Stanislav Segert (1921-2005)

Yesterday Bill Schniedewind of UCLA emailed with the sad news that UCLA's Prof. Stanislav Segert, the great scholar of the North-West Semitic languages, and my own venerated teacher and Doktorvater, died yesterday after a short hospitalization. He was 84.

Segert was the last great grammarian of the Semitic languages in the polymathic European tradition of Dillmann, Brockelmann, and Noeldeke. He is perhaps best known in the US for his textbook Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (1984), but in my opinion his finest work is his Altaramäische Grammatik (1975). He also wrote a fundamental Grammar of Phoenician and Punic (1976). Besides these works he wrote still unpublished grammars of Syriac and Biblical Aramaic for classroom use.

His hundreds of articles include many on the Qumran texts, and dozens more on aspects of Ugaritic studies. His study of the language of the Moabite stone ("Die Sprache der moabitischen Königinschrift," Archiv Orientalni, 1961) is still the best survey of that dialect.

Not only was Segert a great scholar, he was a great gentleman. His erudition was exceeded only by his courtesy, and any suggestion of scholarly hostility or odium theologicum caused him great pain. When someone in class once mentioned to him the falling out that had taken place between two European archaeologists, his only comment was, "Ah! Let us hope that no very great time will pass until they will once again be friends." His epitaph might well be: He died without enemies.

After Samuel Johnson died in 1784, William Hamilton wrote, "He has made a chasm which not only nothing can fill up, but which nothing has a tendency to fill up. Johnson is dead. Let us go to the next best. There is nobody; no man can be said to put you in mind of Johnson."

The same is true of Segert. He is gone, and he is irreplaceable. His books and articles remain for those to learn from who will; I will continue to study them, but even more than these, I will treasure the memory of his kindness and gentleness. As both a scholar and a man, he was a giant.


BIBLIOGRAPHY: Further biographical details and a full bibliography through 1989 can be found in the Festschrift Sopher Mahir: Northwest Semitic Studies Presented to Stanislav Segert (Eisenbrauns, 1990).

UPDATE (10/3): Jim Davila has added a personal tribute to Prof. Segert.

What Should We Talk About?

There's a biblioblogging session coming up in Philadelphia at the AAR-SBL meeting, as a session of the Computer Assisted Research Group. Two papers will be given, by Jim Davila and Rick Brennan. Then follows 80 minutes of panel discussion by 5 (or is it 6?) panel members, of which I am one.

What should we talk about?

We'll introduce ourselves, I imagine, and say a few words about our blogs. We will no doubt say some things about what Rick and Jim have said. What else should we talk about? Open (source) studies? Blogging and the nature of public scholarly discourse? Peer review? Blogging and conformity? How to kill time while waiting for Blogger to upload your post? What's better, news or opinion or baby pictures? Why are there so few female bibliobloggers? What's the point of it all? Who's your favorite team?

One thing I hope we don't talk about is the term "biblioblogger." There the term is, and we're stuck with it. And I hope we don't discuss "what is a biblioblogger," or the forgery scandal, or minimalism, or the historical Jesus, or what our desks look like, or which character from the Simpsons we are, or such worthy-but-irrelevant topics.

If each of us talks for 5-10 minutes about ourselves, that'll kill a lot of time. That could be good or bad.

I don't know. Got any ideas? Suggestions welcome.

Fat Yanks

It's interesting to read in tandem the blogs of Mark Goodacre and Michael Pahl. Mark has moved from Birmingham, UK to Durham, NC, while Michael has moved from (somewhere in) Canada to Birmingham, UK. These passages particularly struck me. First from Michael:

Food portions are smaller, which partly explains why people are smaller. There's no 'Super-Size Me' here--a trip to Burger King at the Bullring gave us regular-size drinks that were equivalent to smalls in North America, and just enough fries instead of far too many. The American obesity epidemic is one cultural export which is 'largely' absent here (couldn't resist that!).

And from Mark:

After our first weekend living in America, I feel a little like Morgan Spurlock in Supersize Me, though I'm happy to say that our diet has been more interesting and varied than his in that film; I just find that I eat so much more here, and less of the right things, and need to find ways of curbing this.

Here's my question: Is this true just of fast-food restaurants in Europe, or in general? Or is it a UK thing? I spent a week in Holland and Belgium last year, and I don't recall ever noticing that the portions served were smaller. In fact, at the Vismarkt in Groningen, I got a serving of (excellent) fish n'chips so large that I couldn't finish it. But, while abroad, I never ate at any American-style fast food restaurants. (Interestingly, I noticed a lot more Burger Kings in Holland than "Maison McD.")

Here's a shot of moi in Groningen last year:

Weekend Reading

Hi, everybody. No, I'm fine, I've just got writer's blogk. In lieu of my own brilliance, here's a funny piece from the New Yorker. An excerpt:

“Today,” the Lord God said, “let’s do land.” And lo, there was land.

“Well, it’s really not just land,” noted Vishnu. “You’ve got mountains and valleys and—is that lava?”

“It’s not a single statement,” said the Lord God. “I want it to say, ‘Yes, this is land, but it’s not afraid to ooze.’ ”

“It’s really a backdrop, a sort of blank canvas,” put in Apollo. “It’s, like, minimalism, only with scale.”

“But—brown?” Buddha asked.

“Brown with infinite variations,” said the Lord God. “Taupe, ochre, burnt umber—they’re called earth tones.”

“I wasn’t criticizing,” said Buddha. “I was just noticing.”

Read it all.

NTCS Again Available

As Christian Brady noted in an earlier comment, the website for the Newsletter for Targum and Cognate Studies is now available once again, thanks to his efforts.

For those who are interested, my Psalms Targum translation is also once again available. Many thanks to Chris for hosting these pages on his personal site.

The Redolent Metaphor

Mark Liberman at Language Log discusses the expression "to stink in the nostrils" as a metaphor for hatred, revulsion, or disapproval. After two cups of coffee, he had still not tracked down an "authoritative model" for it.

Did this expression emerge into common use during the 17th century, and stay in the phrasal vocabulary of the English language to this day, without any authoritative model at all?

I was able to find at least one source before the 17th century: One of the Marprelate tracts (1589) ("for feare of smelling in the nostrels of her Maiestie & the State") and possibly a century earlier in the Book of the Knight of La Tour-Landry : compiled for the instruction of his daughters : translated from the original French into English in the reign of Henry VI, 1484:

• the synne of lechery stinkithe afore God and his aungeles
• the unlefull synne of lecherye, the whiche stinkithe and crompithe vnto heuene

—although there are no "nostrils" in that text.

But neither one of these texts is authoritative in the way that Liberman would like. I could have sworn that this expression was Biblical, but as Liberman shows, there is no exact model in the early English translations (although Hebrew be'ash, hib'ish "to stink, cause to stink" = to incur dislike, is well known).

Unless the metaphor is a natural evolution from Biblical models, I'm also stumped for an "authoritative model," unless the French original of the Book of the Knight points to a continental source. Is there any classical or medieval scholar out there who can trace this back into French or Latin literature?

In David's Palace

Back by popular demand: another excerpt from "David and Abishag." This one goes out to Dr. Joe Cathey, with best wishes for his continued good health.

The scene: Gur the harpist has an appointment in Jerusalem, in the palace of David.

No day dawned in Jerusalem without the the renewal of the sounds of hammers, saws, cranes, wheels, pulleys, and shouting workmen. Jerusalem, the ancestral citadel of the Yebusi kings, was being made over into the capital of the House of David.

Dominating the hill south of the old Yebusi tower was the royal palace, built in the Tyrian style with massive blocks of limestone, hugely piled, course upon course, with a few great square entrances. The severe, gigantesque impression of the exterior was softened, in some of the living quarters, by occasional facings and moldings carved out of cedar. Nevertheless the edifice as a whole still looked — and was, in parts — raw and unfinished.

Gur sighed as he entered the west entrance of the palace compound. The new palace (still "new" after 25 years) was undeniably imposing, but David and his minions had absolutely no sense of style. Those inner walls, now — could not some plaster be laid over the naked stone and some pictures and designs painted on them? Cedar was all very well, but even the few rooms that were completely paneled in wood seemed austere and dark. But that was the Phoenicians for you — swift, elegant little ships on the sea, but great clumsy buildings on land.

And David was not so very different from his Tyrian allies. Not that he, or any Israelite, would be caught dead in a ship: no, indeed. But David was no more a city dweller than they were — he was a soldier, and a farmer, and would rather live in a campaign tent, or at least a country villa, than in a house made of ashlars and cedar wood. His palace, and the other royal buildings going up in Jerusalem, owed more to David's image of what belonged to royalty than to his personal inclinations.

Even so, there was still something of the farmhouse about the palace of David — donkeys, sheep, and camels were often quartered in the lower rooms next to their keepers instead of in a stable; and sometimes horses were found tied to pillars in the entrance portico. Roosters were likely to walk out from behind a chair at any time, even in the throne room. The scent of manure mingled with the odor of cooking food and unwashed bodies.

However, a palace was a palace, and had advantages, thought Gur, as he sat in an anteroom and let a slave wash his feet. In Egypt the slave would have a bowl to dip his feet in, some sweet-smelling stuff to rub on them, and a cloth to dry them off. Here the slave just poured water from a jar over his feet and let the water run over the flagstones, then he handed Gur a fistful of hay to clean and dry them off himself. And instead of giving him house sandals, the slave clapped his road shoes together, making the dust fly, and then handed them back. Still, Gur thought, I'll take these cool stone walls and country servants over Yawab's camp tent with no walls at all any day.

He was then ushered into a dining room at the upper levels, one with a balcony facing west to catch the breeze, if there was one. The appointments were no more lavish than elsewhere, but here all was neat and clean, and the table was laid with wine, snow-cooled water, figs, dates, and pomegranates, while fresh fish roasted on a grill nearby. A harp and stool were set out ready for him.

