leading to cross-infection.

"Can you see yourself going into whirlpool water standing there for nine months, and 100 people have been going in there before you, day in and day out?" he asked.

Zias said the parasites detected at the presumed latrine would cause intestinal distress — which, in his mind, also helps explain the emergency toilet identified within the community. "If you're sitting there reading the Torah and you've got diarrhea, you think you're going to make it up the hill? You're not going to make it," he said.

To read the article in its entirety, visit the MSNBC Web page by clicking here.

The article presents more details about the findings by Zias and Tabor. The article also sheds additional light on the lives of the people who lived and worked at Qumran.

If you are interested in one aspect of at life Qumran and how the Essenes lived, this is an article that you should read.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old TestamentT
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Qumran, Essenes, Joe Zias, James Tabor,Norman Golb

“Our Mother who is in heaven”: Reflections on a New Translation of the Bible

The Adventist News Network has published an article in which they review a new translation of the Bible published recently in Germany. Below is an excerpt from the article:

Seventh-day Adventist theologians in Germany worry the latest Bible version released in their country sacrifices Scriptural accuracy on the altar of political correctness.

Reflecting five years of study and the input of nearly 50 individuals from diverse backgrounds, the new Bible version, worded to “do justice to women, Jews and marginalized groups” sold out as soon as it hit bookshelves in Germany, according to Ecumenical News International.

With its diluting of Old Testament violence and references to female disciples, apostles, and Pharisees--among other revisions--the version has inspired much hype, not to mention controversy.

“The intent of the new German translation...is to present the Bible in gerechter sprache, or 'just language,'” said Udo Worschech, a Seventh-day Adventist theologian at Friedensau Adventist University in Friedensau, Germany.

“[The translators] tried to be innovative and scientific,” said Siegfried Wittwer, a German Adventist pastor, “[adhering] to the Hebrew and Greek text, [but] using a modern, up-to-date language. They wanted to be gender-fair and avoid anti-Semitic expressions.”

Women are not only mentioned, but addressed personally. As one such example, Wittwer cites several Old and New Testament examples where the phrase "my daughter" replaces the traditional "my son," and where "mother" joins the typical mention of "father."

Additionally, Wittwer notes that when referring to God, the translation often employs the expression, "the Living, the Eternal, the Holy." Each of the attributes is gender-neutral in the German language and--accompanied by a feminine article--intends to temper a patriarchal notion of God, he explains. The familiar "Lord's Prayer" now begins, "Our mother who is in heaven," says Frank M. Hasel, dean of the Adventist-run Theological Seminary at Bogenhofen.

Despite the translations' attempt to heighten Scripture's relevancy, both Wittwer and Worschech remain skeptical of its credibility. Worschech even questions its title. "The German word gerecht is here imbued with the idea of "righteous[ness]. In the German language, this title itself is already misleading, since it recalls the idea of absoluteness and finality," he explains.

Holger Teubert, director and editor of Germany's Adventist Press Service, agrees. "The title of the new Bible version is provocative and polemical. My question is this: Is this Bible version the only translation in a fair language? Are all other translations [written] in an unfair language? The title condemns all other Bible translations."

Where the version claims absoluteness, its language is disturbingly wishy-washy, says Hasel. He cites its treatment of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, recorded in the book of Matthew. "We read that Jesus no longer speaks with his divine authority saying: 'but I say to you...' Instead, he says: 'I interpret this today to mean...' A definite statement is turned into an optional and provisionary suggestion," he explains.

To read the entire article, visit the Web page of the Adventist News Network by clicking here.

Many modern versions of the Bible make an attempt at being gender inclusive, but a translation that changes masculine words into feminine words in order to promote social equality cannot be considered a reliable translation.

Translators are human and for this reason, every translation falls short of perfection since, at times, translators may allow their views to influence the way a text is translated. To be reliable, a translation of the Bible must reflect integrity in representing the meaning and the intent of the original text.

