Ancient Hebrew Poetry

Ron Hendel’s Proposals for SBL do not go far enough

Ron Hendel’s BAR piece has created a stir. James McGrath provides a first set of links. Other recent examples: Doug Chaplin, Chris Heard, and Phil Sumpter (here and here). The Society itself and a number of SBL members on various threads have taken the time to correct and supplement a number of Hendel’s supporting observations. I was surprised by the tameness of Hendel’s constructive proposals in comment #18 on the SBL thread. They do not go far enough. Not by a long shot.

Ron Hendel lets his SBL membership lapse

Ron Hendel is Norma and Sam Dabby Professor of Hebrew Bible and Jewish Studies in the Department of Near Eastern Studies of the University of California, Berkeley. In a piece for the July-August issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hendel claims that SBL - the Society of Biblical Literature - “has changed its position on the relationship between faith and reason in the study of the Bible. . . . The problem, as I understand it, has to do with money.”¹ (HT: James Davila). Hendel points to the following shifts:

[I]nstead of distinguished academic organizations like ASOR and AAR in the fold, we now have fundamentalist groups like the Society of Pentecostal Studies and the Adventist Society for Religious Studies as our intimate partners. These groups now hold SBL sessions at the annual meeting.

Hendel is a top-notch scholar of the Hebrew Bible. He contributed the commentary to Genesis in the HarperCollins Study Bible prepared by SBL, the organization he now takes to task. He is preparing the Yale Anchor Bible commentary on Genesis and is the general editor of the Oxford Hebrew Bible - for a dyspeptic review of this project; see Hugh Williamson’s Biblica article here. Is Hendel’s piece another example of scholarly dyspepsia, this time written for BAR? Perhaps. BAR is an outlet which is known for its commitment to the virtue of intemperance. It also reaches a large subscriber base most of whom have no way of knowing whether the facts as Hendel describes them are actually facts. If for no other reason, Hendel’s piece deserves a review. Despite all the fireworks, I conclude with an ardent plea in which I invite Hendel to renew his membership.

The Science of Water Balloons

I haven't gotten around to blogging in the last two weeks. I am between parishes and between parsonages. In practice that means that I am busy with two parishes, with moving out of one place and moving into another, and with little time for much else. There is a rush on one end to tie up loose ends. There is a rush on the other to start out with a bang. Vacation Bible School is underway in my current parish, with a Firefighter theme (Jesus is the Firefighter par excellence). The highlight of the morning (and the afternoon, I'm told) involves throwing water balloons at the pastor. That would be me. Kids and adults get inordinate pleasure out of beaning the pastor and making him as wet as possible. The psychology of this is utterly transparent. 

Don S. Browning (1937-2010): A Tribute

As noted by Richard Garnett over at Law, Religion, and Ethics and Mirror of Justice, the brilliant Christian sociologist Don S. Browning passed away earlier this week. If even a portion of his proposals in the realm of family law were implemented in the United States, if the model of marriage and family he defended, characterized by a delicate balance of traditional and modern impulses, were appropriated at large, what a different future marriage and the family might have in the US and world culture. Browning also made a liberal case against same sex marriage. He led the Religion, Culture, and Family Project (1991-2003) from his chair in Ethics and the Social Sciences at the University of Chicago. The project generated 15 volumes, hundreds of scholarly articles and scores of public forums and conferences. A related project Browning co-directed: Sex, Marriage, and Family: The Religions of the Book. A forthcoming volume of that project, by Carol J. Rowland Hogue, Professor of Maternal and Child Health at Emory University, has an indicative title: The Abortion/Contraception Paradox: How the Misuse of Politics, Law and Religion by Birth Control Opponents Conspires to Increase Abortions. Browning also served as Senior Advisor to the The Child in Law, Religion, and Society project.

תהלים קיא

         1  אוֹדֶ֣ה יְ֭הוָה בְּכָל־לֵבָ֑ב        בְּס֖וֹד יְשָׁרִ֣ים וְעֵדָֽה׃

         2  גְּ֭דֹלִים מַֽעֲשֵׂ֣י־יְהוָ֑ה           דְּ֝רוּשִׁ֗ים לְכָל־חֶפְצֵיהֶֽם׃

         3  הוֹד וְהָדָ֥ר פָּֽעֳל֑וֹ             וְ֝צִדְקָת֗וֹ עֹמֶ֥דֶת לָעַֽד׃

 

        4 זֵ֣כֶר עָ֭שָׂה לְנִפְלְאוֹתָ֑יו       חַנּ֖וּן וְרַח֣וּם יְהוָֽה׃

        5 טֶ֭רֶף נָתַ֣ן לִֽירֵאָ֑יו              יִזְכֹּ֖ר לְעוֹלָ֣ם בְּרִיתֽוֹ׃

        6 כֹּ֣חַ־מַֽ֭עֲשָׂיו הִגִּ֣יד לְעַמּ֑וֹ     לָתֵ֥ת לָ֝הֶ֗ם נַֽחֲלַ֥ת־גּוֹיִֽם׃

 

        7 מַֽעֲשֵׂ֣י־יָ֭דָיו אֱמֶ֣ת וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט       נֶֽ֝אֱמָנִ֗ים כָּל־פִּקּוּדָֽיו