Texas vs. Ohio State

Tonight is the Texas-Ohio State football game. I graduated from Texas, as did my father before me. My daughter is a senior at Ohio State.

Does this cause family tension? Absolutely not. We are not the kind of family to let petty sports events cause interpersonal problems. Also, Elizabeth just doesn't really care who wins.

But do I care who wins? My attitude can best be summed up by recalling that a Baptist church in Fayettevile, Arkansas, years ago, put up a message on its marquee prior to the annual Texas-Arkansas bloodletting: FOOTBALL IS ONLY A GAME. ONLY SPIRITUAL THINGS ARE ETERNAL. NEVERTHELESS, BEAT TEXAS.

Change that last sentiment to BEAT OHIO STATE and you've captured my viewpoint exactly. I am of the opinion that sporting events are entirely too important in today's society, and football in particular is too often violent and crass, encouraging inappropriate displays of partisan bitterness.

Nevertheless, Hook 'em, Horns! Whoo-hoo! Crush the Buckeyes!!

Looting and Proverbs 6:30

Here and there on the web, one may occasionally find a discussion of looting in New Orleans together with a citation of Proverbs 6:30: "Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy himself when he is hungry." The proverb nicely captures a widespread moral intuition (which I fully share) that "looting" by the hungry or thirsty is not morally culpable, or is less culpable than looting out of sheer greed.

There is, however, a minority report on this verse (in various commentaries) that takes it as a question: "Do not men despise a thief, even if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry?" I think this is an unlikely reading of the Hebrew, and no widely used English translations that I've seen have followed this understanding. Still, the fact that it has been made means that the majority report contains at least a modicum of interpretation. (Note also the LXX version: "It is not surprising if a thief is caught, when he steals," etc. The translator apparently departed altogether from the text in the beginning of the verse.)

Three other points about the verse: (1) It appears to be descriptive, not prescriptive. The writer is describing what in fact people do, not necessarily how they should behave. Otherwise he would have written al tavuzu, "do not despise," instead of lo yavuzu, "they do not despise." (2) The real point of the paragraph in which the verse is embedded (Prov. 6:20-35) is: Don't commit adultery. Thievery is mentioned, by way of contrast, as an offense that can be forgiven in some circumstances, and compensation can be made (v. 31), but adultery is never forgotten or forgiven. (3) This larger context makes an implicit appeal to the habits of a "village culture" where everyone pretty much knows everyone else's business, even their most intimate misdeeds. The weight of the exhortation lies not on culpability as such, but on avoiding shame, dishonor, and reproach.

I guess my point is this: It's hard to simply lift verses out of the Bible and use them as ethical prooftexts or simple moral guidance for a situation. They don't come away cleanly, ready for re-use elsewhere; even the plainest of them are stuck to their literary and cultural contexts in persistent and unexpected ways. This is true even of this verse of Proverbs, which in isolation seems to say pretty much what we agree with in any case. I'm not saying the Bible is not a source of moral understanding, just that the raw text needs to be cooked up with some historical and critical understanding before it is ready to be used.

For a rational-theological approach to the question, Thomas Aquinas deals with "Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need?" here.

Some Book Reviews

I've discovered a number of book reviews I've written for Catholic Biblical Quarterly available at FindArticles.com.

For those who are interested, here are some of them:

Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde.

The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation. Edited by Peter W. Flint.

The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings.Kugler, Robert A. and Eileen M. Schuller, eds.

The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter.

Die Qumran-Essener. Die Texte vom Toten Meer. Band 1, Die Texte der Hohlen 1-3 und 5-11. Band 2, Die Texte der Hohle 4, by Johann Maier (Uni-Taschenbicher 1862-63; Munich/Basel: Ernst Reinhardt, 1995).

The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature, John J Collins.


In the near future, I'll add the links to the area at the right.

High Water Blues: Remembering 1927

This blog makes the apt comparison between the Katrina disaster and the Mississippi Flood of 1927.

The flood (caused by river flooding, not hurricane-related effects) made a strong impression on African Americans, especially in music. Most notably, Charlie Patton wrote "High Water Everywhere":

Look-a here the water now, Lordy,
Levee broke, rose most everywhere
The water at Greenville and Leland,
Lord, it done rose everywhere
Boy, you can't never stay here
I would go down to Rosedale,
but, they tell me there's water there

And Memphis Minnie wrote "When the Levee Breaks," memorably re-recorded by Led Zeppelin in the '70's:

Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good,
Now, cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good,
When the levee breaks, mama, you got to move.

Blind Lemon Jefferson wrote "Rising High Water Blues":

People, since it's raining, it has been for nights and days
People, since it's raining, has been for nights and days
Thousands people stands on the hill, looking down were they used to stay

Children stand there screaming: mama, we ain't got no home
Oh, mama we ain't got no home
Papa says to the children, "Backwater left us all alone"

Backwater rising, come in my windows and door
The backwater rising, come in my windows and door
I leave with a prayer in my heart, backwater won't rise no more

And Barbecue Bob Hicks wrote "Mississippi Heavy Water Blues":

Lord, Lord, Lord, I’m so blue, my house was washed away
and I’m cryin’ how long ‘fore another pay day?
That’s why I’m cryin’ Mississippi heavy water blues.

Most recently, Randy Newman wrote and recorded "Louisiana 1927":

The river rose all day
The river rose all night
Some people got lost in the flood
Some people got away alright
The river have busted through clear down to Plaquemines
Six feet of water in the streets of Evangeline

You can donate for disaster relief at the Red Cross site.

After Katrina

The disaster on the Gulf Coast continues to defy almost all comment. To our prayers and to our checkbooks; there doesn't seem to be much else to do.

I've heard (through channels) from my Cook relatives in Hattiesburg, MS; all are well and holding on, despite the lack of water, power, or phone.

No doubt many of my readers have friends or relatives in New Orleans and vicinity. Information about Tulane University can be found here; the latest post says that there are no known casualties among staff, faculty, or students. Further information can be found at the SBL website. Our special thoughts and prayers go out to Chris Brady, blogger and Tulane faculty member, and longtime friend of "Ralph." Chris and his family are safe.

The least important casualty of Katrina is my "Psalms Targum in English" (link at right), which is hosted on the Tulane server. No doubt it will re-appear in due course, but it's of little consequence.

"Behold, God is great, and we know him not" (Job 36:26).

UPDATE (9/2): Chris has left a comment below; good to hear from you, CB.

Evan's narrative of evacuation here is must reading.

Open Studies, Peer Review, and Kuhnian Paradigms

I see that my initial question about "open studies" has spawned a number of discussions, most notably concerning the role of peer review in open scholarship. I want to say a few words about peer review and its role in our field, especially since Jim West has denounced peer review and its defenders in a vitriolic post, which has prompted a blunt (and in my view wholly justified) response from Jim Davila.

A few years ago Richard Schedinger published "Kuhnian Paradigms and Biblical Scholarship: Is Biblical Studies a Science?" in JBL. In it he argued that Biblical studies was not a science, and therefore loose appeals for "paradigm shifts" in the Kuhnian sense were out of court. He averred that Kuhn's description of paradigms applied only to the natural sciences such as physics and biology; since Biblical studies, as one of the humanities, was not ruled by research-determining paradigms, it had, essentially, no "big" paradigms to shift, only groups of more or less equal competing paradigms. He concluded:

Biblical studies, as a discipline situated squarely within the humanities, must embrace diversity, a multiplicity of paradigms, and the living conversation between scholars that this diversity makes possible.

I think the most charitable interpretation of Jim West's post is that he sees Biblical studies as Schedinger does, only more so. But Jim (West) also implies that there are no standards by which to judge a good or bad idea (other than the "test of time," whatever that is — error is just as persistent as truth), and that any attempt to do so (via peer review) is a "popularity contest" or an illegitimate exercise of power by those who "control" the discipline. (The bitterness of West's post makes me wonder if there is some kind of unpleasant personal experience behind it.)

But I think that Schedinger (and by extension, West) are wrong; or, at least, not completely right. It is true that Biblical studies is not a science judged by the model of the physical sciences, or by the model of Kuhnian research-determining paradigms. Nevertheless, it is a science, like at least some of the other humanities, in that it is, or should be, based on disciplined, rational, and systematic enquiry and established and accepted canons of research. Actually the German word for "science," Wissenschaft, encompasses this meaning, and Biblical studies really is scientific (wissenschaftlich) in this sense.

And in fact Biblical studies (which I will not abbreviate by its initials) also has its "big" paradigms. Schedinger cites the case of biology vs. creationism to illustrate the difference between paradigmatic biology and non-biology. He says, "If one is a creationist, one cannot, by definition, be a biologist. There is no inter-paradigm debate within the bounds of the biological community." (Some may not like this illustration; but let it go, OK? It's Schedinger's, not mine.) But then he implies that the humanities don't have these kinds of boundary line cases. They do, however. In modern history, Holocaust revisionists are not considered real historians at all. In ancient history, a Velikovskian catastrophist or someone who believes in a literal Atlantis is also not considered a historian at all, but a crackpot. In the English department, anyone who argued that someone besides Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's plays would not be considered a real scholar.

In the same way, Biblical archaeology or Biblical studies has cases of "junk scholarship." I submit that the case of the Temple is one. As I argued in an earlier post, those who argue that there simply was no First Temple are perpetrating "junk history." And that is what peer review and other scholarly gate-keeping conventions are for: to keep out the junk and the nonsense. When I open JBL, I may read many things I disagree with, even some things that I think are jargon-ridden, shallow, trendy, and ill-written. But I know I'm not going to read anything that suggests that the Ezekiel held converse with space aliens, or that Adam and Eve spoke Latin, or that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen and later went to Tibet. (For that I have the Internet.)

I believe that Jim Davila, in his original post discussing this issue, was saying the same thing: that First-Temple-deniers are not perpetrating scholarship at all. It is not that they have failed to produce evidence powerful enough to overturn a scholarly consensus, but they have failed to be scientific (wissenschaftlich) at all in providing sustained, disciplined, and rational engagement with the field as a whole or the historical understandings that make the field possible.

The question of how this all relates to open scholarship (or whatever it's called) is difficult. If "open" means "anybody can play," then it's not going to be worth much. Therefore I submit that a worthwhile collaborative "open studies" initiative has to come up with some way of maintaining a level of scientific scholarship. And that's going to mean some kind of gatekeeping or peer review.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Robert Shedinger, "Kuhnian Paradigms and Biblical Scholarship: Is Biblical Studies a Science?" Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000) 453-471.

Open Source Studies: a question

I know that there is a plan to gather bibliobloggers in Philadelphia for a lunch meeting to discuss "open source" biblical studies. (Most recently from Tim Bulkeley.)

Before I commit to this lunch, I have one question: What is open-source biblical studies?

This is not a rhetorical question.

UPDATE (8/29): Tim Bulkeley provides more light here — and many thanks to those who provided comments. This whole movement (or initiative, or whatever) is something I favor; but whether I have time in the near future to participate in any particular project is very doubtful.

Three Cheers for Zimpher

The big news here is the resign-or-be-fired ultimatum given to Bob Huggins, University of Cincinnati basketball coach, by Nancy Zimpher, UC president. Paul Daugherty, the excellent sports columnist of the Cincinnati Enquirer, says this:

At most schools where coaches loom godlike and untouchable, presidents leave well enough alone. They enjoy the national acclaim. They tolerate the Faustian deal they cut to achieve it. They know that challenging a big-time coach is more trouble than it's worth.

Zimpher didn't look at it like that. She challenged a Cincinnati icon and won. Her victory will be judged by how she handles the reconstruction.
...
In Zimpher's world, academic and athletic success are twin sons of the same mother. The Aug. 8 letter, again: "UC believes it can better advance its mission by building a winning program around scholar-athletes who earn degrees that will allow them to succeed not only in athletics but more importantly in life generally."

Large goal, that.

Also one that a university president has every right to set. If Zimpher were president of UC men's hoops, then hang her from the highest backboard for this. She ain't. You can say she has thrown the basketball program into darkness. You can say she has thrown Huggins' loyalty to the curb. What you cannot say is that, as president, Zimpher isn't obliged to do what she feels is in the best interests of the entire place.

People in Zimpher's camp say that, behind the scenes, Huggins has urged big donors to close their wallets. They argue that a spiteful Huggins prolonged the fight knowing he would take the buyout eventually, that he waited as long as he did to hurt the basketball program.

Believe what you want. Regardless, if UC were to retain its self-respect, Zimpher had to win.

Three cheers for Nancy Zimpher.

Bob Huggins took UC basketball back to the big time, but at a cost. The graduation rate of the players is abysmal, and inversely proportional to the length of their rap sheet. Not only that, but he never could quite ... get .. to the Final Four. (Did he, once, years ago? Memory fails.) Plus, he's one of those screaming, shouting, abusive coaches, with a record of DUI's. Good riddance.

The lumpen Cincinnati sports fans will crucify her, though. The vitriol on the sports talk shows has to be heard to be believed.

Poor David

This is an excerpt from a novel that I gave up writing years ago. It is set in the time of King David. There has just been a sheep-shearing followed by a feast at which my shy young heroine, Abishag of Shunem, was listening to the harpist from Judah sing some famous songs. She is a shepherdess, and Shumi is the head shepherd of the flock; he was elsewhere during the feast.

The next day Abishag went in search of Shumi and found him trimming goats' horns in one of the folds. Leaning over the fence was the old harpist.

"Ya, Abishag," said Shumi. "This man is Gur, the harpist."

"I bless you by Yahweh," said Abishag politely.

Gur nodded and eyed Abishag appreciatively. They all stood silent for a moment. Then Abishag blurted, "I heard you last night."

"Did you indeed?" said Gur. "I'm sorry I didn't see you there."

"Song of Deborah again?" asked Shumi.

"Oh dear, yes. Can't avoid playing it in these parts. They still love Deborah and Barak up here. Pity there's no song about Gid'on — him that folks here call Yarub-Baal. Wouldn't they love that in Shunem!"

"That they would," said Shumi, still filing a horn.

"I had quite a success with a new one, though — all about Shaul and Gilboa. The tears were falling like shekels, not a dry eye."

"Is it true, what you said," Abishag said shyly, "about the King composing it?"

"Well, as to that," said the harpist, "who knows? He does make up songs, or used to, you know, odes and hymns and things. He was himself a harpist, they say, long ago, when he came to Shaul's court."

"I thought he was a shepherd," said Shumi. "Isn't that how the story goes?"

Gur laughed. "There are so many stories about David, who can tell which one is true? Like all that talk around the fire last night about him killing Shaul's family. Down in Judah they say Yawab is to blame and that David's hands are clean."

"Still," said Shumi, "you must admit that Yawab is David's man. If Yawab got rid of the house of Shaul, he did it either with or without David's orders. If with, then David is the true murderer. If without, then David can't control his men and is a weak king. Either way, David looks bad."

"But if a son of Shaul's house survived, David might not be king. Wouldn't that be a greater loss?" asked Gur. Shumi shrugged his shoulders.

"Poor David," said Abishag. The men burst out laughing and Abishag reddened. "I just meant," she stammered, "that nothing that he did or could do would put things right. How awful for him."

"That's what it means to have power, my dear," said Gur. "To have many choices, most of them hard. Even the right choices usually end up making an enemy of somebody."

"'Poor David,'" laughed Shumi. "You sounded so sad."

Uncle Poison

The New Yorker of Aug. 22 has an interesting article on Bruce Lawrence of Duke University who is studying the Arabic writings of Osama bin Laden. Of several noteworthy points, this one especially caught my eye:

[Lawrence] even detects a dark sense of humor in bin Laden's writings. "In one of the translations, he talks about Uncle Sam. In Arabic, Uncle Sam is 'Amm Sam' — it rhymes, you see. The Arabic word samm means poison, and an uncle, in Arabic, is supposed to be someone you can trust."

Wow — who knew that the Evil One was an inveterate punster? In fact, OBL's insulting wordplay is right in line with hoary Near Eastern tradition, which likes to find negative meanings in the names of supposedly bad folk. One might mention, among several examples from the Hebrew Bible, the name Jezebel, Heb. iyzevel, probably originally containing a reference to zevul, "prince," a title of Baal. But the wicked queen's name was pronounced so as to recall the word zevel, "dung." In rabbinic times, the failed rebel Simon Bar Kosiba was referred to as Bar Koziba, "son of the liar" (after having been known more positively as Bar Kokhba, "son of the star").

The words themselves in "uncle poison" have interesting Semitic connections, as well. Arabic amm is cognate to Hebrew עם, am, "people." Hebrew has generally lost all connection to the supposedly primitive significance of the word, which is, as in Arabic, "paternal uncle." But there are a few personal names in ancient Israel that retain the meaning; e.g., Ammishaddai (Num. 1:12) probably means "Shaddai (the Almighty) is my uncle." (If the culture had stayed on this track, we might now be talking about the "unclehood" of God, instead of His "fatherhood.")

The word "poison" (Arabic samm) is, I surmise, a loanword from Aramaic. In the North-West Semitic dialects, sam(m) means "spice" (Biblical Hebrew, as in Ex. 25:6, etc.), "medicine" (post-Biblical Hebrew, as in m.Yoma 8:6), "paint," "dye," "fluid," "drug," etc. Aramaic sources use the expression samma de-mota, "death drug" for "poison," and this latter meaning, with the headword only, was borrowed by Arabic speakers (just as English speakers borrowed the meaning and headword chef of the French expression chef de cuisine, "head cook").

Can't we come up with a good retort? Like "Osama bin Rotten," or the like?

UPDATE: Michael Gilleland has a crappy followup.

Another Stolen Artifact

A report out of Israel says that an artifact from the Second Jewish Revolt has been recovered from antiquities smugglers:

The IAA, the Customs Authority and the Postal Authority worked together to prevent a precious artifact, a lead weight, from being smuggled out of the country. The weight dates back to the time of Bar Kochba (the second century AD) and is decorated with traditional Jewish symbols, including a palm tree and menorah.
...
The IAA was able to locate the sender, a former antiquities salesman, who wanted to send the valuable artifact to his colleagues in America. More antiquities were revealed in his apartment. Police say there have been other smuggling attempts, and the investigation has expanded to the US.

This reminds us irresistibly of the recently discovered Leviticus fragments, also said to be from the Bar Kokhba period. Were they looted at the same time and the same place? Will we ever know?

Although the news story says that the inscription (not legible in the photograph) refers to "Shimon bar Kokhba," I would be surprised if the inscription used the form "Kokhba" — the authentic name known from contemporary sources is "Kosiba." And the coins (so far as I know) refer only to "Shimon" or "Shimon, leader of Israel." (Corrections on this point will be gladly received.)

Who are the smuggler's contacts in the US? Anybody know?

UPDATE: Not really news, apparently, already noted in Paleojudaica months ago.

Sufjan Stevens and a Biblical Image

The remarkable Sufjan Stevens has a song on his record Seven Swans titled "All the Trees of the Field Will Clap Their Hands," and a great song it is, too. Interestingly, the All Music Guide review (found here, among other places) implies, by referring to the song's "gorgeous title," that the name of the song is original with Stevens.

In fact, the title is a quotation from Isa. 55:12, "the hills shall break forth before you into singing; and all the trees of the fields shall clap their hands." The Hebrew is yimcha'u kaph, literally, "they will strike palm." I've noted before here that trees are the most human of all flora, and it's easy to imagine them raising their branchy arms and smacking them together in applause.

But even this natural metaphor was too strong for the Septuagint translators, who translated as "all the trees will applaud with their branches." The Targum similarly renders "they will rejoice with their branches." (The Vulgate and the Peshitta render literally.)

Interestingly enough, there is another instance of the same metaphor, found in Ps. 98:8, "let the rivers clap their hands" (again, yimcha'u kaph). Here it is harder to imagine the metaphor translated into concrete reality; rivers, unlike trees, don't have anything like hands, although one can imagine the rushing sound of a river as a kind of applause. Possibly the locution "to strike palm" was already a dead metaphor, with no more literality to it (like to kick the bucket), with the simple sense "to acclaim loudly."

However, in this case the Septuagint, possibly stumped for a more natural metaphor, translates pretty literally "let the rivers applaud by hand." The literal translation is also chosen by the Targum, Peshitta, and Vulgate.

Is Sufjan Stevens aware of all this? I doubt it, but on the other hand it wouldn't surprise me. This is one multi-talented guy. There are some free MP3's here.

UPDATE (8/17): Thanks for all the comments (including this one). I should clarify that the "all this" that I doubted SS was aware of was not the biblical background of the phrase, but the textual-philological maunderings I added.

Arad 18 and the Temple of the Lord

(This post is my contribution to the Kesher Talk blogburst for Tisha B'Av.)

It has been claimed that, since the Ivory Pomegranate and Moussaieff Ostraca have been rejected as forgeries, there is now no epigraphic evidence of the existence of the "Temple of Yahweh" in ancient Israel. This is not quite true; an ostracon from Arad, dating to the early 6th century BCE, mentions a byt YHWH, "house of Yahweh" (Arad Ostracon no. 18).

The relevant portion of the ostracon reads as follows: ולדבר אשׁר צותני שׁלמ בית יהוה הא ישׁב. Translations vary. James Lindenberger translates "As for the matter about which you gave me orders — all is well. He is staying in the Temple of YHWH." Lindenberger's comment is this:

Only the temple in Jerusalem can be meant. At an earlier time there was a small temple in Arad, but it had been destroyed before this letter was written.

William Dever translates "the house (i.e. temple) of Yahweh is well; it endures," and he comments: "This may be a reference to the earlier tripartite temple of Arad brought to light by Aharoni, or it may refer to the temple in Jerusalem." But even if the Arad temple was standing (contra Lindenberger), there seems to be no reason why Eliashib, who was presumably in Arad, would need to be informed about the welfare of the temple there.

The "house of YHWH" could be another temple in another location in Judah, but I think that it is probable that the Jerusalem temple is meant. But regardless of how Arad 18 is interpreted, the mention of this temple should remind us that the temple of the national deity was not an optional institution in the ancient Near East; it was an absolute religious and political necessity for any state. Those who deny the existence of a "First Temple" in ancient Judah, standing in the national capital Jerusalem, find themselves in defiance, not only of the biblical record, but of all historical analogy, and must be suspected of having something on their agenda other than an interest in history.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Lindenberger, Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters, 1994; W. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, 2002, p. 212.

UPDATE (8/12): See today's post at Paleojudaica for the larger context.

Secondary Wordplay in Translation?

Brandan Wason points us to this review in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review, of the first Harry Potter book translated into Classical Greek. It sounds like a fun read.

This part of the review struck me:

"It was really lucky that Harry now had Hermione as a friend," from the "Quidditch" chapter, becomes "kai hermaion dê ên tôi Hareiôi to Hermionên nun echein philên" (p. 147) -- lovely and idiomatic use of "hermaion", lovely pun on Hermione's name, lovely "dê".

Indeed. (Hermaion: "a god-send, wind-fall" according to Liddell & Scott.) But note that the Greek translation now has a wordplay that is not present in the original English. In Biblical studies, occasionally we hear that a certain work or part of a work must have been written in Language X, because a wordplay is present that is only possible in Language X. However, as this example shows, a clever and adept translator might introduce wordplays where none existed in the original. My guess is that such translators are the exception rather than the rule; but we might do well to keep the possibility in mind. The better the translator, the more skillfully he will hide his tracks.

Names in the Yehukal Bulla

Yitzhak Sapir has posted a picture of the Yehukal bulla here.

The text reads: יהוכל בנ שׁלמיהו בנ שׁבי, "Yehukal son of Shelemyahu son of Shobai (or: Shobi)."

It seems possible, even likely, that the bulla was made from the seal of the person mentioned in Jer. 37:3: "King Zedekiah sent Jehucal son of Shelemiah and Zephaniah son of the priest Maaseiah to the prophet Jeremiah, to say, Please pray on our behalf to the Lord our God" (see also Yukal in Jer. 38:1; same guy).

Yehukal does not appear again in the Hebrew Bible, but the name Yehukal does appear in Arad Ostracon 21, line 1, which is written from "your son Yehukal." This ostracon has been dated to the year 597 BCE, and therefore the time frame of the letter matches the time of Jeremiah. The address formula reads "Your son Yehukal sends greeting to Gedaliah son of Elyair and to your house," and therefore this Yehukal would seem to be the son of Gedaliah.

There were at least three other people named Shelemyahu at the royal court in Jeremiah's time, Shelemyahu son of Kushi (Jer. 36:14), Shelemyahu son of Abdeel (Jer. 36:26), and Shelemyah son of Hananiah (Jer. 37:13). Evidently Yehukal's father was not any of these.

The name Shelemyahu appears in Lachish Ostracon 9: "send word to your servant by the hand of Shelemyahu," and this may in fact be one of the people named above, since the Lachish Ostraca are contemporaneous with the book of Jeremiah. But it was a common name; there are at least three different Shelemyahs mentioned in the Elephantine papyri from a later century.

The only people named Shobai or Shobi known in the Hebrew Bible are the Shobai mentioned in the genealogy of Ezra 2:42, Neh. 7:45 and the Ammonite Shobi mentioned in 2 Sam. 17:27. The Mesad Heshavyahu Ostracon, perhaps from the reign of Josiah, mentions a "Shobai" or "Shobi" as the father of one Hoshaiah. At least two men named Shobai are mentioned in ostraca found in Elephantine.

UPDATE (8/7): Joseph Lauer on the ANE list links to this much better photograph here, which reveals that the inscription begins with lamedh, as one would expect, and as Robert Deutsch points out in the comments below.

Mr. Deutsch also suggests that the script is older than the 6th century BCE, perhaps 7th or 8th century. I am no paleographer, so I won't venture an opinion. If Mr. Deutsch is right (and he may well be), that would mean that this was not the seal of Jeremiah's Yehukal. Still, the seal bears comparison with the seal of Elyashib from Arad (early 6th century); the vav is particularly interesting (Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions, no. 106). Another seal of Elyashib can be seen here (with a slightly different ductus).

SBL 2005: Rich Offerings in Aramaic and Syriac

It looks like there will be an unusually rich banquet for Aramaic and Syriac scholars at the SBL meeting in 2005. Here's what I've been able to glean from the Program Book:

Pseudepigrapha
11/21/2005
1:00 PM to 3:30 PM
Room: Room 108-A - Pennsylvania Convention Center

Theme: Two Recent Books on the Aramaic Levi Document

Robert Kugler, Lewis and Clark College, Presiding
Panel Review of Henryk Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document, (Brill, 2004), and Jonas C. Greenfield, Michael E. Stone, and Ester Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Comment
Albert Lukaszewski, University of St. Andrews, Panelist
James VanderKam, University of Notre Dame, Panelist
James Kugel, Bar Ilan University, Panelist
Responses (40min)
Henryk Drawnel, Pontifical Academy of Theology, Cracow, Respondent
Michael Stone, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Respondent
Esther Eshel, Bar Ilan University, Respondent
Discussion (35 min)


Aramaic Studies
11/21/2005
4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Room: Room 402 - Marriott

Deirdre Dempsey, Marquette University, Presiding
Tarsee Li, Oakwood College
The Imperfective Participle in the Aramaic of Daniel (30 min)

Daniel Leavins, The Catholic University of America
Is God Able to Save? The Grammatical, Contextual and Theological Problem in Daniel 3:17-18 (30 min)

Jan-Wim Wesselius, Theological University Kampen
The Hermopolis Aramaic Correspondence Revisited (30 min)

Andrew D Gross, New York University
The Warranty Clause in the Judean Desert Documentary Texts (30 min)

Moshe Bernstein, Yeshiva University
The Prophecies of Balaam in Aramaic Garb (30 min)

Syriac Lexicography
11/19/2005
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: Independence II - Marriott

Theme: International Syriac Language Project

Michael Sokoloff, Bar Ilan University, Presiding
Andreas Juckel, University of Munster
Lexicography and Orthography: Inspirations from the “Syriac Massora” (30 min)

Wido van Peursen, Leiden University-The Netherlands
Corresponding Phrase Patterns in the Masoretic Text and the Peshitta and Their Significance for Syriac Lexicography (30 min)

Break (5 min)
A. Dean Forbes, University of California, Berkeley
How Syntactic Formalisms Can Advance the Lexicographer’s Art (30 min)

Janet Dyk, Vrije Universiteit-Amsterdam
Synopsis-based Translation Concordance as a Tool for Lexical and Text-critical Exploration (30 min)
Discussion (25 min)


Syriac Lexicography
11/20/2005
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: Room 310 - Marriott

Theme: International Syriac Language Project

Peter Williams, University of Aberdeen, Presiding

Michael Sokoloff, Bar Ilan University
Brockelmann's Lexicon Syriacum as a Database (30 min)

George Kiraz, Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institut
A Multi-tier Interlinear to the Syriac New Testament (30 min)

In other sessions:

Gary A. Rendsburg, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick Campus
Aramaic-like Features in Pre-Exilic Biblical Texts (30 min)

Gary Lee Alley, Jr., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Luke’s Sower: Reading the Parable Synoptically using Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (30 min)

Brent Landau, Harvard University
Guide Us to Thy Perfect Light: An Introduction to the Syriac "Revelation of the Magi" (25 min)

Robert Shedinger, Luther College
Silencing the Syriac Tradition: Evidence and Rhetoric in the Early Versions of Bruce Metzger and Arthur Vööbus (30 min)

----------
A couple of notes: There is a third listed session on "Syriac Lexicography," but it is evidently a mistake, as none of the papers have anything to do with Syriac.

For what it's worth (not much), I was invited to serve on the panel reviewing the books of Aramaic Levi, but was obligated to decline because excessive busy-ness in the weeks before SBL did not allow me time to read the books; plus, panelists were asked to buy or otherwise acquire the books on their own. Since they are both really, really expensive (and I'm really, really not rich), I was happy to withdraw in favor of another scholar. Such is life.

Potterism

I've just finished reading Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and I'm still reeling. I won't post any spoilers, but I feel like I've been hit on the head with a two-by-four. Holy smoke.

I've always enjoyed the books. Rowling is not a great stylist; her sentences do their job, one foot in front of the other, so to speak, until they reach their destination. And even the fantasy elements, although skillfully deployed, are derivative and don't always show great originality. In this respect, an author like Diana Wynne Jones, otherwise so similar, has Rowling completely beat for richness of imagination. (In fact, if Rowling hasn't read Jones and been influenced by her, I'll eat my hat.) Rowling's greatness lies in her tremendous narrative powers. I believe it was C. S. Lewis who said, "The natural born storyteller can do what he likes in literature." This definitely applies to Rowling. It'll be interesting to see what she does after the Harry Potter series is over — or will she find herself in the same fix as Arthur Conan Doyle, forever wedded to one unforgettable character?

These days a Christian writer has to say something about the appropriateness of the Harry Potter books. I don't have a problem with them, and I think that any paranoia about fictional witches and wizards as such borders on superstition. Rowling's series is not directed against Christianity (as, for instance, Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials is). If there is a problem, it is that in the Hogwarts fantasy world there is not the faintest whisper of the transcendent, no suggestion that above the Wizards and Muggles there is anything else. But this is true of secular literature in general, even "wholesome" kid books like the Hardy Boys and the Bobbsey Twins. Not every good book is a Christian book, and not every fantasy book is going to be a Narnia chronicle or A Wrinkle in Time.

The main characters in the Rowling books are "good pagans," and that's not a bad thing. And there's plenty of material for preparatio evangelica there (as in all good paganism), even if there isn't any evangelium. Fear not, and enjoy.

Scroll Matters

Last week I was contacted via e-mail by Dutch journalist Henk Schutten, who sought my opinion on four Dead Sea Scrolls fragments that had shown up on the antiquities market in Holland, and who wondered if I knew of other scrolls recently being offered for sale. I told him that I was aware of no recent sales or discoveries other than the Leviticus fragments recently purchased in Israel by Hanan Eshel.

I was also able to tell him that the four fragments he mentioned (and pictured in photographs that he sent me) were included in a recent presentation by Hanan and Esther Eshel at the SBL meeting in November of 2004 and published in the journal Dead Sea Discoveries in 2005. (The four fragments were two pieces of Isaiah, which belong to IQIsa-b, and two fragments of an apocryphon, evidently 4Q226.) These fragments, according to public statements made by the Eshels, were sold by the Kando family to American collectors Bruce Ferrini and Lee Biondi, and examined by Eshel in the US in 2004.

In his recent article in Het Parool, Mr. Schutten has evidently misunderstood my information on the 4 fragments as applying to the Leviticus fragment as well.

His first quote mentioning my name is as follows:

[Edward] Cook has nothing but harsh words for the dealers and collectors, and the additional fragments now on offer.

"Apart from anything else, it is illegal". He does not even discount the possibility that some of the larger scrolls have been cut into small fragments both to increase their profitability and to conceal their origins.

My one use of the word "illegal" in our correspondence was in reference to the possible looting of the archeological sites of Khirbet Qumran and Khirbet Mird, in response to Schutten's inquiry about the supposed offer for sale of amulets discovered there. (See Letter 3 in the Appendix below.) As far as I know, the possession (or sale) of antiquities in Israel acquired before 1978 is not illegal, although it may be unethical and is certainly deplorable.

The second quote mentioning me goes like this:

[Cook] states that the involvement of the Kando family is a virtual certainty in the new finds. He adds, "More than likely that the Kando family have had the scrolls or fragments for a long time". "It is known that in the 50s many Bedouins first offered their finds to Kando. There is no guarantee whatsoever that Kando did not keep part of the material for himself. Everything indicates that the family are trying to market the fragments".

For the record, I did not say, nor do I believe, that the Leviticus fragments allegedly found in the Nahal Arugot actually come from manuscripts in the possession of the Kando family. And I can't imagine why anyone would believe, or publish, a scenario in which a manuscript is taken from a legally held collection in order to pass it off as the product of an illegal looting! What I did say to Schutten is contained in Letter 2 below. Letters 1-3 below comprise all the significant statements made by me to Schutten; Letter 4 is from Schutten and speaks for itself.

With reference to the Nahal Arugot find, I continue to believe that Hanan Eshel was guilty of nothing more (or less) than poor judgment by entering into negotiations with someone who had illegally looted an archeological site and neglecting to notify the Israel Antiquities Authority until the sale had been made. I also have read no convincing evidence that the cave Eshel was told was the find-spot was in fact the cave where the fragments were discovered. Apparently no other fragments were discovered there in situ, which would be the necessary proof. These Leviticus fragments must still, in my opinion, be considered unprovenanced.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The fragments that initially aroused Mr. Schutten's curiosity have been published: Esther Eshel and Hanan Eshel, "New Fragments from Qumran: 4QGenf, 4QIsab, 4Q226, 8QGen, and XQpapEnoch," Dead Sea Discoveries 12/2 (2005) 134-157.


Appendix: Correspondence with Henk Schutten

1. (My first reply):

Thank you for your letter and kind words about "Ralph."

I am not aware of any specific incidents of DSS fragments suddenly appearing on the market, aside from the recent acquisition in Israel of 4 small fragments of the Book of Leviticus. The scholar who bought them did so because he was afraid the fragments would be smuggled out of Israel. Possibly the fragments that you mention are part of the same cache of manuscripts.

I would be very interested in hearing more details and receiving pictures of the fragments. I also recommend that you get in touch with two Dead Sea Scrolls experts at the University of Groningen, E. J. C. Tigchelaar and Florentino Garcia-Martinez, who may be better informed about the possible sale of recent manuscripts than I am.

2. (My second letter, after I ascertained that the scrolls pictured in Schutten's photographs were those made public by the Eshels in the SBL in November):

Many thanks for the pictures, which I hope to examine more closely later on.

Last year in the USA, a fragmentary papyrus of the Book of Enoch was presented at a meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature and was described as belonging to the Kando family. The scholars making the presentation (Hanan and Esther Eshel) also mentioned 12 other fragmentary manuscripts in the possession of the Kando family. It seems likely that the manuscripts you mention are the same ones described by the Eshels and [another scholar].

Judging by all these lines of evidence, I think it is very likely that the Kando family has had scrolls or scroll fragments in their possession for many years. It is known that in the 1950's, many Bedouin brought their discoveries to Kando before they were shown to the authorities, and there is certainly no guarantee that Kando did not keep a lot of material. It seems now that he did, and his family is now trying to sell these fragments via the antiquities trade.

There are persistent rumors of a large scroll of Enoch in private hands. I don't know whether there is any substance to these rumors at all. My concern as a scholar is that the Kando family or private collectors are possibly destroying large scrolls in order to sell smaller pieces one at a time. This would be a tremendous loss.

3. (In answer to an inquiry about copper amulets allegedly offered by the Kando estate for sale):

Jewish Amulets on metal (silver, copper, lead, bronze, gold) from the early centuries A.D. are known, but they are rare; I only know of about 20 in existence. Another one in copper would be a very interesting find. The name of the angel seems to be Uriel. If the amulet was in fact found in or near Khirbet Qumran, that would be very significant.

The second one mentioned seems to be of the same general type, but apparently written in a dialect of Aramaic called Christian Palestinian Aramaic, or sometimes Palestinian Syriac. The site known as Khirbet Mird in Israel contains the ruins of a Melkite Christian monastery from the first millennium A.D. and a number of papryi and other texts written in Christian Palestinian Aramaic were found there. Possibly this second amulet was found in or near Khirbet Mird.

It is a great pity that these interesting pieces are being advertised to collectors instead of being made available to scholars and museums. It's also illegal, of course.

4. (from Schutten, in response to my Letter 2):

That's a coincidence, Hanan Eshel presenting DSS-fragments from the Kando family. It makes his recent discovery of the new Leviticus-fragments a bit suspicious, don't you think? Can you tell me where I can find more information about this presentation last year for the Society of Biblical Literature? (I tried Google but that didn't work out)

Tagged Pseudepigrapha

I see that Logos is planning a Greek pseudepigrapha module that is fully tagged. That's great! However, I would like to point out that Accordance Bible Software has a fully tagged Greek Pseudepigrapha module available right now. I'm looking at it as I write. But it's nice that Logos is trying to catch up. :)

Latin for the Judgin': A critical edition

According to this tidbit from Rogue Classicism, John Roberts "has the Latin for the judgin'." As many people know, the judgin' exams are rigorous, and you need to have the Latin to pass.