Translating from one language into another is not easy. A good translator must be familiar not only with the intricacies of the language, but also with some aspects of the culture and traditions of the people who produced the text. Translators also must be familiar with their own language. This is necessary in order to convey the meaning of the original language into a form that can be easily understood by the people who will read the translation.

Translators must determine the meaning of the original text and then transmit that meaning in the language into which the text is being translated. Take for instance, the English expression “he gets my goat.” This expression simply means that one person makes another person angry or irritated. In the Spanish spoken in the United States, this expression has been translated “me pega el chivo.” No native Spanish speaking person will understand the meaning of this expression in their language because a person needs to know the context of the phrase in order to know the reason a person is getting a goat. In other words, a literal translation of the English expression makes no sense in Spanish.

Every translation is, to some extent, an interpretation. Translators must interpret the intent of the original author and be able to communicate what they understand the original author was saying. However, private interpretation and theological bias should be set aside for the sake of the integrity of the text.

When this new translation takes the prayer Jesus taught his disciples and translates it “Our Mother who is in heaven,” the translation becomes more than a mere distortion of the original text. This translation, if it could be called a translation, is an imposition of political correctness that reflects a theological agenda that has been imposed upon the text.

I believe that there is a place for gender inclusiveness in translating the Scriptures. However, gender inclusiveness has its limitation because when it is wrongly used, it completely distorts the true intent of the original writers.

If I lived in Germany, this would be one translation I would never use.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Translators, Translations, Bible

Understanding Genesis 14:14: “As Far as Dan”

The narrative in Genesis 14 describing Abraham’s struggles with the four kings from the east has generated much discussion among scholars. In this chapter Abraham is portrayed not just as a lonely man sojourning through the land of Canaan, but rather as the chief of a clan, a man with a large entourage, one who is strong enough to challenge the four kings and defeat them (Genesis 14:14-17).

According to the story, Lot, Abraham’s nephew, was captured by the four kings from the east at the time they invaded Canaan. Lot was taken as captive after the invaders sacked the land and returned back to their countries through North Syria. In order to rescue Lot, Abram prepared a contingency of 318 men, all of them servants born in his house, and pursued the four kings “as far as Dan” (Genesis 14:14) and rescued Lot.

The purpose of this article is not to discuss the identity of the four kings, nor the composition of Chapter 14, nor the relationship between Genesis 14 and the Abraham cycle. Rather, the intent of this article is to discuss the meaning of the expression “as far as Dan” in Genesis 14:14.

As it stands in the text, the use of Dan is an anachronism. Dan was the fifth son of Jacob and the first son of Bilhah, the maid given by Rachel to be Jacob’s secondary wife (Genesis 30:6). Later on, when the people of Israel conquered the land of Canaan in the days of Joshua, the tribe of Dan received a portion of the land as its inheritance.

When Dan received its inheritance in Canaan, Dan’s territory was between the tribes of Ephraim and Judah. In the days of the judges, the Amorites forced the Danites into the hill country (Judges 1:34). Later on, during the struggle between Israel and the Philistines, the Danites were oppressed by the Philistines. Shamgar, the son of Anath, killed 600 Philistines with an oxgoad and delivered Israel (Judges 3:31).

In the days of Samson, the Israelites struggled again against the Philistines, but Samson, a judge from the tribe of Dan, was not able to deliver the Danites from the oppression of the Philistines and the Danites were forced to move (Judges 18:1-31). The migration of the Danites is also mentioned in Joshua 19:47-48.

The tribe of Dan conquered Laish (Judges 18:7) and burned the city (the city is named Leshem in Joshua 19:47). Then, they rebuilt the city and called it Dan. Laish was a city at the northernmost end of the land of Canaan. Eventually, the expression “from Dan to Beer-sheba came to express the northern and the southern borders of Israel. The reference to Sidon in Judges 18:28 may indicate that, at the time the Danites conquered the city, Laish was a colony of Sidon.

