Koinonia

Hebrew Corner 16: Jephthah’s Daughter

First, I just want to mention that this will be the last Hebrew Corner post (at least for awhile). After the holidays I will be starting a new series called "Bible Backgrounds" dealing with background issues from the ancient Near East that help us to interpret the Bible with fresh insights.

It would be difficult to find in the Bible a more tragic story than that of Jephthah and his daughter in Judges 11:29-40. The question arises from time to time whether he really sacrificed his daughter—perhaps he dedicated her to lifelong service in the sanctuary where she would have remained a virgin. Some of the arguments used are that the text emphasizes her mourning her virginity (seemingly not the biggest issue if she were being sacrificed), that Jephthah as a judge on whom the spirit had come would not do such a despicable thing, and that no priest would have officiated at such a sacrifice. These can be answered by noting how having children was important in their understanding of afterlife, and how depraved behavior was in the Judges period—even by judges and priests. We would note also that Jephthah hardly had grown up in an environment where he would have been instructed in the law.

All of this having been said, the real issue deals with some of the details of the Hebrew text, which is why this passage is included in our Hebrew corner today. There are two Hebrew elements to explore, both in 11:31. 

Hebrew Corner 15: Nineveh's Response

Jonah 3:5 describes the Ninevite response to the prophet’s oracle of judgment. NASB indicates that the Ninevites "believed in God," yet in many translations the rendering is "believed God" (NIV). Which is correct? What does this phrase convey about the spiritual state of the Ninevites?

It is not going to work to ask simply, "Is the Hebrew word for ‘in’ there or not?" The reason for this is that in English the collocation "believe in X" has become an idiomatic expression indicating a significant faith commitment. The same combination would not necessarily convey the same idiomatic force in another language. This is one of the things that makes translation so tricky.

If we want to understand this verse we have to apply two of the principles we have considered in previous entries.

Hebrew Corner 13: What is in a Name? (Isa 9:6) by John H. Walton

Since we are now in the advent season, it would be appropriate to explore one of the primary passages that is a topic for advent studies, Isaiah 9:6. In this passage there is a proclamation concerning the name of the ideal king. In Isaiah’s own time, this could have been part of a coronation ceremony for a new Davidic king. Even if that is the case, the oracle contained idealistic elements that expressed the hope for that eventual Davidic king who would fulfill the prophecies that all faithful Israelites longed for (see Isaiah 2:1-5 as well as the immediate context in Isaiah 9).

Hebrew Corner 12: Cain's Sacrifice by John H. Walton

In popular circles the tradition that Cain’s offering was unacceptable because it was not a blood sacrifice is still very common, despite the fact that no major evangelical commentary on Genesis in the last several decades endorses it. The offerings that Cain and Abel bring are described in the text by the term minhâ. In Leviticus, the minhâ is discussed in ch.2, where NIV translates it as "grain offering." Its purpose is simply to give a gift to honor deity, and is usually given in a context of celebration. It often accompanies an animal sacrifice, but usually is comprised of grain. Outside of ritual contexts, the term can be used in personal or political senses. In political contexts it refers to tribute paid from a vassal or subordinate state to the overlord (2 Kings 17:3-4). When individual persons are involved the term refers to a gift to give deference or honor (Gen 32:18; 43:11; 2 Kings 8:9). These usages are duplicated in cognates across the Semitic languages.

Consequently, it is clear that the problem with Cain’s sacrifice did not have anything to do with the absence of blood. Fruit and vegetable offerings would have been just as appropriate for a minhâ as animal offerings would have been. Additionally it should be noted that even Abel’s offering is described in terms of "fat portions" with no reference to blood. Finally, blood is usually used in the sacrificial system to accomplish kpr (NIV: "atonement"—see next week’s blog). Genesis 4 neither mentions a need for kpr nor the procurement of it for Abel. We must look elsewhere to identify the fault in Cain’s offering.

Adapted from J. Walton, Genesis (NIVAC)

John H. Walton (PhD, Hebrew Union College) teaches Old Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School. He is the author or coauthor of several books, including Chronological and Background Charts of the Old Testament and the forthcoming A Survey of the Old Testament (Third Edition).

Hebrew Corner 11: Divorce (Deut. 24:1-4) by John H. Walton

Last week we discussed the nature of the Hebrew stem system, the means by which the language indicates a variety of relationships between subject and object of the verb. This week, as we look at that troublesome passage in Deut. 24:1-4, we are going to find that it is an understanding of the stem system that helps us to sort out what is going on.

This is an intriguing passage in that it is the only legislation in the Pentateuch that has anything to say about divorce and remarriage. It therefore warrants our careful attention.

Hebrew Corner 10: The Blessing of Abraham on the Nations by John H. Walton

This week we are going to be dealing with some Hebrew verbal forms rather than a specific word study. Hebrew verbal roots may occur in a variety of "stems." These stems offer perspective about the relationship between the subject and the object. A qal stem is often active (someone ate something). A niphal of the same root is often passive (something was eaten by someone). A hiphil often indicates a causative element (someone fed something to someone, i.e., caused them to eat it). A hithpael is often reflexive—an action one does to oneself. There are others, but hopefully this gives the general idea to readers who may not know Hebrew.

An important principle of study is that when a verb that is to be studied occurs in the target passage in a particular stem, the initial study should be of the verb when it occurs in that stem (rather than its occurrences across all stems). In like manner, the root in one stem should be seen as offering a different nuance than the same root in another stem, because the stems have their individual roles to play. This becomes very important in the study of the occurrences of the verb "bless" (brk) in the covenant statements in Genesis.

Hebrew Corner 9: Curse and Bless by John H. Walton

Blessing and curse are common terms in Genesis from the initial blessing in Genesis 1 to the curses of Genesis 3, 4 and 9, and then to the juxtaposition of curse and blessing in Genesis 12:1-3. It is therefore important for us to know the nuances of each one. It is especially intriguing that in Genesis 12:3, there are two different Hebrew terms for curse.

Pain in Childbearing (Hebrew Corner 8) by John H. Walton

Today we want to look at an example where we have to consider the relationship of noun and verb forms. When Hebrew has nouns and verbs that are built out of the same root, the interpreter must be very cautious. What is known as the “root fallacy” is the mistake of thinking that if two words share the same root, then the meanings should be drawn together with each being informed by the other. This is a fallacy because it is simply not always true that words built out of the same root overlap in meaning (consider the English “adult” and “adultery”).

Having acknowledged that, however, it must also be admitted that sometimes there is an overlap in meaning. The synchronic method that we espouse contends that when we have nouns and verbs of the same root, each need to be studied in isolation from the other and the range of meaning developed independently. Based on those studies, the interpreter may then decide whether or not the words are located in the same range of meaning. The example I would like to use is the set of words deriving from the root ‘ṣb, with our target being an understanding of the opening lines of Genesis 3:16.

Hebrew Corner 7: When is forever not forever? by John H. Walton

In the Davidic Covenant the statement is made by God that “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Sam 7:13), and then “Your throne will be established forever” (2 Sam 7:16). These statements are often used to build some significant Messianic theology. Nevertheless, we cannot help but notice that in 1 Sam 2:30, the Lord (through a prophet) says to Eli, “’I promised that your house and your father’s house would minister before me forever.’ But now the Lord declares, ‘Far be it from me!’”

So what are we to make of this? Can the Lord discard a “forever” promise? The Hebrew expression is the same in all three places (‘ad ‘olam). We must take a look at the words before we jump to any rash conclusions in either passage.

Hebrew Corner 6: "God's Own Heart" by John H. Walton

In previous entries we have noted how a word used in combination with other words must be studied in that combination, not just as an individual unit. A good example of this is found in our study of 1 Samuel 13:14, where the NIV reads, “The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart.” The translation is nearly identical in the NLT, NASB, God’s Word, NRSV and ESV. The issue is not the translation, but the interpretation. This statement is often understood as a comment on David’s spiritual devotion or piety. As such, it often raises troubling questions, such as, “How could such a godly and devout man possibly commit some of the crimes recorded of David” (adultery, conspiracy to murder, mass murders as a Philistine mercenary, etc.)?

When we look into this Hebrew phrase, however, we will find that it points us in a different interpretive direction. Rather than indicating David’s spirituality it indicates the fact that David meets God’s criteria for kingship. He is a man of God’s choice. This stands in immediate contrast to Saul who met the criteria that were established by the people.

How do we know that the interpretation should go this direction?