Don't know what I'm talking about? I am channeling a comedy bit from the British review "Beyond the Fringe," from the 'sixties I believe, that Peter Cook (no relation) used to do. His character, a working-class man, says:

Yes, I could have been a judge but I never had the Latin, never had the Latin for the judgin', I never had it, so I'd had it, as far as bein' a judge was concerned. I just never had sufficient of it to get through the rigourous judging exams. They're noted for their rigour. People come out staggering and saying "My God, what a rigourous exam!" - and so I became a miner instead. A coal miner. I managed to get through the mining exams--they're not rigourous, they only ask one question, they say, "Who are you", and I got 75 per cent on that. I'd rather have been a judge than a miner. Being a miner, as soon as you are too old and tired and sick and stupid to do the job properly, you have to go. Well, the very opposite applies with judges.

Believe me, it's a lot funnier when Peter Cook delivers it. (Is the record still in print, or available on CD?)

However, I should point out that the excerpt I have given above was put together by me and does not occur, as far as I can tell, on the web. In short, it is a harmonizing text. Below I give a critical diplomatic text, with apparatus, based on the following five witnesses: A, B, C, D, and E. For my base text, I use B, which is closely allied to C, but C was copied by a rather careless scribe. Both A and D are defective, in that their text is incomplete. E has some affinities with A, but both represent a different tradition than BC.

B: "Yes, I could have been a judge, but I never had the Latin, never had the Latin for the judging, I just never had sufficient of it to get through the rigorous judging exams. They’re noted for their rigour. People come out staggering and saying ‘My God what a rigorous exam' – and so I became a miner instead. I’d rather have been a judge than a miner. Being a miner, as soon as you are too old and tired and sick and stupid to do the job properly, well you have to go. Well the opposite applies with judges."

Yes] ABCE; D om. || never had the Latin, never had the Latin] ABCE; D never had the Latin [one occurrence] || for the judging] ABCE; D adds. I never had it, so I'd had it, as far as being a judge was concerned || just never had sufficient of it] BCE; A didn't have sufficient || out staggering and saying] BC; E out saying || I became a miner instead] BCE; A I managed to become a miner || instead] AE add a coal miner. I managed to get through the mining exams--they're not (A adds: very) rigourous, they only ask (A adds: you) one question, they say, "Who are you", and I got 75 per cent on that || I'd rather ... with judges] BC; AE om. || well you have] B; C om. well || opposite] B; C very opposite

From the apparatus it emerges that AE and BC are mainly differentiated textually by the fact that AE has a joke about miners where BC has a joke about judges; D is quite short and has neither, but has a third joke that only amounts to a pun. An Old Testament scholar would talk about doublets, perhaps hypothesizing an Anti-Judge source (J) and an Anti-Miner source (M) and perhaps a Pun source (P), which built on a now-lost piece of folklore about failing a Latin test. (And a minimalist would deny that Peter Cook ever existed.) New Testament scholars would postulate some complicated redaction-critical business, and divide on whether the anti-judge or the anti-miner version was the most authentic, depending on which group the historical Peter Cook was believed to be in conflict with. The "Peter Cook Seminar" would assert that the "anti-judge" version was authentic, on the grounds that Peter Cook would have been in opposition to the establishment and in favor of the working man. (And a radical NT scholar would deny that Peter Cook ever existed.)

One thing no one would do is what I did at the beginning and produce a harmonized text. This is considered to be anti-historical and disrespectful of the sources, which must each be allowed to speak for themselves. However, I can assure you, based on oral memory (I listened to the record about 500 times when I was in seminary), that the pun, the anti-judge joke, and the anti-miner joke all occurred in Cook's original comedy routine. I can even tell you that none of the versions I have read have quite captured the dialect. The character tended to drop his aitches, yielding I never 'ad it, so I'd 'ad it as far as judgin' was concerned. And judging was always judgin', to form an assonance with Latin.

Therefore, after all the critical sifting work has been done, I still think that in some cases one should be allowed to hypothesize an original text or tradition that is a harmony or combination of all the witnesses, since in some cases (as illustrated here) all our witnesses are incomplete versions of a larger original.

Senioritis

I'm not that old (53). My wife tells me "50 is the new 40" — whatever that means. And I don't feel old (when there are no mirrors around). I can still dunk shoot a basketball, I still watch VH1, read Uncut, keep up with the latest pop culture crapola. I still have my hair (that's not a receding hairline, I just have a big forehead, OK?).

But there are things going on. Shaving seems increasingly complicated for some reason. I'm sore after a long walk. An afternoon nap gets me through the day. I see strangers my age at the grocery store and I feel like hailing them as long-lost friends, as if we are both members of a minority group. And the kid bagging the groceries looks right through me like I'm not there. It all adds up to one thing: winter is coming; it ain't here yet, but it will be before you know it.

So naturally I want to know how the musical artists who have gotten me through my life so far are doing with the same experience. Poor Pete Townshend. I bet he can't go to the pub or the corner store without someone asking, "Hey Pete! I thought you said you hoped you'd die before you got old! Well, now you're old! Huh? Huh?" But I don't know, because I haven't listened to his stuff for years. Is he even writing new stuff?

There's Paul Simon, who wrote a song not too long ago called "Old":

Down the decades every year
Summer leaves and my birthday’s here
And all my friends stand up and cheer
And say man you’re old
Getting old

Now there's a guy who's always got aging on his mind. About 40 years ago he said in a song, "I was 21 years when I wrote this song / I'm 22 now but I won't be for long." And in "Old Friends" he said, "How terribly strange to be 70." Well, Paul, pretty soon you'll be 70 and you can tell us if it's strange or not. My guess is it will seem pretty normal.

What about Dylan? It struck me last year when I saw him in Columbus, in fact, while he was in the middle of singing it, that "Mr. Tambourine Man" is an old man's song:

My weariness amazes me, I'm branded on my feet,
I have no one to meet
And the ancient empty street's too dead for dreaming.

My senses have been stripped, my hands can't feel to grip,
My toes too numb to step ...
I'm ready to go anywhere, I'm ready for to fade
Into my own parade, cast your dancing spell my way,
I promise to go under it.

But he didn't sing it like he was still connected to it. There was a lot more fire in his more recent material, like "Floater":

The old men 'round here, sometimes they get
On bad terms with the younger men
But old, young, age don't carry weight
It doesn't matter in the end

Then there's Neil Young. I love the Neilster, but I haven't gotten his last few albums, so I don't know how he's doing with the aging thing. Could he still sing "Old Man"?

Old man take a look at my life
I'm a lot like you
I need someone to love me
the whole day through

There's the wonderful and underrated Jonathan Richman, who's just about exactly my age. Is he still singing "Dignified and Old"?

Someday we'll be dignified (Hey kids, Hey kids)
Someday we will be dignified and old

Actually, I don't think pop artists, when they get old, write songs about it. It's the young men who do that. The old guys just don't feel like they are old. (Exhibit 1: The Rolling Stones.) It reminds me of a discussion I had years ago at Hebrew Union College with a really old professor (now deceased). I mentioned to him the hoary idea the Solomon had written the Song of Solomon when he was young and Koheleth when he was old. He said, "It's exactly the opposite. He wrote Koheleth when he was young, because it's typical of the young to put on an image of self-conscious world-weary disillusionment. And he wrote the Song when he was old and could think of nothing but sex."

Maybe that is the way of the world. The young write songs about being old, because they fear it. The old don't write about it, because they don't feel like they are old. It seems to be true of my generation anyway. In a few years, you can walk down the hallway of a nursing home — past the bedpans, the walkers, and the wheelchairs — and hear the stereos playing "Blitzkrieg Bop" or "Hit Me with Your Best Shot" or "Walk on the Wild Side," and there will be black light posters hanging on the walls, and peace signs next to the trays of pills.

Getting old? Not for a while yet. Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for my nap.

UPDATE (7/28): Follow-up posts from Tim Bulkeley and Gordon Govier. BTW, Gordon is the host of the excellent radio program The Book & The Spade.

Penguins

If you're tired of summer blockbusters (super heroes, car chases, explosions, Sith Lords), or even if you're just tired of the heat, or the headlines, I recommend going to see March of the Penguins. It's not a run-of-the-mill National Geographic-type documentary; no talking heads, no scientific interviews. Just hordes of beautiful penguins as far as the eye can see.

At first I thought the penguins were cute, in a waddling, anthropomorphic way; but during the movie they assume an animalic dignity that I didn't expect. When we left the theater, it was the human beings around us who looked strange.

It was a refreshing experience for the soul. And for a week now, Amy and I have occasionally been imitating the penguin waddle around the house, just to see if we could do it (we can't). That really puts the quizzical look on the dogs' faces: What are they up to now? Are we still getting dinner?

Take the kiddies, although I should warn you that there is some (tasteful) penguin sex. (Google that, you perverts!)

A Rocky Bolt from the Heavenly Blue

When I was in seminary, I remember hearing George Ladd refer to Matt. 11:27 par. Luke 10:22 as "a solid block of Johannine rock," because, although the saying is Synoptic, it reminds one of the style of the discourses of Christ in the Gospel of John.

Since then, I've also heard it referred to as "a bolt from the Johannine blue." Interestingly, there are all kinds of variations. Here are a few, courtesy of Google and Google Print:

a thunderbolt from the Johannine heaven
a meteorite from the Johannine heaven
an aerolite from the Johannine heaven
an aerolite from the Johannean heaven
a boulder from the Johannine moraine
the bolt from the Johannine blue
an erratic block of Johannine rock
a solid block of Johannine rock
a bolt from the Johannine heaven
a bolt from the Johannine sky
the synoptic thunderbolt from the Johannine sky
a meteor from the Johannine sky
the Johannine aerolite

The phrase is most often attributed to Karl von Hase, a 19th century German historian of Christianity in the form "an aerolite from the Johannine heaven." But I don't know what the original German was. I imagine the "bolt ... blue" variant is an accommodation to English idiom; but I don't know where the "block ... rock" variant comes from. Does anybody else?

UPDATE (7/24): Reader Kevin Snapp emailed me the original quotation from von Hase:

Die einzige synoptische Stelle, darnach `Niemand den Sohn erkennt ausser der Vater, und Niemand den Vater erkennt ausser der Sohn und wem irgend der Sohn es offenbaren wolle,' macht den Eindruck wie ein Aerolith aus dem johanneischen [sic] Himmel gefallen, allenfalls auch aus dem Gesichtskreise des Paulus.

The reference is Karl von Hase, Geschichte Jesu, nach akademischen Vorlesungen (2te Aufl. Leipzig 1891), 527. Many thanks, Kevin; also thanks to Pilgrim in the comments for attempting a back-translation.

It's interesting that some of the versions of the phrase preserve the rare word aerolith or aerolite, although the more recent versions abandon it for words more readily understandable (like meteor) or idiomatic (bolt), even if the image is slightly changed. And some scholars have obviously recast the image in terms they like better or that are more euphonious ("rock ... block"). There's a lesson here for biblical criticism, not least in the fact that the underlying meaning remains unchanged throughout all the permutations.

An Aramaism in Matt. 11:26 par. Lk. 10:21

Although I've spent some time lately debunking various attempts to find Aramaic wordplay in the gospels, I do think that Aramaisms are to be found in them, and that New Testament scholars need to be aware of them.

A simple and very clear example is the idiom in Matt. 11:26 par. Luke 10:21, where Jesus in his prayer says to God, that He had revealed hidden things to babes, because "thus it was well-pleasing in thy sight" (Gk. houtos eudokia egeneto emprosthen sou), literally, "such was will/pleasure before you."

This particular idiom does not appear in the Septuagint, in the Greek Pseudepigrapha, or in any other place in the New Testament (except one, Mt. 18:14, see below). The best parallels elsewhere are in Aramaic, especially the targums.

In these examples, a translation of the Hebrew is given first, then a translation of the Targum:

Deut 10:10: "the Lord did not want to destroy you" = Targ. Neof. "there was no pleasure before the Lord to destroy you"

Judg. 13:23 "if the Lord wanted (to kill us)" = Targ. Jon. "if there was will/pleasure before the Lord (that we should die)"

I Sam. 12:22 "the Lord wanted to make you a people for himself" = Targ. Jon. "there was pleasure before the Lord to make you a people before him"

I Sam. 16:8 "the Lord has not chosen this one" = Targ. Jon. "there is no pleasure before the Lord in this one"

Isa. 1:11 "what is the multitude of your sacrifices to me?" = Targ. Jon. "there is no pleasure before me in the multitude of your holy sacrifices"

Jer. 44:22 "the Lord cannot bear any more" = Targ. Jon. "there was no longer pleasure before the Lord to forgive"

Jonah 1:4 "you, O Lord, have done as it pleased you" = "you, O Lord, have done as there was pleasure before you"

There are quite a few other examples.

The word translated "will, pleasure" is רעוא ra'awa, which corresponds very closely to Greek. eudokia. The Aramaic of the Gospel phrase would be something like ken hewat ra'awa qodamak, "such was will/pleasure before you" = "that is what you wanted to do."

A similar instance in the Gospels is Matt. 18:14: "it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven" (Gk. ouk estin thelema emprosthen tou patros humon tou en ouraniois), which in Aramaic would be la ra'awa qodam abukon di bi-shmayya. Here thelema is used instead of eudokia, but the underlying idiom is clearly the same.

Is this definitely Aramaic and not Hebrew? There are examples of the equivalent Hebrew phrase, the oldest of which is in Pirke Avoth 5:20: "May there be pleasure before you, O Lord our God (that the Temple be built)" = yehi ratzon millephaneykha YY eloheinu. Therefore it is possible that the Aramaism in Mat. 11:26 par., 18:14 is actually a Hebraism. However, the use of "before" (Aram. qodam, Gk. emprosthen) as a mark of respect, in this idiom and others, seems to have its origin in Aramaic, not Hebrew, usage. Therefore I opt for Aramaic.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: These are long-known examples of Semitic influence; of many references, the best discussion is probably in Gustav Dalman, Die Wörte Jesu.

The New Scroll

The new scroll fragments of Leviticus from the Wilderness of Judea provide a good opportunity for comments on the antiquities scene in Israel. Here's a quote from the AP story:

[Hanan] Eshel said he was first shown the fragments last year during a meeting in an abandoned police station near the Dead Sea.

A Bedouin said he had been offered $20,000 for the fragments on the black market and wanted an evaluation.

The encounter that both excited and dismayed the archaeologist who has worked in the Judean Desert since 1986.

"I was jealous he had found it, not me. I was also very excited. I didn't believe I would see them again," said Eshel, who took photographs of the pieces he feared would soon be smuggled out of the country.

But in March 2005, he discovered the Bedouin still had the scroll fragments. Eshel bought them with $3,000 provided by Bar Ilan University and handed them over to the Antiquities Authority, he said.

"Scholars do not buy antiquities. I did it because I could not see it fall apart," Eshel said.

Scattered thoughts: It's too bad the IAA or the Hebrew University or somebody doesn't offer a reward saying: "$1 MILLION TO THE FIRST PERSON TO DISCOVER A CAVE CONTAINING UNDISTURBED SCROLLS." A new bibliophorous (scroll bearing) cave would be worth more than any number of scraps.

It's too bad that the discoverer wanted the scholar's opinion only for authentication to make an illegal sale.

This scroll is not very sexy (c'mon — Leviticus?), and therefore it is probably authentic. A fake scroll would have mentioned Jesus or Paul and been offered for sale to the Israel Museum for $5 million, after a breathless article touting its importance had been published in BAR. But I'm glad they're doing tests on this one.

Where — and I mean exactly what cave? — was this discovered in? Why didn't Eshel just say, "Nice scroll. I'll give you your asking price if you can show me exactly where you discovered it. If not, hey, enjoy your Leviticus!"

How many other scrolls are being sold to collectors all the time by the Bedouin without publicity? Rumors abound.

UPDATE (7/17): Jim Davila asserts that Leviticus is indeed sexy, as anything biblical is sexy. Fair enough, and of course in the present state of biblical archaeology any unprovenanced article must be ipso facto under suspicion. I am wondering, though, if ancient animal skin suitable for forgery can be easily found. Other forgeries on stone, ceramic, or papyrus are less easily detectable since uninscribed ancient pieces of these materials are common. But truly ancient animal skin suitable for forgery must be rare (but I speak under correction). I agree that we should be cautious.

Speaking of unauthenticated scrolls, whatever happened to the so-called "Angel Scroll"?

Consensuses

An interesting discussion among Jim West, Jim Davila, and Michael Pahl on the meaning of "consensus," summarized here by Michael.

I would only add that there seem to be at least two kinds of consensus. One we might call a hard consensus, wherein the facts of the matter are so well-known to specialists or professionals that there is no serious doubt among them.

Another kind is the "soft" consensus, which is the result of a kind of scholarly flocking behavior. One view becomes fashionable, or famous, or is espoused by a particularly influential scholar, or just gets repeated a lot and everyone starts jumping on the bandwagon. Although a vote would reveal a "consensus," there is in fact a lot of room for opposition and contradiction, and little hard core of indisputable fact.

This presents a problem for outsiders: How can you tell if a particular consensus of specialists is hard or soft? I think the debate about global warming is an example of this kind of problem. As an outsider, I've become convinced that there is a hard consensus among scientists about global warming, although many politicians still want to portray it as soft, with room for reasonable doubt.

I take it that the question of the dating of the gospels, about which the question of consensus originally arose, is inevitably a matter of "soft" consensus. Of course, all of us want to treat our own ideas as a matter of "hard" consensus, "accepted scholarly opinion." I think that in our field there are relatively few matters of hard consensus. But soft consensuses (?) usually erode over time, or diminish when we scholarly sheep follow a new bellwether.

More on the Marzeah Papyrus

Stephen Goranson forwards this link to a site claiming that Raffi Brown (one of the indicted co-conspirators in the forgery scandal) was the forger of the Marzeah Papyrus and the Ivory Pomegranate. I have no idea whether the information on the site is good or bad — the wild writing style does not inspire confidence — but since the Marzeah Papyrus has been previously discussed here, I pass the link along for readers to sift through on their own. (I also feel that there are other incautious statements on that site that may be libelous. Caveat emptor.)

If any readers have independent knowledge of these claims, I'd be interested in hearing from you.

UPDATE: Joe Cathey summarizes a recent report in the Israel Exploration Journal on the Ivory Pomegranate.

Blogging and Academic Job Hunting

This article in the Chronicle of Higher Education may provide a good reality check for bloggers, both in Biblioblogdom and elsewhere. Read the whole thing. Here's an excerpt:

Job seekers who are also bloggers may have a tough road ahead, if our committee's experience is any indication.

You may think your blog is a harmless outlet. You may use the faulty logic of the blogger, "Oh, no one will see it anyway." Don't count on it. Even if you take your blog offline while job applications are active, Google and other search engines store cached data of their prior contents. So that cranky rant might still turn up.

The content of the blog may be less worrisome than the fact of the blog itself. Several committee members expressed concern that a blogger who joined our staff might air departmental dirty laundry (real or imagined) on the cyber clothesline for the world to see. Past good behavior is no guarantee against future lapses of professional decorum.

