Category Archives: Biblical Studies

Reader Kent has left a very helpful comment. Logos is producing an electronic edition of the Göttingen Septuaginta! There is a pre-pub special sale on for this resource, more than 50% off the retail price. All the currently available Göttingen Septuaginta volumes are included. The only page samples are page images from the printed volumes, but it sounds like the Logos editon is fully electronic, including both the text and the apparatus, with the Greek morphologically tagged. What an excellent resource! I shall have to pinch some pennies to pick this one up!

I’ve been thinking about a way to quantify the degree to which the new Orthodox Study Bible’s “St Athanasius Academy Septuagint’ is actually a translation of the texts of the Septuagint. As is patently obvious in this “translation,” entire books of the OSB OT are only lightly reworked versions of the New King James Version, a Masoretic Text-based translation. This practice has very often led to an exclusion of the distinctive textual and even narrative characteristics of the LXX text, as various reviewers have already noted. The numerous differences between the Hebrew MT and Greek LXX are often referred to, yet there is no comprehensive list. Here are two suggestions for sources toward producing such a comprehensive list:

1.) The Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek texts of Jewish Scripture of the Center for Computer Analysis of Texts of the Religious Studies Department at the University of Pennsylvania were initially set up under the direction Emanuel Tov. In these, the texts of the MT (the Michigan-Claremont electronic text of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) and LXX (CATSS LXX produced from the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae LXX texts based on Rahlfs) are aligned, transliterated Hebrew on the left, transliterated Greek on the right. Pluses (where LXX has text lacking in the MT) and minuses (where LXX is lacking text in the MT) and transpositions are indicated. So, with the help of these files, it would be possible to compile an exhaustive and precise list of every place in which the LXX differs from the MT. It would be particularly easy to track down the pluses and minuses this way. But for issues of alternate readings between the two text traditions, one would still be required to compare each and every word in each and every line in order to compile a list of such differences, as these are not marked. That would be an extraordinary amount of work. Fortunately there is an alternative.

2.) Within the apparatus of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia lie numerous indications where the LXX (and other versions) differ from the reading presented in Codex Leningradensis, taken as the exemplar of the Masoretic Text tradition. Thus, the work of indicating the alternate readings between the two traditions, MT and LXX, is effectively done in the apparatus to the BHS. These indications of alternate readings in the LXX could easily be compiled. In conjunction with the plus/minus information easily obtainable from the CCAT files, this information from the BHS apparatus may be considered to complete the desired list of MT/LXX differences.

With such a list completed, one might then simply go down the list, item by item, verse by verse, and check off each feature of the LXX that is found in the OSB OT. At the end, the number of checkmarks divided by the number of lines would provide one with a percentage to which the OSB OT actually represents the LXX text. In fact, it would become quickly apparent which books reflect more accurately the LXX, and which are largely simply the NKJV OT text, by the number of items found in each book as one is working.

The result of this would be an objective, quantifiable evaluation of the OSB OT based on authoritative works. The compiled list of MT/LXX differences would otherwise also be a very useful tool for Septuagintal research, as well, from the introductory level to that of textual criticism. It’s an interesting idea, I think.

The result of my studies annoys me. Sometimes, anyway. Reading the Bible is hardly the enjoyment of literature that it should be anymore, but becomes instead a critique of the translation, a mental retroversion to the Hebrew and/or Greek involved, mental notes on historical illumination and literary parallels, and all manner of distractions. The wonder is often gone. I hate that.

Just the other day, I read the Book of Jonah. It’s such a short book amongst the Twelve Prophets, it takes only a few minutes to read through. But what a powerful book! It’s a story that has struck people through the ages, and was a popular artistic subject in early Christianity (Jonah either going into or coming out of a sea monster; or Jonah resting under his vine). And it’s the taking of that story at face value that gives it such power, as a real tale of something that happened to a real prophet of a real Israel, having dealt with a real sea and real giant fish, and a real city of Nineveh. Where does my mind go? Oh, to thinking about its setting in a period of Assyrian weakness just before the Neo-Assyrian empire expanded its border at the expense of any number of smaller nations; to thinking about the city Nineveh at that time, how it was not the magnificent place that Sennacherib would begin to make it, and how the description and the book’s writing really must therefore date to the seventh century if not later; to thinking this book’s popularity may partly be due to its having the smallest vocabulary of all the LXX books, yet still being a cracking good tale; to thinking of “gourd” versus “vine” and Augustine and Jerome. There is too much noise. This is not reading, but something else, and it is certainly not joyful or enlightening. I have to force myself to step back and turn off that running commentary, that mental footnoting, imposing silence. The silence is necessary.

Then the story unfolds, and wonderment with it. The darkening skies and the heaving sea. Threatening waves and a flimsy boat. Kindly sailors who don’t want to throw Jonah in. Sinking, sinking, “Full fathom five Thy prophet lies….” Seaweed wraps a drowning head. Then a salvific gulp. And this wayward prophet’s last act before dying is prayer in the belly of a huge fish. And that, his death, is important to recall. He did not, as did Gepetto in Disney’s Pinocchio, live inside the fish. He died. He was dead for three days. And then he was alive again. This was “the sign of Jonah” recalled in the Gospels: three days dead, then alive again. Jonah lives again, still in the belly of the fish, and prays again, and then [barf] he’s freed from the fish. His last act and first act were both prayer: a lesson. And oh, oh, oh, look at Jonah’s “righteous” anger, and what lesson do we gain from that, the tale of an anger that thinks it knows better than does God? And what a strange, but entirely merciful ending: “And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?” Confused or ignorant people deserve care, not anger, and certainly not destruction, though that would attend Nineveh in time, which is something that seems to be inexplicably hanging in the air throughout the book.

It’s time to take back the wonder.

New blogger Theophrastus at What I Learned From Aristotle (which looks like it’ll be a really great blog: his name and title rock, and among his first posts are some on lipograms and new editions of Dracula!) makes note of a new edition of the English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha. [The book is now published in a variety of bindings by Anglican House Publishers.] Oddly, it’s published by Oxford University Press, USA, rather than Crossway. The apocrypha in this Bible are apparently the RSV Apocrypha only very lightly reworked (Theophrastus was unable to find any differences in a quick spot-check of various passages). Unfortunately, it sounds as though the physical attributes of this edition are of unacceptably shoddy quality. Both Theophrastus and a blogger he links to mention negatively the extremely thin, non-opaque paper used in this edition. Bleed-through is the bane of all heavy readers. Also, the Apocrypha section is placed at the back of the book, after the NT. Granted, my Oxford Annotated Bible (first edition with the RSV) also has the Apocrypha at the back, but it’s just as odd there, too. So, I’m going to pass on this particular edition. If they release an edition of better quality, I’ll consider it, but it’s not at all compelling. I enjoy the Apocrypha in the NRSV more than those of the RSV, particularly the G^II text of Tobit and the full text of Greek Esther. Overall, it sounds like a real non-plus, which is disappointing. These days, I’m much, much happier with another Oxford Bible: the New English Translation of the Septuagint. The work that the translators went to in order to represent in English the peculiar literalistic rendering of the Hebrew in the Greek is simply astounding. Also, having the so-called apocryphal books interspersed in their traditional localtions amongst the other books in the NETS is a real plus. The introductions are without compare, and necessary reading for anyone interesting in the Septuagint.

So, many thanks and welcome, Theophrastus!

Some time ago I was sent a review copy of the inaugural issue (November/December 2008) of Bible Study Magazine, a print magazine published by Logos Bible Software (ISSN 1945-0923). Here, finally, is my review.

First, let’s focus on the physical aspects. This is not a very thick magazine, consisting as it does of 49 pages excluding the cover. But the paper stock is of a higher quality than most print magazines, a matte stock which is as pleasing to the eye as it is to the hand. The cover is a bit thicker stock, but also matte. This lends a very nice, modern, higher quality aesthetic to the magazine. It also feels a bit heavier in the hand than it looks it should, which is not a bad thing. The printing is full-color throughout, stem to stern, with a good ink that doesn’t smear easily, thankfully. All this is for the low price (or at least two out of three of the prices are low) noted on the cover: US$ 4.95, CAN$ 5.95, and UK₤ 4.95. However, an annual subscription is a mere US$ 14.95, which is a steal, compared to the cover price.

Now to the content. The Letter from the editor and masthead information appear on page three, with the Statement of Faith being, surprising and refreshingly, the Apostles’ Creed, rather than some cobbled-together denominational foofaraw. By my count, only about 16 pages are ads out of 51 (including the back cover as a page, but excluding the front cover), which not bad at all for any magazine. Hopefully that ratio will remain throughout its run. One of the interesting things about the layout of this magazine, to which most of the ads seem also to have been conformed, is the presence of plenty of white space. This causes some more graphic/text-intense (read “traditional”) ads to look cluttered in comparison, and thus comparatively ugly, an unfortunate incident for the advertisers, who should most certainly design and provide some different ads in future, or at the very least permit the staff of the magazine the license to create ads for these sponsors in such a way that they blend better with the general aesthetic of the magazine. Some particular ads I find particularly jarring in this respect are, for example, those of pages 30, 37, and 48. An interesting feature throughout the magazine is the strong connection to the online world. URLs appear throughout, intended to lead readers to more information on various publications (often appearing in Logos Digital Library format), people, or subjects.

Continue reading “Bible Study Magazine”

The Voice of Iyov blog is now permanently defunct, according to a message from the author.

Let us all wish the man behind the pseudonym Iyov the best in all his endeavours.