Thus, it is clear then that the appearance of Dan in Genesis 14:14 is an anachronism, since in the days of Abraham Dan was not yet born and there was no Dan to give name to a city located in the northern part of Canaan.

The expression “as far as Dan” is also an anachronism because Moses could not have written about the location of Dan since the land of Canaan had not yet been occupied by the Israelite tribes who were living in Egypt.

The issue with this anachronism has to do with the question of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. For those who accept Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the anachronism of Genesis 14:14 poses a problem. Several solutions have been proposed to solve the anachronism and thus hold to the integrity of the text and to Mosaic authorship.

The proposed solution is the view that the Dan of Genesis 14:14 is not the Laish conquered by the Danites and then later renamed Dan, but that this Dan was Dan-jaan, a city mentioned in 2 Samuel 24:6. According to this view, the Dan of Genesis 14:14 belonged to Gilead (see Deuteronomy 34:1), and is no doubt the same as the Dan-jaan mentioned in 2 Samuel 24:6 in connection with Gilead.

This view should be rejected for two reasons: First, Josephus in his Antiquities 1:10 mentioned that this Dan was located near one of the sources of the Jordan. In addition, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and Targum Onkelos follow the Masoretic Text.

Second, many scholars believe that Dan-jaan and Dan were the same city. This view reflects the possibility that the scribes did not preserve the correct name of this city. Some Bible translations accept the identification of Dan-jaan with Dan.

The following translations translate “Dan” in 2 Samuel 24:8: ESV, RSV, NRSV, Tanak, BBE, Douay-Rheims, NAB, and the NJB.

The following translations translate “Dan-jaan”: KJV, NIV, NKJV, NLB, CSB, Darby, Geneva, JPS, Webster, and Young.

Another proposal to deal with the anachronism is the view that Dan was the original name of the city, which was renamed Laish by the Sidonians after they conquered the city. Thus, when Abraham pursued the Mesopotamian kings, he went as far as Dan, a city that already existed in the days of the patriarchs.

Other scholars believe that the name Dan in Genesis 14:14 was substituted by an editor or a redactor for its older name Laish in order to reflect the new name of the city.

Some scholars have identified “Jaan” with Ijon, a city located north of Dan (cf 1 Kings 15:20). Others have identified Dan-jaan with Denyen, one of the groups that settled in Canaan at the time of the migration of the Sea Peoples.

These explanations do not solve the anachronism in Genesis 14:14. Thus, it is clear that someone other than Moses wrote Genesis 14:14. The attempt at explaining the anachronism has not been successful (click here to read an article on inerrancy that lists several possible explanations which have been developed to clarify the anachronism).

The book of Genesis is an anonymous book. The Bible never says that Moses wrote Genesis. It was Jewish tradition that attributed Mosaic authorship to the Pentateuch and Christians have adopted this tradition as a matter of fact. The Bible is the Word of God even if someone other than Moses wrote Genesis 14:14.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Genesis 14:14, Dan, Dan-jaan, Mosaic Authorship, Laish

Canaan in Patriarchal Times - Part 2

This post is a continuation of a study on the land of Canaan in patriarchal times. To read Part 1 of this post, click here.

Canaanite Temples

One of the most important features of a Canaanite city was its holy place. Canaanite holy places have been found in Byblos, Ras Shamra, Lachish, Hazor, and Megiddo. Canaanite temples were conceived as the house for the god whose presence was symbolized by a statue of the deity or a sacred object representing the god or goddess.

Many Canaanite temples were tripartite: each had an open court, an inner room (the holy place) and a holy of holies. The Canaanites also built altars on hill tops all over the area. The Old Testament declares, that like the Canaanites, the Israelites began to worship Canaanite gods “on every high hill and under every green tree” (Jeremiah 2:20; 3:6 NRSV).

