The verb אֶעֱנֶה appears twice in MT Hos 2:23 construed with the same object, הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם, while LXX does not reflect the first of its appearances. Many scholars regard the repetition in MT as a rhetorical device. The author, however, points to a distinction between this supposed rhetorical repetition and the examples of repetition adduced by scholars who make the case for Hos 2:23 being an intentional device. Furthermore, the study provides data demonstrating that the repetition in Hos 2:23 functions in a manner that is decidedly different than all other cases in the Bible in which the other Hebrew expressions surrounding the purported repetition appear. This study also offers two possible scenarios in which the verb may have been duplicated erroneously.
This article argues that the Qumran pesharim and TgJon originate from a common, though internally varied, elite intellectual tradition with a priestly character. This tradition developed particular interests, e.g. messianism and eschatology, and transmitted individual textual and interpretative traditions. As it appears, this tradition has pre-70 CE roots, but continued after the destruction of the temple. Both the Qumran commentaries and TgJon reflect the interests of this priestly tradition and incorporate some of its textual and exegetical traditions, though not through literary dependence.
This study examines six manners in which rabbinic literature and Targum Psalms interact. 1. An earlier rabbinic tradition provides the backdrop against which the Targum’s translation must be understood. 2. The Targum applies a tradition it uses to translate one part of a psalm towards translating another verse in that same psalm. 3. The Targum revises earlier rabbinic traditions to suit its own ideological and literary concerns. 4. The Targum adapts interpretations that were originally generated well beyond the confines of the psalm being translated and even the Psalter as a whole. 5. The Targum inserts itself into popular late antique exegetical discourses of particular psalms. 6. It rejects a widespread interpretive trend attested to in rabbinic literature. Overall, by moving beyond the mere notation of parallelism, we gain a clearer portrait of the translator’s relationship with rabbinic literature, his working methods, and the ideologies that impelled his creative endeavours.
The influence of the Bible in human history is staggering. Biblical texts have inspired grand social advancements, intellectual inquiries, and aesthetic achievements. Yet, the Bible has also given rise to hatred, violence, and oppression—often with deadly consequences. How does the Bible exert such extraordinary influence? The short answer is rhetoric. In Influence: On Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation, Michal Beth Dinkler demonstrates that, contrary to popular opinion, rhetoric is not inherently “empty” or disingenuous. Rhetoric refers to the art of persuasion. Dinkler argues that the Bible is by nature rhetorical, and that understanding the art of persuasion is therefore vital for navigating biblical literature and its interpretation. Influence invites readers to think critically about biblical rhetoric and the rhetoric of biblical interpretation, and offers a clear and compelling guide for how to do so.
This article addresses two cases from the narratives in Daniel in which a similar theological question arises concerning the uncertainty of God’s ability to deliver his servants: (1) The chief officer’s denial of Daniels’ request (Dan 1:10) despite the fact that God granted Daniel grace and compassion from the chief officer, and (2) the speech of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan 3:17–18), in which they entertain the possibility that God will not, or perhaps cannot, save them. Commentators and translators throughout the generations have struggled with these theological problems, and we can identify a clear trend seeking to read the relevant verses in a way that removes the uncertainty, replacing it with certain faith in God’s deliverance.
In this article, we demonstrate how this interpretive trend surprisingly continues even with modern biblical scholars. Based on a literary analysis, we suggest that reading the MT version without altering it to conform with certain theological preconceptions may shed new light on the Daniel narratives, thereby exposing their deep and complex message.