A couple of weeks ago, I became the happy owner of a Tübinger Bibelatlas (thanks Eisenbrauns!). It’s a beautiful atlas, though still not close to the absolutely magnificent Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. While flipping through and reading what text there is, the relatively extended essay “Comment on the Sinai Map” by Götz Schmitt caught my eye. The Sinai Map is one of the four maps not originally appearing in the Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients (or TAVO), which is the source for all the other maps, but which were produced especially for inclusion in the Tübinger Bibelatlas, and so the extended description of the map was considered necessary. There is a very interesting passage in Schmitt’s essay (“Comment on the Sinai Map,” col. 1 [there are no page numbers]):

There are two central issues for the geographical interpretation of the texts: Kadesh and Paran. The approximate location of Kadesh is taken from the list of borders in Num 34:3-5/Josh 15:3f. and Ez 47:18. According to this, Kadesh was on the southern border of Judah between the Dead Sea and the “Brook of Egypt” (Wādī Ġazza or Wādī l-ʿArīš). The name appears in ʿAin Qudēs; however, there is more in favor of the oasis and ruins at ʿAin al-Qudērāt ca. 10 km farther north. In the older sources, Kadesh is not of great significance (it is mentioned only in Num 13:26 and 20:1). It acquires this for the first time in Deuteronomy. Presumable reflected in this is an increased significance of Kadesh at that time. This corresponds to the archaeological discovery at Tall al-Qudērāt, a fortress that had existed in various times since the 10th century and was without equal in the region during itls last phase at the close of the monarchy.

Later, in the Roman period, we find Kadesh identified with Rekem, i.e., Petra, and correspondingly, Mount Hor with Ğabal Hārūn near Petra. E. A. Knauf has shown that we have to reckon with this secondary positioning of Kadesh even in Biblical texts (Biblische Notizen 61, 1992, 22-26). The negotiations that Moses held from his location in Kadesh for permission to pass through Edom (Num 21:14-21) have no meaning at all unless Kadesh Petra is meant. At best, passage through a small corner northwest of Edom would come into question, when viewed from the actual, Judean Kadesh. In any case, we now must deal with the question of what is meant by “Kadesh.” The list of borders in Num 34, through which we learn the true location of Kadesh, belongs to an addition of the Priestly Source. That the authors of the original text were also familiar with the content of this document is quite probable in view of the mention of the Wilderness of Zin. Thus, Kadesh in the Priestly Source is still the Kadesh south of Judah. The Mount Hor of the Priestly Source is probably there, as well, one station away from Kadesh. Just as Moses died near the border of the Promised Land, so too did Aaron.

So, there are several things going on here, but the most intriguing, indeed compelling, item is the equation of Kadesh with Petra. Knauf’s article, short as it is, packs alot of information into it in this regard. We’ll get to that in a moment.

First, I feel the need to note some of my own objections to some of the above, as I’ve dealt with several of these subjects in the past. The Shihor of Egypt, the border between Egypt and Israel, was at the easternmost branch of the Nile, not at a further distance from Egypt. Further, I tack otherwise in regards to the Documentary Hypothesis (that is, that it’s malarkey, and further, it is malarchy), describing an alternative perspective on the issue in two separate posts here and here, which I’ll expand upon in the future. My discussion will proceed in keeping with those perspectives. One may follow along or not as one wishes.

Continue reading “Kadesh and Petra”

Via Laurence Mellerin on the Hugoye list comes news of the fantastically useful Biblindex, the Index of Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Early Christian Literature. I gasped when I read his message (demonstrating an all too high Patristic Geek Quotient). As described on the site, the index covers:

This site already allows simple interrogation in a corpus of about 400,000 biblical references, from the volumes of Biblia Patristica, CNRS Editions, 1975-2000, and unpublished archives of the Center for Patristics Analysis and Documentation (CADP). The Biblindex project is carried out by the Institute of Christian sources, part of the UMR 5189 HiSoMA (History and Sources of the ancient world) of the CNRS and funded mainly by the Cluster 13 of the Rhone-Alpes Regional Council.

Can be consulted on this website:

– Data of the published volumes of Biblia Patristica, Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la littérature patristique, Editions du CNRS (ca. 270,000 biblical references, with updates on 5000 references) : 1. Beginnings to Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, 1975 – 2. The third century (except Origen), 1977 – 3. Origen, 1980 – 4. Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius of Salamis, 1987 – 5. Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Amphiloque of Iconium, 1991 – 6. Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Milan, Ambrosiaster, 1995 – 7. Didymus of Alexandria, 2000 – Supplement, Philo of Alexandria, 1982. [The titles marked with a hyperlink can be purchased on the site of CNRS Editions, others are exhausted.]

– Unpublished data from the archives of Biblia Patristica (ca. 100.000 references): these data are unverified (they appear in red)

– Biblical indexes of Bernard of Clairvaux’s thirteen first volumes published in the series Sources Chrétiennes (ca. 13.200 references)

Unfortunately, funding for the project is currently suspended, so that development of the website is in abeyance. The search feature is not intuitive, so read the instructions before attempting to search, otherwise the results are less than ideal.

For anyone familiar with the Biblia Patristica indices, in particular, this is a real source of pleasure. The volumes are very difficult to find. To have the index completely available online, including an additional body of citations, is extremely helpful. This online index will be of great use to those working on Patristic Biblical commentary. Let ‘s all hope the project with soon receive funding again, so that it will continue to be of use to all Patristic scholars and students.