Associated with the Canaanite temples and shrines were the men and women who served as cultic functionaries called “the holy ones.” These were male and female cultic prostitutes who played a central role in the fertility religion of the Canaanites. The prophet Hosea decried these pagan practices when he proclaimed that in their apostasy, the men of Israel “consort with harlots, and sacrifice with shrine prostitutes” (Hosea 4:14).

Sacred or cultic prostitution was practiced in order to ensure the fertility of the land. Fertility of the field, flock, and family was thought to depend upon the sexual relations between Baal and Anath (or Asherah). According to a pattern of sympathetic magic, the worshipers of Baal imitated the actions they desired Baal to perform. Thus male and female worshipers engaged in sacred sexual acts in the temple in order to assure for themselves the blessings of nature.

Another practice associated with Canaanite holy places was child sacrifice. Children were offered to the Canaanite gods as the supreme sacrifice and as a demonstration of faith by the worshiper

Canaanite Religion

Canaanite religion became a serious menace to later Israelites. Archaeology has greatly contributed to the understanding of Canaanite religion. The religious texts discovered at Ras Shamra (Ugarit), near the Mediterranean coast of Syria, have provided a remarkable picture of the religion of the Canaanites, of their gods and goddesses, temples and religious rituals. Canaanite religion was a fertility cult. Canaanite fertility religion revolved around the sexual relationship among the gods and goddesses. The Canaanite Pantheon consisted of many gods and goddesses.

El. The Ugaritic texts identify El as the chief god in the Canaanite pantheon. He was the father of the 70 gods. He was also the creator of humanity and of the physical universe. El was a Semitic word that means “god.” In the Ras Shamra texts, El is depicted as a benevolent and merciful god but also as an old man and quite inactive.

Asherah. Asherah was El’s consort and mother of all the gods. She is called “The Lady, Asherah of the sea.” Asherah was also the goddess of fertility and her symbol was the wooden pole. This tree, also known as “the tree of life, ” represented the procreative power of the goddess. Asherah appears in the Ras Shamra texts as Athirat.

Baal. In the Ras Shamra texts, Baal was the active and great god of the Canaanite pantheon. Baal was the god of rain and fertility. His name means “master,” “owner.” Baal was also known as “the rider of the clouds” because he was the god who brought rain and lighting.

Anath. Anath appears in the Canaanite text as the consort of Baal. She is also presented as the goddess of war and sexuality. The image of Anath is these stories is one of beauty and terror since she goes against those who oppose Baal. Even Mot, the god of death, was no match for her ferocity. Anath killed Mot because he had killed Baal. The texts also praise her beauty. Anath was referred to as the most beautiful among the sisters of Baal. Anath does not appear in the Old Testament. Her name appears as part of some place names, such as Anathoth, the hometown of the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:1) and as the name of Shamgar’s father, one of the judges of Israel (Judges 3:31).

Cultic Objects

Several cultic objects were associated with Canaanite religion. The bamoth was the high places were shrines and altars to Baal were built. The asherah was the wooden pole representing the goddess Asherah. The bull was a symbol of fertility and was used to represent both El and Baal. The worshipers of Baal wore special garments in the worship of their god. These garments identified a person as a follower of Baal ( 2 Kings 23:7; 2 Kings 10:22).

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had many contacts with the people who lived in the land of Canaan. They would have heard and known about El and Asherah, Baal and Anath and the other deities that formed part of the Canaanite pantheon. They were familiar with the religious beliefs and practices of the people of land. But in the midst of the religious fervor present in Canaanite society, the patriarchs remained firm in their faith in the one true God. Each of them had to deal with the implications of living among the Canaanites and yet not being willing to compromise their faith and commitment to the true God.

God’s request in Genesis 22 is to be understood in the context of commitment and compromise . The Old Testament attests that human sacrifice was practiced among the Canaanites. The sacrifice of the firstborn is attested in Canaanite religious texts. Abraham may have understood God’s request in the context that child sacrifice was a popular practice among the people who lived in the land of Canaan. But the request was a test of Abraham’s faith, not a misguided response by Abraham to popular Canaanite religious practice. Contrary to the practices of the Canaanites, human sacrifice was not a possibility for the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 12: 29-31).
To the patriarchs, Canaan was the land of promise; it was “a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8). Moses, in his farewell address to the new generation of Israelites who were about to enter the land, extolled the land of Canaan for its riches and abundance. He said:

“For the LORD your God is bringing you into a good land—a land with streams and pools of water, with springs flowing in the valleys and hills; a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey; a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills” (Deut. 8:7-9).

That was the land the Lord was giving the Israelite as their inheritance, the land of Canaan.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Canaanites, Canaan, Patriarchs, Baal, Asherah, Ras Shamra

Note: The article was originally published in the Biblical Illustrator (Fall 2000), pp. 3, 7-10. To subscribe to the Biblical Illustrator visit www.Lifeway.com.

Canaan in Patriarchal Times - Part 1

The book of Genesis says that after Abraham left the land of his ancestors and came to the place God promised to him as an inheritance, “the Canaanites were in the land” (Genesis 12:6 NIV). When Abraham came to Canaan, the Canaanites were a settled people with a highly advanced society. In the Old Testament, the word “Canaan” was used to designate the land west of the Jordan River, and the word “Canaanites” was the general name given to the non-Israelite inhabitants of the land. In addition, the word Canaan appears in several passages in the Bible and is translated in different ways: “traffickers” (Isaiah 23:8 KJV; “traders” NIV); “the merchant city” (Isaiah 23:11 KJV); “merchant” (Hosea 12:7 KJV, NIV), and “merchant people” (Zephaniah 1:11 KJV; “merchants” NIV). The identification of the Canaanites as well as the meaning of the word “Canaan” has been a source of debate among scholars.

Name

The meaning of the word “Canaan” is not clear. Some scholars believe that Canaan means “lowland,” a meaning derived from an Aramaic word meaning “to be low.” The appearance of the word kinahhu (“red purple”) in the Nuzi tablets led scholars to equate the word Canaan with the purple dye made by the Phoenicians and to translate Canaan as “purple.”

William F. Albright suggested that the word Canaan originally meant “a merchant” and secondarily “purple merchant.” The Greeks adopted the name “Canaan” for this area and called it Phoenicia, a name that has its origin in a Greek word which also means “purple.” Thus, the land of Canaan was known as “the land of purple.”

Origins

According to the genealogies in Genesis, Canaan was the fourth son of Ham and the grandson of Noah (Genesis 9:18). Canaan then became the eponymous ancestor of eleven sons, who eventually became known as the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, the original name of Palestine: “Canaan became the father of Sidon his firstborn, and Heth and the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites” (Genesis 10:15-18 NRSV).

Sidon represents the Phoenicians; Heth was one of the Hittites who lived in the hill country during patriarchal times. The Jebusites lived in Jerusalem; the Amorites were one of the pre-Israelites inhabitants of Canaan. The word “Amorites” is used to designate the people who lived in the hill country in contrast with the Canaanites, the people who lived in cities.

The Hivites probably were the Horites of the Bible (Genesis 14:6). All of the other sons of Canaan named in Genesis appear either in Old Testament lists mentioning the original inhabitants of the land (Exodus 3:8; Deuteronomy 7:1; Joshua 3:10; 24:11) or in extant texts of the period.

Since the number of the Canaanite nations fluctuates between six (Exodus 3:8, 17; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 9:1) and seven (Deuteronomy 7:1; Joshua 3:10; 24:11), it is quite possible that the word “Canaanites” in the Old Testament designates a social group rather than an ethnic group. As Eugene H. Merrill said: “Inasmuch as the number seven is commonly used to speak of totality, it is possible that the people listed here [Deuteronomy 7:1] represent all the inhabitants of the land no matter their nationality or ethnic identity.”