        8 סְמוּכִ֣ים לָעַ֣ד לְעוֹלָ֑ם             עֲ֝שׂוּיִ֗ם בֶּֽאֱמֶ֥ת וְיֹשֶֽׁר׃

                                       

        9   פְּד֤וּת ׀ שָׁ֘לַ֤ח לְעַמּ֗וֹ      צִוָּֽה ֯ לְעוֹלָ֥ם בְּרִית֑וֹ      קָד֖וֹשׁ וְנוֹרָ֣א שְׁמֽוֹ׃

10      9 רֵ֘אשִׁ֤ית־חָכְמָ֨ה׀יִרְאַת־יְהוָ֗ה    שֵׂכֶל־טוֹב לְכָל־עֹֽשֵׂיהֶ֑ם    תְּ֝הִלָּת֗וֹ עֹמֶ֥דֶת לָעַֽד׃

Psalm 111: Introductory Remarks

Scanned according to the acrostic scheme and the masoretic division into pesuqim, Psalm 111 consists of 10 lines, the last two lines of which are tripartite rather than bipartite. If it is recognized that the poet followed a principle according to which bound phrases constitute clitic units, it becomes evident that all the lines follow the rule of twos and threes. Each bipartite line contains 4 to 7 prosodic words; each tripartite line, 8 to 9 prosodic words, in accordance with the general rule. Pss 111 instantiates a tightly constrained mashal meter. The poet composed in acrostic units of consistent and proportional length (6-9 syllables).[1]

Wherever for consistency a masoretic maqqeph (־) was removed, if added back the rule of twos and threes would still hold. Wherever for consistency a maqqeph was added, if removed the rule would still hold except in the case of one of the first two added maqqephim in Ps 111:10.

111:10 stands out by virtue of the unclear referent of the plural pronominal suffix. The sense seems to be: those who practice “them” - wisdom and fear of יהוה – are endowed with keen sense. The subject changes from יהוה to those who fear יהוה, anticipating 112:1. 112 in fact is in some sense 111’s twin.

---

[1] The “hallelujahs” which mark off Pss 111 and 112 from each other and from the context are probably not integral parts of Pss 111-112, but rubrics added by a redactor of the collection of psalms of which they are now a part. My guess, based on form-critical considerations – 111 is a psalm of praise, 112 is not - is that a hallelujah was added as a prescript and a postscript to Ps 111, with the postscript later mistaken for a prescript to 112. For the rule of twos and threes, “lines,” “stress,” “parallelism,” the “general” and “length” rules; “syllables” and other prosodic domains; abbreviations; and full bibliographical references, see Regularities in Ancient Hebrew Verse: An Overview and the other materials referenced here. For a first orientation to the prosodic information encoded by the masoretic accents, see Bezalel Elan Dresher, “The Prosodic Basis of the Tiberian Hebrew System of Accents,” Language 70 (1994) 1-52; “The Word in Tiberian Hebrew,” in The Nature of the Word: Essays in Honor of Paul Kiparsky (ed. Kristin Hanson and Sharon Inkelas; Cambridge: MIT Press, in press); at: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~dresher/tibhebword.pdf.

No shortcuts possible in the discussion about sexual orientation

There are no shortcuts in the discussion about sexual orientation. I know, if for no other reason than that my own views are too "progressive" for some and too traditional for others. If for no other reason than that I count among friends, family, and parishioners people who have made and continue to make diametrically opposed decisions based on their sexual orientation as they understand it, and/or come down on those who do not see eye to eye with them in harsh and unforgiving ways.

Psalm 111 in Technicolor

Praise יה!

1 I acknowledge יהוה with a whole heart           in the council and assembly of the true;

 2magnificent are יהוה’s accomplishments,      retraced by all who cherish them;

3 glory, majesty describe his work,                    his beneficence stands forever.

 

4 Renown he won by his wonders,                   generous and merciful is יהוה;

5 spoil he gave to those who fear him,            he remembers his covenant in perpetuity;

6 the power of his deeds he evidenced to his people   by granting them the estate of nations.

 

7 The actions of his hands are sure and just,     trusted are all his dispositions,

8 established for all time in perpetuity,             accomplished in surety and truth.

 

9 Redemption he sent his people,                      ordained his covenant in perpetuity;

                                                                      holy, awesome, his name.

10 The beginning of wisdom: fear of יהוה;      keen sense belongs to all who act on them;

                                                                      his praise stands forever.

Praise יה!

The colors signal lexical, clause constituent, and information structure chains. For example, green marks the objects of praise in the psalm; grey, attributes of the objects of praise; magenta, the performers of praise and the qualities they should possess: the beginning of wisdom: fear of the Lord, and keen sense. 

Is it possible to have a civil discussion about sexual orientation?

Probably not, unless the dialogue is contrived and the people most in danger of seeing themselves as others see them are conspicuous by their absence.  

So why even try? I have personal reasons for trying.

More Evidence that the System is Stacked against Boys

It is hard to take feminism seriously so long as it ignores the obvious: the system is stacked against boys. I touched on this once before. Methods of teaching and learning currently in vogue favor girls. A recent article in the NYT suggests that the problem begins to manifest itself at 4 and 5 years of age. Here is a key graf: