Transcript OT4definitions

Definition: “Jew” “Judaism”
• The term Jew(ish) can be traced back through the Latin judaeus
and Greek ‘iodaios to the Hebrew Yehudi, which once referred to
citizens of the Southern Kingdom of Judah who survived the fall of
the Northern Kingdom of Israel (Ephraim) in 721 B.C.E. The term
gained currency, however, during the period of the Exile and the
period after the return. During the pre-exilic period, we refer to
the residents of Judah and Israel as “Judeans” and “Israelites.”
During the postexilic period, the term Jews was used to refer to
subjects of the Persian province of Judah ( Neh. 1:2) and later to
the state established by the Maccabean leaders (1 Mac. 8:20) The
term was not geographically limited, however, for Jews who were
“dispersed” or scattered in countries outside Judah, such as
Babylonia or Egypt, continued to cherish their Judean background
and ties. Those who did not share this “Jewish” identity were
regarded as belonging to “the nations” ( Isa. 61:5-9), that is, the
gentiles.
Definition: “Jew” “Judaism”
• Nationality is not the decisive factor in being a “Jew,” as evident
from the fact that many Jews today are not citizens of the state of
Israel. In biblical times, the decisive factor was religion, specifically
the conviction that God had entered into special relationship with
the people and called them to be “separate” by virtue of their
distinctive way of life.
• The term Judaism is conventionally applied to the religion of the
Judeans or “Jews,” among whom the covenant faith came to new
expression after the collapse of the nation in 587 B.C.E. The term is
not found in the Hebrew Bible,; it seems to have been coined in
later Hellenistic circles of the Diaspora or “Dispersion” ( see Gal. 1:
13-14). In any case, the Exile marked the beginning of a completely
new chapter in the history of Israel’s faith. It is proper to reserve
the terms Jews and Judaism for the new phase of Israel’s life story.
Definition: Tetrateuch,” “Pentateuch,”
“Hexateuch”
• These terms, from the Greek tetra ( four), penta (five), and hexa
(six), frequently figure in discussions about the first four, five or six
books of the Bible, One view maintains that the book of Joshua,
which deals with the inheritance of the land, constitues the climax
and conclusion to the story found in the Pentateuch. Thus a
“Hexateuch” give us traditions that run continuously form Genesis
through Joshua.1 Another view is that the old account of the
occupation of the land has been lost, except for the fragmentary
report of settlement in Transjordan (Num. 32). This gives us a
“Tetrateuch” separate from Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic
History in Joshua through Kings. Advocates of this view argue that
Deuteronomistic influence is scarcely evident in the first four books
of the Old Testament, while the Deuteronomistic style and
viewpoint become dominant thereafter. 2
Definition: “Tetrateuch,” “Pentateuch,”
“Hexateuch”
• The importance of the argument for our study is that
the Priestly Writing is essentially a “Tetrateuch” that
extends from Genesis through Numbers, plus a passage
at the end of Deuteronomy about Moses’ death ( Deut.
34, which resumes the story from the end of the book
of Numbers). Apparently, the Priestly writers felt that
the climax of the story was the revelation at Sinai, not
the story of conquest of Canaan.
• 1 See Gerhard von Rad’s seminal essay, “The Formcritical Problem of the Hexateuch” [233].
• 2 This view is championed by Martin Noth in The
Deuteronomistic History [ 323].
Definition: “Redeemer”
• The special word for “Redeemer” ( Hebrew: go’el) has
many nuances in the Old Testament. The word came
originally from the realm of family law. It was the duty of
the go’el ( next of kin) to vindicate a family member whose
“justice” was threatened or violated. If the family member
was forced to sell property for some reason, the go’el- the
“redeemer”- was obligated to buy it and keep it in the
family if at all possible. A good illustration is Jeremiah’s
purchase of the ancestral estate in Anathoth during the
Babylonian siege ( Jer. 32:6-12; see pp. 384-385). The story
of Ruth presents another example of how property
redemption worked out in practice ( Ruth 4:3-9). In the
case of murder, it was the obligation of the go’el to obtain
justice for the deceased family member by taking revenge;
in this case the “redeemer was to be the “blood avenger” (
Hebrew: go’el haddam; compare to Num. 35:19; Josh
20:3,9).
Definition: “Redeemer”
• The practice of blood revenge was abandoned
early in Israelite history, but the belief
survived that, at a higher level, God is the
“Redeemer” who vindicates the justice of the
people. This in turn led to the larger question
of theodicy; the question of whether God
actually acts to vindicate the rights of the
weak and oppressed. It was Job, above all,
who appealed to God to be his go’el and to
vindicate his justice (see Chapter 17).