The genealogy of the sons of Canaan in Genesis seems to indicate that these groups were subdivisions of the Canaanites according to geographical order. The relationship between the Canaanites and the Amorites is unusual. The Amorites were one of the most important Semitic groups at the beginning of the second millennium B.C.

The Old Testament practically uses the terms “Canaanites” and “Amorites” as synonymous (see Genesis 15:15-16; Joshua 24:15, 18). According to John Bright, the Amorites arrived in Palestine around 2300 B.C. Their conquest of the land and their amalgamation with the existing population of the land gave rise to the Canaanite culture that appeared in Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age.

Geography

According to the biblical evidence, Canaan was the land west of the Jordan, in the areas known as Syria-Palestine. The Canaanites lived in the territory that extended “from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha” (Genesis 10:19).

According to Numbers 34:2-12, the land of Canaan, in its full extent (v. 2, RSV), was from the Brook of Egypt (Wadi El Arish) to the entrance of Hamath (34:5, 8). Possibly that the word “Canaan” was first applied to the area known as Phoenicia. This is reflected in Isaiah 23:11, where the New International Version uses “Phoenicia” to translate the word “Canaan.” With the passing of time, the word was used to designate the whole territory west of the Jordan, including the Phoenician cities of Sidon and Tyre (modern-day Lebanon) and southwest Syria. As a matter of fact, Sidon, the ancient Phoenician city, was named after Sidon, the first son of Canaan.

Canaanite Language

The language of the Canaanites belongs to a family of language known as Semitic languages. In the area of Mesopotamia, the ancient peoples of Babylonia and Assyria spoke Akkadian. In the areas of Syria and Israel, the original inhabitants spoke Aramaic and Canaanite.

One of the languages of the Canaanites was called Ugaritic. This dialect appears in the text found at Tell Ras Shamra, the site of the ancient city of Ugarit. The Israelites of the patriarchal times spoke “the language of Canaan” (Isaiah 19:18). The language of the Bible, Hebrew, was a dialect of Canaanite, a language similar to the language spoken by the Phoenicians, the Moabites, and the Edomites.

Canaanite Culture

The Canaanites were originally organized into city states. Each city was an independent monarchy headed by a king (see Joshua 10:3). Canaanite society has been compared with feudalism. The king was the head of Canaanite society. He owned large properties, was the head of the military, and the person responsible for the economic and religious life of the nation. Canaanite economy was basically agricultural but the Phoenicians were involved in trade and commerce. For this reason, the name “Canaan” became in later times, a synonym for merchant (Job 41:6; Proverbs 31:24).

The Canaanites lived in walled cities. They possessed horses trained for war, chariots of iron, many items of silver and gold, and much cattle. However, agriculture was the backbone of Canaanite economy. The agricultural year began in late autumn as the farmers anticipated the heavy rain (the “autumn rains” of the Old Testament, Joel 2:23) that fell at the end of October and in the beginning of November.

Barley and wheat were the two main cereal crops cultivated. The vineyard would be cultivated after the heavy rains. The Gezer Calendar, a limestone plaque from Gezer from about the time of Solomon (10th century B.C.) gives the agricultural calendar for the twelve months of the year in Palestine.

Canaanite cities at the time of the patriarchs were generally located on easily defended rock-spur or some prominent elevation in the plains, always near a reliable source of water. There the Canaanites built permanent houses and dug and lined pits for storage for the grain they harvested.

For the defense of their cities they built walls of bricks or stones. In some cities a moat was dug to provide additional protection against an enemy assault. Water supply was vital for the survival of a city. Thus, the well-being of a city depended on the protection of the source of water during times of war. If a spring of water was outside the city, the city wall would be extended to include the spring or the water from the spring might be brought inside the walls by means of a tunnel.