Personally, I try not to rant, bitch, moan, talk trash, or get personal on "Ralph." And I try to stay pretty much within the broad topics I've established herein, while still maintaining enough variety to keep myself, my family, and my friends, both lay and professional, interested.

But I must admit that I didn't think about blogging being a barrier to future employment. I think it's a pity that the committee described in the article was suspicious of blogging as such. However, all of us should probably remind ourselves that the dashed-off tripe we ladle into the bitstream is going to be cached and available for reading for a long time. "Every idle word ..." (There's a spiritual lesson here, too.)

Maybe this issue can be taken up at the Biblioblogging session in November at Philadelphia. I'd be interested in hearing what others think in the meantime, especially those with faculty positions. If you were on a search committee, would you check a candidate's blog? If you did, what would you look for?

UPDATE (7/10): Thanks for all your comments, although nobody answered my question.

AKMA responds to the same article here, and Ann Althouse here, and she links to this Metafilter discussion. She also says, "But, for me, blogging is so phenomenally satisfying that I would find the possible career advancement sacrifices worth it." Wow. Spoken like a woman with tenure and an endowed chair.

I suppose the moral of the story is this: If you want to know if a critique of blogging is valid or not, don't ask bloggers.

Spielberg's War

"War of the Worlds" was better than I expected, which was something on the pedestrian level of "Batman Begins." It transcended its own blockbuster hype and really made me belatedly begin to think of Steven Spielberg as a real auteur.

Of course, Spielberg is not really interested in aliens or spaceships or any other sci-fi stuff. In this respect he could not differ more from George Lucas, who really thinks aliens and spaceships are cool and interesting and worth forging a story around.

What Spielberg really likes more than anything else is showing people under pressure; what do people act like in dire straits? The crisis is different — sharks, combat, the Holocaust, dinosaurs, aliens — but the focus is always on characters in crisis, not on what is causing the crisis. (Raiders of the Lost Ark is an exception, but doesn't really count, since the whole conception was Lucas's, not Spielberg's.) This really comes out clearly in "War of the Worlds" when Ray's car is attacked by other refugees: this is the scariest scene in the movie, and it could take place in a war movie or a dinosaur movie or a movie about a big storm a-comin'. The people are just as scary as the aliens, if not more so. Spielberg excels at this kind of film.

(Compare the superficially similar Twister; there is a plot about men, women, relationships and competition, etc., but it's just machinery to keep people encountering those awesome tornadoes. If Spielberg had made it, the tornadoes would just be machinery to put these people in extreme situations and see what happens to them.)

There were what seemed to me some references to other Spielberg movies. The burgeoning cloud with lightning flashing within, which conceals aliens, reminded me of Close Encounters, as does a later scene when characters are transfixed in an alien spotlight; the basement scene was a lot like the one in Jurassic Park when the raptors attack in the hotel kitchen; the combat scenes are inevitably like those in Saving Private Ryan; an alien who is first noticed as a grasping hand is reminiscent of certain parts of E.T. I don't know if Spielberg is repeating himself or not, but maybe the references to his other movies with aliens are intentional and ironic. The aliens are E.T.'s evil twins.

Visual references to 9/11 are sprinkled throughout, yet another sign that Spielberg is not really thinking about extra-terrestrials. His message for us in this movie is not unlike the messages in his other movies: "Don't give up, you can get through this." It's not deep, but it's timely.

The previews were also interesting. Every movie looks good in trailers, but I was pleased at the overall look of the Narnia movie, and even "King Kong" looks like it might be worthwhile.

Learning in War-Time

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of the London bombings and their families.

At times like these, I am often tempted to think, Why work? Why should I write, study, blog, catalog, parse verbs, or do research, when there is so much suffering in the world, so much of "real" importance to be done, besides which my activities pale into insignificance?

I find C. S. Lewis's sermon "Learning in War-Time," delivered in Oxford as the Second World War broke out, a bracing tonic for these feelings. Read it all, if you can find it. A few quotes:

Plausible reasons have never been lacking for putting off all merely cultural activities until some imminent danger has been averted or some crying injustice put right. But humanity long ago chose to neglect those plausible reasons. They wanted knowledge and beauty now, and would not wait for the suitable moment that never comes. . . . [Men] propound mathematical theorems in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing on the walls of Quebec, and comb their hair at Thermopylae. This is not panache; it is our nature.
...
If we had foolish un-Christian hopes about human culture, they are now shattered. If we thought we were building up a heaven on earth, if we looked for something that would turn the present world from a place of pilgrimage into a permanent city satisfying the soul of man, we are disillusioned, and not a moment too soon. But if we thought that for some souls, and at some times, the life of learning, humbly offered to God, was, in its own small way, one of the appointed approaches to the Divine reality and the Divine beauty which we hope to enjoy hereafter, we can think so still.

So ... back to work.

My Chat with Hershel

A few weeks ago, Hershel Shanks called me up. Our discussion was both cordial and frank, as one might say of a summit between Bush and Chirac. I didn't take notes, but some of the highlights, as I remember them:

His call, as it turns out, was prompted by the post "The Latest News from Hershel Shanks." He began the conversation saying that he had read the post on my blog criticizing him. ME: A post criticizing you? Which one? HS: You mean there's more than one? ME: Actually, there are quite a few.

He asked why I didn't just send a letter to the editor at BAR. I told him that these days I would rather blog than write a letter to the editor.

If you've been reading "Ralph," then you know my differences with Hershel. I would like to see certain changes in Biblical Archaeology Review, and I would like to see — at least — unprovenanced artifacts treated with suspicion instead of good will, not just in BAR, but throughout the guild. Hershel told me I didn't live in the real world, that these items would continue to be discussed, and the field could only benefit by full discussion and complete openness of debate.

I responded that unprovenanced artifacts would always have a cloud over them, and that this cloud would prevent the unfettered use of epigraphic material we all find interesting. I want to see Biblical archaeology placed on a sound footing, not undermined by the antiquities market and by forgers.

Hershel said that people have a right to know, and that interesting discoveries can't be kept a secret. The story of the Dead Sea Scrolls is a case in point. I said that scholars should not be in the business of providing authentication of artifacts for the benefit of collectors; epigraphs appearing on the antiquities market should not be for sale, and unprovenanced epigraphs, after having been handed over to the authorities, should be examined by experts before being published. Hershel says that such rules will just drive the market underground.

Hershel accused me of thinking that he was "immoral ... a bad guy." I said I preferred to use the words "unwise" or "incautious" or "overeager." (And I don't think I've ever said on "Ralph" or elsewhere that Hershel is personally a bad guy, which he certainly is not.)

More was said, which I can't now recall with exactness; if memory serves, among other things, Hershel said or implied that the looting of antiquities would not stop until the Israeli-Palestinian problem was solved; that the banned antiquities trade in Egypt continued to flourish underground; and that Kyle McCarter thinks the Ivory Pomegranate is authentic. I declined to discuss the Pomegranate further until a full report comes out; I'm a philologist, not a paleographic expert.

We ended by agreeing that such discussions as we had on the phone were good, and wishing that others could have overheard. He encouraged me to blog on our conversation, which I am now doing. I didn't change his mind, he didn't change mine.

Violent Americans Bomb Innocent Comet

This is cool. Happy Fourth!

Does "Iscariot" Mean "the Liar"?

The etymology of Judas's surname Iscariot has been much discussed. I am surprised to see a theory gaining ground that, in my opinion, has little to recommend it. I refer to the proposal that the Aramaic word sheqar, "lie," is the basis of the name. M. Limbeck writes in the Exegetical Dictionary of the NT:

Starting from Aram. sheqar and shiqray/sheqarya, "liar," which with the ending -a and with aleph prostheticum becomes ishqarya, Iscariot can be taken as "the liar, the false one" ...

I have a number of problems with this proposal. First of all, there is not, as far as I can tell, any Aramaic word shiqray, sheqarya that means "liar." The idea that there is apparently comes from an error in Jastrow's Dictionary (p. 1626, s.v. שׁקרא), where he misinterprets a verbal form in b.Yev. 55b שׁקרי , "I lied" — as an adjective. That is the only "attested" use of this otherwise non-existent word. The normal Aramaic word for "liar" would be shaqqar, which cannot be made to yield "Iscariot."

Secondly, you can't just tack on a prosthetic aleph any place you want to; it occurs primarily on words that begin with consonant clusters (which shiqray does not). As far as I can determine, prosthetic aleph is not attested with this root at all in Aramaic. So what we have here is an arbitrary syllable added to a word that does not exist; and this is proposed in a widely used lexical tool as the most probable etymology! (I. Howard Marshall, in his commentary on Luke, also refers to this as the "most plausible" etymology.)

The old idea that Iscariot means "man of (the town) Kerioth" (Hebrew ish qeriyot) is still the best. Limbeck objects that a Hebrew surname would not be used, but I think this is not true; tombstones and ossuaries from the first century CE bear names in both Hebrew and Aramaic. Plus, names with ish + city name are quite common in the Mishnah. Here's a few:

Natai Ish Tekoa (Hal. 4:10)
Yosi ben Yoezer Ish Zereda
Yosi ben Yohanan Ish Yerushalaim (Sota 9:9)
Yakim Ish Hadar (Eduy. 7:5)
Antigonus Ish Sokho (Avot. 1:3)
Halaphta Ish Kefar-hanania (Avot 3:6)
Levitas Ish Yabneh (Avot 4:4)
Eliezer Ben Yehudah Ish Bartota (Tev. Y. 3:4)

Judas's full designation in Hebrew would likely have been Yehudah ben Shimon Ish Qeriyot (cp. John 6:71, "Judas son of Simon Iscariot," which also has the variant reading "from Kariot" for "Iscariot").


BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. Limbeck, "Iscariotes," Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Horst Balz, Gerhard Schneider, p. 201.