Definition: “Rahab,” “Sea”
• Our study has frequently referred to the chaos monster
or “dragon” that was slain by the Divine Warrior at the
time of Creation. This motif is found in the Babylonian
creation myth the Enuma Elish, which tells how the
young warrior-god, Marduk, overcame the powers of
the Heavenly Council, resulted in the separation of the
upper and lower parts of Tiamat’s body and thus the
limitation of the spheres of heaven and earth. The
mythical victory was not decisive, however. In the
annual rotation of the seasons, the powers of chaos
seemed to get the upper hand as springtime fertility
was overtaken by winter barrenness. Hence the “myth
of the eternal return” 1 was celebrated each New Year,
when the Divine Warrior again won a victory over the
powers of chaos.
Definition “Rahab,” “Sea”
• This myth was known in various forms in the
ancient world. The Western Semitic name for the
chaos monster is Rahab ( Isa 51:9; see also Job
9:13, 26:12; Ps. 89:10) or Leviathan (Ps. 74:14,
104:26; Isa. 27:1). Sometimes the powers of
chaos are described merely as Sea ( Hebrew:
Yam), or Abyss ( Hebrew:Tehom), “mighty
waters,” or “floods.” Similar language is found in
ancient Canaanite (ugaritic) mythology, where
the sky-god Baal enters into conflict with Sea (
Yamm) or subdues Leviathan (L-t-n), described as
a fleeing, twisting serpent (compare Isa. 27:1) 2
Definition “Rahab,” “Sea”
• Celebrations of this myth portrayed the divine
maintenance of the ordered cosmos against the
powers of disorder. As the representative of the
god, the king was empowered to maintain order
in the mundane realm and to put down enemies
that threatened the social order. Israel also used
this motif in various ways to express faith in the
supreme Ruler, God, who is Creator and Liberator.
• 1 See Mircea Eliade, Cosmos and History: The
Myth of the Eternal Return [173]
• 2 See further B.W. Anderson, “The Slaying of the
Fleeing, Twisting Serpent,” in From Creation to
New Creation [181], chap 12
Definition: “Aramaic”
• During the postexilic period, the Aramaic language gradually
became the common tongue of the Jewish people. Keep in mind,
however, that Aramaic was at least as old as Hebrew, and both
belonged to a common family of Semitic languages. The differences
and seminaries between them were like those between modern
Romance languages such as Spanish and Italian. This kinship of
language might help to explain the close relations that existed
between the Aramean (Syrian) and Hebrew people, as reflected in
the ancestral stories of Jacob and Laban.
• In the ancient Mediterranean world, Aramaic commanded great
international prestige. When the Rabshakeh came to demand the
surrender of Jerusalem in the time of Isaiah (see pp. 318-319) he
was asked to speak in Aramaic rather than in the native tongue of
the Judeans. During and after the Exile, the Persian authorities used
Aramaic as an international language in addressing the satrapies,
thereby enhancing its importance (Isa 36:11;2 Kings 18:26).
Definiton: “Aramaic”
• Gradually, the Jews came to thing of Hebrew as a
literary or classical language. But in Palestine and
throughout the Dispersion (for instance, at
Elephantine) their spoken language was Aramaic.
Thus, well before the Common Era, Hebrew
scripture has to be accompanies by a targum- a
free translation into Aramaic- to enable ordinarily
Jews to understand it. Moreover, the Babylonian
Talmud, a voluminous collection of writings
(compiles about 600 C.E.) that set forth Jewish
religious and civil law, was written in an eastern
branch of the Aramaic language.
Definition: “Halakha,” “Haggada”
• The Hebrew word torah cannot be translated adequately by the
English word law. Torah, we found, as two dimensions; story and
stipulation. The people who have been liberated are under obligation
to walk in the way that is consonant with the action and will of their
redeeming God. In later rabbinic discussion, found in the
comprehensive work know as the deeming God. In later rabbinic
discussions, found in the comprehensive work known as the Talmud,
these two dimensions were designated by the terms haggada (from a
Hebrew word meaning “tell, relate”) and halakha ( from a verb
meaning, “to walk, go”).
• The postexilic period witnessed a great development of the halakhic or
legal dimension of Torah. The books of Chronicles omit the whole
Exodus tradition, concentrating instead on the royal (messianic)
theology with its twin pillars of kingship and Temple. The “Torah of
YHWH” of the “torah of Moses” refers primarily to the
“commandments” and “statutes” that guide the people in their cultic
and social life ( such as 1Chron. 22:12-13; 2 Chron. 14:4, 23:18). In later
phases of the Chroniclers’ Work found in Ezra-Nehemiah, the Mosaic
revelation receives greater emphasis, but the accent continues to fall
on the aspect of the Torah.
Definition: “Halakha,” “Hagada”
• Such a shift in emphasis is understandable in
insecure times, when people needed guidance in
the way that they should “walk” and the lifestyle
that distinguished them as a community.
Nevertheless, it is wrong to regard Judaism as a
“religion of law” in the narrowly halakhic or legal
sense for, as shown by the book of EzraNehemiah, the narrative or haggadic side of
Israel’s faith was never forgotten. Indeed, as we
have seen already in the book of Exodus, the two
dimensions are interrelated.
Definition: “Psalms,” “Psalter”
• The title “the book fo Psalms” actually comes from the New
Testament ( Luke 20:42; Acts 1:20). The early Christian
community read Israel’s scriptures in the Greek translation
of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint. There the prevailing
title was psalmoi, referring to “songs” sung to the
accompaniment of stringed instruments. Another title
psalterion, found in one codex of the Greek Bible, refers
primarily to a zitherlike instrument and secondarily to
songs sung to stringed accompaniment. From this title
comes the term Psalter.
• Whereas the Greek terms psalmoi and psalterion
emphasize the musical dimension of the psalms, the Herew
title Tehilim (“praise”) stresses their content. Indeed, in
whatever mood or mode, these songs are praises to god.
Definition: “Form Criticism”
•
•
•
•
•
The literary approach known as “form criticism” include three types of study.
First, one determines the bounds of a particular literary unit of pericope
(Greek: “ a cutting all around”). This suggests that a passage, when cut out of
its context, ahs its own literary integrity: a definite beginning and end, internal
structure and dynamic, and a self-contained meaning ( a parable would be a
good example).
Second, one attempts to understand the function of the literary unit in its
setting in life ( German Sitz im Leben),perhaps in everyday affairs ( a wedding
song or a funeral dirge) or, as in the case of the Psalms, in community worship.
Third, one assumes that these literary unites which reflect general human
experiences, display formulaic patterns and literary conventions evident
elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible or in other literature of the ancient Near East.
Therefore, a study of analogous literary forms can be illuminating.
Closely related to form criticism is the method known as “rhetorical criticism,”
which concentrates on the stylistic features and literary patterns of a text
rather than on the social setting or historical context. 1
1 See James Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond” [103]
Definition: “Ascription”
• An “ascription” is a grammatical form in which a narrative clause
follows-or even takes the place of- the divine Name, for the
purpose of identifying who God is as known trough divine actions.
In the Bible, ascriptions are usually formulated grammatically either
by using the relative pronoun (“who”) or a participle referring to
the actor ( or action), as in Psalm 136 ( translated “ the One who”).
Other examples are found in Psalm 103:3-5 and in hymnic passages
of Second Isaiah ( such as Isa. 44: 24-28).
• Ascriptions often belong to hymnic style because the hymn praises
God by telling what God ahs done, is doing, or will do. A story that
identifies who God is can be reduced to a single sentence, as in the
prologue to the Decalouge: “ I am YHWH your God, who brought
you out of the land of Egypt.” 1
• 1 See futher James T. Clemons. “God, Ascriptions to’ in International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia [38] II, pp. 503-04
Definition: “Theodicy”
• Theodicy- the philosophical explanation of God’s ways- is an important
issue in dealing with the problem of suffering and evil. Coined by the
German philosopher Leibniz (1646-1716), the term is composed of the
Greek words theos (“God”) and dike (“justice, righteousness”). It refers
to attempts to give a rational explanation of god’s justice in allowing
evil to exist I an world under divine control.
• Beginning with ancient Greek philosophy, human reason has
attempted to justify or vindicate the ways of God. If, as in Aristotle’s
philosophy, God is the summit of being ( imagine a triangle
representing “being,” with God at the apex), then reason, which
human beings share with the divine, should be able to achieve an
intelligible and comprehensive view of the whole. The philosopher
Immanuel Kant (1724-1801) stood within this tradition but, in On the
Failure of All Philosophical Attempts in Theodicy, attempted to show
the limitations of reason. Not surprisingly, this work devotes
considerable space to interpreting the book of Job
Definition: “Theodicy”
• The book of Job presents a challenge to rational
theodicy from the perspective of Israelite
wisdom. God is neither the summit of being nor a
process or entity within the phenomenal world.
Rather, God is the Creator who transcends the
whole creation- the One who originated and
sustains all being ( Aristotle’s “triangle”). In this
perspective, the sense of mystery is not capable
of rational explanation, but is a fundamental
datum of faith that responds in amazement and
wonder to the holiness of God
Definition: “Son of Man”
• Daniel 7 introduces an important motif of apocalyptic
literature. The original Aramaic, bar ‘anash, literally means
“ a son of man.” Elsewhere in the Old Testament a
comparable expression is sometimes used to refer to “a
human being.” For example, the King James Version
translates Psalm 8:4 “What is man, that thou art mindful of
him, and the son of man, that thou visitest him?”
• The Hebrew expression ben ‘adam, translated “son of
man,” really means a mortal person for “son” is an
idiomatic way of referring to a member of a class. Examples
of this idiomatic usage are “sons of the prophets,” or a
prophetic company ( Hebrew: benei ha ‘elohim; see Job
1:6). The book of Ezekiel frequently uses the same
expression, with special emphasis, to highlight the mortal
weakness and finite humanity of the prophet in contrast to
the holy, majestic deity of YHWH.
Definition: “Son of Man”
•
•
•
The expression has a special linguistic function in the context of Daniel’s
apocalyptic vision. First, we are dealing with a similitude: “one like” a human
being, in contrast to the oppressive empires that are like beasts. Second, this
human-like figure is a heavenly being, one who comes transcendently “ with the
clouds of heaven,” in contrast to the beasts who emerge form the sea, the locus of
the powers of chaos. It would be erroneous to literalize the symbolism and think of
the offspring ( “son”) of a man or even a “human one.”
In an apocalyptic writing know as “The Book of Enoch,” based on a tradition
reaching back into a time before the Common Era ( first century B.C.E.), there are
references to a figure of the end-time, “the Son of Man,” who comes to establish
God’s kingdom ( Enoch 46:1; 48:2-10). In the Jewish apocalypse called II Esdras ( or
Fourth Ezra/ Fourth Esdras), found in the Apocrypha and dating from the close of
the first century B.C.E., a vision is described in which Ezra sees emerging out of the
sea “as it were the likeness of a man [ human being]” who flies on the clouds of
heaven ( Esdras 13). This figure is understood to be the heavenly agent o fGod’s
judgment in the last days. “Son of Man” or “The Heavenly Being” is often used in
this messianic sense in the gospels of the New Testament ( as Mark 8:31)
For the Enoch literature, see the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha editions by R.H.
Charles [6] and James Charlesworth [8].
Definition: “Canonical Criticism”
• In connection with the discussion of Ezra as the architect of Judaism ( see
Chapter 15), we touched briefly on the question of canon ( literally
“measuring line” or “rule”). Referring to sacred writings that conform to
the “rule” of a community’s faith and practice. This narrow definition,
however, hardly does justice to the biblical canon or to recent discussions
about “canonical criticism’ in scholarly circles.
• Two views of “canonical criticism” have emerged. The first, championed by
Brevard Childs, 1 emphasizes the final form of a biblical book or canonical
unit ( such as a Pentateuch). By “final form” Childs does not mean the
form given to a writing by a redactors who revised given materials for a
new situation in the life of the people. That kind of study, or other
historical criticism ( such as a source, form, stylistic/rhetorical) might have
value in helping us to understand the prehistory of the final text. But
Childs contends that to read a book in “canonical context” is to read it as it
was shaped by the community of faith through use in worship and
teaching, that is, as “scripture” in which God’s word is mediated through
the given written form. Thus, for example the Pentateuch ( Torah) is to be
read “holistically” as a work in which the parts are related to one another
and hence as a work in which the whole is greater than the sum of the
parts
Definition: “Canonical Criticism”
• The second view, advocated by James Sanders, 2 emphasizes
“the canonical process”: the whole sweep of Israel's history of
traditions in which the word of God comes to the situations in
history. To be sure, “canonical criticism is very interested in what
a believing community had in mind at that passing moment
when the final form was achieved.” But once the text is fixed in
its final form, the community finds a way “ to break it down to
reapply to their purposes and needs.
There were “Periods of intense canonical process,” such as the
period after the fist fall of Jerusalem in the sixth century B.C.E.
and especially the period around the second fall of Jerusalem in
the firstly century C.E. But tradition, even when fixed in
scripture, always proved to be “adaptable for life” and hence
was able to answer for the believing community “the two
essential and existential question of identity and lifestyle” 3
Definition: “Canonical Criticism”
• Notice that the story/history approach of our
study leans more toward so-called canonical
process than to a hermeneutical stance that
places excessive weight upon the final
“scriptural” or “canonical” shape given the
traditions in the late period of biblical Judaism.
• 1Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old
Testament as Scripture [54].
• 2James a. Sanders, Torah and Canon [ 119] and
Canon and Community [ 120].
• 3Sanders, [120] pp. 28ff