To be continued.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Canaanites, Canaan, Patriarchs

Isaiah 7:14 and the TNIV Reconsidered

On October 28, 2006 I posted a link to Christopher Heard’s post in which he described the problems he had encountered in the TNIV translation of the Bible. In my post, I included Chris’ interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 and his criticism of how the TNIV translated that verse.

In response to my post, Peter Kirk chided me for accepting uncritically the way Chris interpreted Isaiah 7:14. Peter pointed out some problems with Chris’ interpretation and the way he interpreted the text.

In response to Peter’s comments, I have decided to review some of the issues in the biblical text in light of Chris’ interpretation and Peter’s comments.

הרה (harah):

Chris said: “הרה (harah) is a perfect aspect form of the verb ‘to conceive, to become pregnant.’”

Peter said: “But in fact it cannot be, because the perfect form with a feminine subject would have to be הרתה (haretah), so this must in fact be the feminine adjective הרה (harah) ‘pregnant.’”

Peter is correct. According to BDB (p. 248), the word הרה (harah) is indeed an adjective derived from the verb הרה (harah). As Peter pointed out, and as BDB also shows, the Qal perfect third feminine form of the verb הרה (harah) is הרתה (haretah), as it appears in Genesis 16:4, 5.

וילדת (weyoledet):

Chris said: “She has not delivered the child yet, as indicated by the use of ילד (yalad, ‘to bear, to give birth’) in the imperfect aspect.”

Peter said: “also he claims that וילדת (weyoledet) is “the imperfect aspect”, when in fact it is clearly a participle, and cannot even be repointed as a finite verb.”

Peter is also correct. According to BDB (p. 408), the word is a Qal active participle feminine singular of ילד (yalad). The form for the Qal imperfect third feminine is תלד (teled), as it appears in Genesis 17:17.

Peter also mentions the use of הנה (hinneh) to introduce the clause. In this he is also correct. Gesenius, in his discussion of the perfect with waw consecutive (§ 112 t) said: “this use of the perfect consecutive is especially frequent after a participle introduced by הנה, e. g. ... Is 7:14.”

A grammatical study of the text reveals the following:

1. The definite article that follows the world עלמה (‘almah) indicates that the maiden was a specific person known to both Isaiah and Ahab. Gesenius (§ 126 r) says the use of the definite article may also indicate a person who was unknown. Thus, according to him, the word could be translated a maiden.

2. The adjective form of the word הרה (harah) indicates that the woman is already pregnant.

3. The participle form of ילד (yalad) indicates that the woman will give birth in the near future.

The translation of Isaiah 7:14 should read:

Behold, the young woman is pregnant and will give birth to a son, and she will call his name Immanu-El.

Thus, the proper understanding of Isaiah’s words to Ahaz must include the context of the Syro-Ephraimite War. If the word ‘almah is correctly understood as a young woman of marriageable age who is already with child, then the birth of the child must be also understood as a natural conception.

If Isaiah’s oracle is to have any meaning to Ahaz and his contemporaries, that within two or three years both Israel and Damascus would be carried away to exile, then Immanuel must be identified with Isaiah’s son and the events narrated in Isaiah 8.

The exile of parts of the Northern Kingdom is introduced in 2 Kings 15:29:

In the days of Pekah king of Israel Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria came and captured Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried the people captive to Assyria.

The exile of Damascus in the days of Rezin is narrated in 2 Kings 16:9:

The king of Assyria marched up against Damascus, and took it, carrying its people captive to Kir, and he killed Rezin.

The deportation of Israel and Damascus came in fulfillment of Isaiah’s words in Isaiah 7:16:

For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.

The following are the parallels between Isaiah 7 and Isaiah 8:

Isaiah 7

1. The almah shall conceive, 7:14
2. Before the child knows good and evil, 7:16
3. Call his name Immanuel, 7:14
4. Immanuel, 7:14
5. The Lord will give you a sign, 7:14
6. Before the child is old the land will be desolate, 7:16
   

Isaiah 8

1. The prophetess conceived, 8:3
2. Before the child cries father and mother, 8:9
3. O, Immanuel, 8:8
4. For God is with us, 8:10
5. The children the Lord gave me are signs, 8:18
6. Damascus and Samaria shall be carried away, 8:4
   

How can Christians reconcile Isaiah’s message to Ahaz and the people living in the eighth century B.C. with the New Testament teaching that the prophet’s words found fulfillment in Christ? John N. Oswalt, in his book, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 211, provides an explanation that helps Christians reconcile how the oracle could be applied to Ahaz and to the birth of Christ. Oswalt wrote:

On the other hand, the very two-sidedness of the sign in Ahaz's time demanded something more. Yes, the disappearance of Syria and Ephraim could be seen as evidence that God was with them. But what of Assyria, foolishly trusted and soon to turn on its hapless client? Was God still with them in that? And suppose even greater powers than Assyria strode onto the world’s stage, what then? If we can believe that the transcendent One is really immanent, and the immanent One truly transcendent, then there is reason to live courageously and unselfishly. But no child born to a young woman in Ahaz’s day is proof of God’s presence in all times. But if a virgin overshadowed by God's Spirit should conceive and give birth, it would not only be a sign of God's presence with us. Better than that, it would be the reality of that experience. So Ahaz’s sign must be rooted in its own time to have significance for that time, but it also must extend beyond that time and into a much more universal mode if its radical truth is to be any more than a vain hope. For such a twofold task ‘almah is admirably suited.

In his comment to my post, Jeremy asked: “Why did the LXX translators translate [‘almah] the way they did, then?” The answer to this question has always been given in terms of explaining the different forms and meanings of the words for “virgin.” However, I believe that the use of the Greek word parthenos (virgin) in Isaiah 7:14 has more to do with sociological issues than with semantics.

In Hebrew society, a young woman of marriageable age would be a virgin, but the same would not be true of many women in Greek society. The translators of the LXX could have translated ‘almah with the Greek word parthenos (virgin) in Exodus 2:8 and Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8, but they did not.

The use of parthenos in the LXX of Isaiah 7:14 was probably to emphasize that the woman who would bear a son was still a virgin, thus the emphasis that she “shall conceive in her womb and will give birth to a son.” According to the translators, all the events in the life of this young woman are still future, therefore, she was a virgin. However, the view that the pregnancy is still in the future departs from the message that Isaiah preached to Ahaz.

In conclusion, Chris’ interpretation of the grammar of the text was not correct. Peter is correct in saying that Chris made “elementary errors” in his discussion of Isaiah 7:14. Chris’ conclusion about the interpretation of the text was correct but his exegesis of text was not.

I apologize to my readers for following Chris’ exegesis uncritically.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: TNIV, Immanuel, Virgin Birth, Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:28, Ahaz,

A Response to John Kerry

By now, everyone knows what Senator John Kerry said about our soldiers in Iraq. If you do not, here are his words:

You know, education, if you make the most of it, and you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.

Well, here is the response of some soldiers in Iraq:












Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tag: John Kerry

Biblical Studies Carnival XI

The Biblical Studies Carnival is a monthly review of blogs in the area of academic biblical studies.  Each month the Biblical Studies Carnival selects the best posts dealing with academic biblical studies.  For more information about the Biblical Studies Carnival, visit the Carnival’s home page by clicking here.

Biblical Studies Carnival XI was hosted by Michael Pahl’s at the stuff of earth. Michael has selected the best posts published in October related to academic biblical studies.  Visit Michael’s page and read more about the articles selected for the Biblical Studies Carnival XI.   These posts show the quality of the work being published by bibliobloggers.  My article on “Yahweh and the Other Gods” was among the posts selected by Michael.

Biblical Studies Carnival XII will showcase the best posts in November and it will be hosted by Jim West in the first week of December 2006.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary