Doubly deadly sin: Numbers 31:16 in Tsikimba (Nigeria)

“Deadly,” because sin results in death (see Romans 6:23). In the case of Israel here, also premature, physical death. But “doubly” deadly, because the Midianite women—those involved in inciting Israel to sin but initially and disobediently spared by Israel—also were themselves condemned to premature, physical death (Num 31:17-18). What a warning to NT believers to cling to Jesus for the forgiveness of all our sins and the fulfillment of all God’s promises to us in Him!

Tsikimba: 

Ciɓai ama a na a ɗa a tonoi adooki a Balaꞌam, a zuwai aza a Isaraꞌila a kpa̱ɗa̱i uyanka Magono ma Zuba ukuna u mayun ili iꞌya i gita̱i a Masasa ma Peyo, hal usara u rukpa̱i a asu u kakuma̱ ka ama a Magono ma Zuba. 

English back translation:

Remember, those people they are the ones that followed the counsel of Balaam, and they caused the people of Israel to fail to do true matter with King of Heaven [Yahweh] at the things that happened at Mount Peor, until [so that] a plague fell on the plenty people [congregation] of King of Heaven [Yahweh].

SIL Release Announcement: Key Terms of the Old Testament (KTOT)

Announcement

We are happy to announce that the first official release of KTOT is now available for download.

The Key Terms of the Old Testament (KTOT) project has released its first 22 articles as of February 4, 2020. It hopes to release another approximately 20 articles by March 31, 2020.

Because it is not yet fully integrated into Paratext, it is not yet included in the release version and must be downloaded and applied separately.

Please visit this URL to download KTOT and for installation instructions.

https://paratext.org/download#extras_tab

KTOT Overview

This release of the Key Terms of the Old Testament project includes articles on the following Hebrew terms: אהב, (verb) to love, like, Peter de Niet אֵל עֶלְיוֹן, (God) Most High, the Most High, Milton Watt אֵל שַׁדַּי, (God) Almighty, the Almighty, Milton Watt ארר, to curse, Anne Garber Kompaore בְּרִית, covenant, treaty, agreement, alliance, Lynda Tobing & Dick Kroneman זבח, verb: to slaughter, to sacrifice, to offer, Marlute van Dam חסד, (noun) favor, kindness, commitment, loyalty, expected well-doing, Dick Kroneman ירשׁ, to take possession of, Thomas Hemphill כָּבוֹד, greatness, glory, wealth, honor, praise, reputation, Dick Kroneman מַלְאַךְ, angel, messenger, Caleb Redfield מִנְחָה, cereal offering, grain offering, Michael Jemphrey מִשְׁפָּט, social order, judgment, justice, JoAnna Hoyt נְַחַלָה, (permanent) possession, Thomas Hemphill עֶבֶד, slave, servant, Margaret Doll עֵדוּת, testimony, warning, covenant contract, Peter Schmidt קנא, (verb) to be zealous, jealous, Paul McLarren רחם, to show compassion, Janel Hanna שלמים, fellowship offerings, Michael Jemphrey שֵׁם, name, Bronwen Cleaver Sacrifice, Michael Jemphrey Patronage, Janet McLarren Honor, Janet McLarren (Read the whole announcement here)

Top Ten Discoveries in Biblical Archaeology in 2019

Archaeological discoveries in the Middle East in 2019 “add to the mounting evidence that demonstrates that the Bible is historically reliable. 2019 was a year in which significant discoveries were unearthed" (Windlebry).

Here's Windlebry's list:

1. Biblical Names Discovered on a Seal and Bulla in Jerusalem (April 2019)
2. Horns of an Ancient Altar Discovered at Shiloh, Israel (Aug 2019)
3. El Araj Excavations Unearth First-Century Artifacts and a Byzantine Church (July 2019)
4. Evidence of Babylonian Destruction Unearthed in Jerusalem (Aug 2019)
5. Seal Impression of Royal Steward Discovered in Jerusalem (Sept 2019)
6. Monumental Staircase Unearthed at Hazor (Aug 2019)
7. Inscribed Altar May Reference Biblical Battle (Aug 2019)
8. New DNA Study Suggests Philistines Came from Crete (July 2019)
9. Archaeologists Say Evidence Points to Identification of Emmaus (Sept 2019)
10. Rehoboam's Wall Discovered at Lachish (April 2019)

Read the whole thing here.

"Do Not Forget" Proverbs 4:5

Last October, I presented at the Bible Translation Conference in Dallas. My paper is now available for download/view: אַל־תִּשְׁכַּח‬ as "Do Not Be Weary"?: Assessing Dahood's Ugaritic Proposal in Proverbs 4:5c.

Here's the abstract:
The prohibition אַל־תִּשְׁכַּח (“do not forget”) in the Hebrew text of Proverbs 4:5c does not have a direct object, and so some scholars consider this a syntactic problem requiring  resolution. This paper examines and critiques a proposed solution by Mitchell J. Dahood, who argues that this occurrence of the Hebrew verb draws from a verbal root (ṯkḥ) found in a Ugaritic text and who translates Proverbs 4:5c as “do not become weary.”

We present five arguments in support of the traditional translation “forget not,” demonstrating that the prohibition in Proverbs 4:5c without an explicit direct object poses no exegetical problem. The translator-exegete need not resolve a supposed dilemma in the Hebrew text by proposing an analogy with Ugaritic texts. Even were the translator compelled to search the Ugaritic corpus for parallels to this verb, the Ugaritic text proposed by Dahood does not manifest a reliable interpretative base from which to confidently posit any direct linguistic connection to the Proverbs passage. Additionally, Dahood’s proposed definition of the Ugaritic verb ṯkḥ as “to wilt” does not seem justified in the Ugaritic texts themselves nor in Proverbs 4:5c. Perhaps most convincingly, the verb תִּשְׁכַּח in Proverbs 4:5 makes adequate, contextual sense with the normal meaning “to forget.” Using Ockham’s razor, then, we consider it wise to retain this meaning rather than emend it based on a speculative Ugaritic connection.

Wendland at academia.edu and Dr. Glenny on Micah

Finding Wendland on academia.edu

Ernst Wendland has been uploading a treasure trove of OT, Hebrew, and translation articles, books, etc. at academia.edu. Ernst is a top .1% poster at academia.edu, and what he posts is typically golden. Many of his posts/uploads are his own articles and work, but he also posts about others, also. Join academica.edu and “follow” Ernst to track what he is posting!

Glenny on LXX Micah

One of his most recent posts is on Ed Glenny’s book, Commentary Based on Micah in Codex Vaticanus, which is very important for OT textual criticism. As a personal aside, Glenny was one of my profs at University of Northwestern, and I very much appreciated his academic rigor and humble spirit. He has spent the last couple decades studying the Minor Prophets, especially the Greek texts of Amos and Micah. 

Here’s an intriguing paragraph from Glenny's book (pp. 9-10):

It is difficult to prove that renderings in lxx Mic were intentionally motivated by the theological concerns of the translator. One apparent example of a theological rendering is Mic 4:5 where the Hebrew “all the peoples walk, each in the name of its god” (nrsv) is rendered “all the people will walk, each in his own way,” apparently trying to avoid the suggestion that other gods exist. Joosten (“Une théologie de la Septante?”) has argued that a “literal” translation technique in the rendering of the lxx, like that found in Mic and the rest of the Twelve, indicates that the translator had great respect for his source text and regarded it as God’s inspired Word; thus, even where the translator does not know the precise meaning of his Vorlage, he attempts to translate it very literally. There are several sections of lxx Mic where the translator seems to have had trouble understanding his Hebrew Vorlage, and in spite of his lack of a precise understanding of it he seems to employ a “literal” translation technique (see esp. 1:10–15; 2:6–11; 6:10–16).

 

Bibleplaces blog

You may already know that Bibleplaces.com has produced very helpful images and powerpoints for biblical books (and several free resources online), but did you know that Bibleplaces also has a blog with new information, finds, and other news? My favorite posts are the weekend roundups. 

Here are a few notes in the last roundup, from a week ago:

• A resident of the northern Israeli village of Araba discovered a Bronze Age settlement on his way to work.
• This week Bryan Windle looks at el-Araj, the other candidate for Bethsaida. He provides the evidence both for and against this identification.
• A high-tech analysis of the Temple Scroll helps to explain why this very thin parchment was so bright and possibly why it was so well preserved.

Arcing and Genesis 12:1-3 by DeRouchie

Arcing seeks to trace the literary argument of the Hebrew (or Greek) text. 

Some Arcing Resources

If arcing (or bracketing) is new to you or you would like to review, here are some resources to check out:

• www.biblearc.com (choose the discourse arcing/bracketing option)—Several helps and tips are built into this site, for free! (Note that without a subscription, however, your work does not get saved, so make sure to hit print when you’re done!)
• Jason S DeRouchie, How to Understand and Apply the Old Testament (HUAOT), ch. 6 (DeRouchie stands in the stream of other great discourse and argument tracers such as Daniel P. Fuller, John Piper, and Tom Schreiner; he also interacts with and builds on Longacre, Runge-Westbury, and others). HUAOT provides examples of arcs for Deuteronomy 7:2–4; Genesis 12:1–3; Habakkuk 3:17–19; and Exodus 19:4–6.
• John Piper, Biblical Exegesis: Discovering the Meaning of Biblical Texts (click here for free pdf)
• Thomas Schreiner, Interpreting the Pauline Epistles, chs. 5–6—Although written for Paul’s NT epistles, the book discusses discourse categories that hold for both NT and OT.
• Andrew Naselli, How to Understand and Apply the New Testament, ch. 5—NB: Naselli is succinct and clear, but Piper, Schreiner and Naselli all contain basically the same material (I cite all three above so that you can reference what is most easy for you to access).

DeRouchie's Arc of Genesis 12:1–3

Arcing can produce some incredible exegetical-theological payoffs. For example, Jason DeRouchie arcs Genesis 12:1–3 as a redemptive-historical two-stage progression (vv1b–2c and vv2d–3c) based in part on the observation that vv1b and 2d are imperatives. Abraham accomplished v1b--Go!--and v2abc was realized in the OT, but v2d--be a blessing!--is still being realized today. Figure 6.8 below is in Jason DeRouchie, HUAOT, 248 (see p. 249 for the bracketing version). 

A sample of DeRouchie’s discussion on Genesis 12:1–3:

While every clause is part of the same text block, there are two clear sections to God’s commissioning of Abram, both distinguished by imperatives. The first imperative לֶךְ (“Go!”) is followed by three weyiqtol (waw + cohortative) verb forms, which is a common pattern in Hebrew for expressing purpose or consequence. Thus I have translated the weyiqtol forms in 2a–c “so that I may make you into a great nation, and may bless you, and may make your name great.” Often English translations fail to account for the second imperative וֶהְיֵה (“And be!”). The common thought is that when two imperatives are conjoined by וְ, then the second stands as a consequence of the first.  But while the second command form is contingent on the initial imperative, the second does not lose its imperatival force….

“By analyzing the grammar, we see that Genesis 12:1–3 has two distinct units, with the second being conditioned on the fulfillment of the first. Abram must “go” [Imperative in v1b] to the land in order to become a nation, and there he must “be a blessing” [Imperative in v2d] in order that the curse from Genesis 3 may be overcome and all the world may be blessed. The Old Testament makes clear that the patriarch’s descendants known as the nation of Israel experienced the fulfillment of stage 1 during the era of the Mosaic covenant. The patriarchal promises (e.g., Gen. 15:13–14; 17:8) grounded the inauguration of this covenant (e.g., Ex. 2:24; 6:4–8; Deut. 1:8; 9:5), and the ministries of Joshua and David/Solomon identified their fulfillment (cf. Gen. 15:18; 17:8; 22:17 with Josh. 21:43; 1 Kings 4:20–21; see also Neh. 9:8). But although some levels of representative obedience and international blessing were evident in this period (e.g., in the lives of Joseph [Gen. 39:5; 41:56–57] and David [1 Sam. 17:43–54]), Moses, Israel’s histories, and the Latter Prophets make clear that we must wait until the coming of Christ to see the ultimate realization of stage 2—blessing to the world (Ps. 72:17; Isa. 49:6; Amos 9:11–12; cf. Gen. 22:17b–18 with Acts 3:25–26; Gal. 3:8, 14, 16, 29). Stated succinctly, the first half of Abram’s commission focuses on what is accomplished in the Mosaic covenant (stage 1 fulfillment), whereas the second addresses a divine work of restoration that is accomplished only through Jesus Christ in the new covenant (stage 2 fulfillment).” (HUAOT, 210-11).

Peter Williams: The Pertinent Poetry of the Psalms

Peter Williams recently published an article entitled "The Pertinent Poetry of the Psalms" in Tyndale House's Ink journal. Here's an excerpt from some of this thoughts on Psalm 37:

"The key word, occurring 13 times in this Psalm, is 'wicked' or rāshāʿ (רָשָׁע), beginning with the letter R or resh (ר). As we read through the Psalm we come to verses 34–36, where 15 words in a row contain the letter resh, as seen highlighted below.

Here are the same words with underlining added to the ESV:

34 Wait for the LORD and keep his way, and he will exalt you to inherit the land; you will look on bwhen the wicked are cut off. 35 I have seen a wicked, ruthless man, spreading himself like a green laurel tree. 36 But he passed away, and behold, he was no more; though I sought him, he could not be found. 

Although there are just 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet, the likelihood that the letter resh (only the sixth of seventh most common letter) would randomly occur in 15 short words is low. Since Psalm 37 is an alphabetic Psalm we already know that the poet is thinking about the letters of the alphabet. Our suspicion that the use of resh is deliberate is confirmed when we look at the content. Beginning with the word 'keep' in verse 34, which can also mean 'watch', the addressee is invited to observe God's ways carefully. The attentive addressee can also observe that, from this point on, the letter resh is being used in each word. Verse 34 says 'you will look on when the wicked are cut off'. It sounds simple and positive; the wicked should be gone soon. But that's where verse 35 surprises us by taking a more negative turn as the Psalmist says 'I have seen a wicked, ruthless man, spreading himself like a green laurel tree.' The first word 'I have seen' begins with the letter resh and is prominent because it is the resh at the beginning of the verse which carries forward the alphabetic structure of the Psalm. We look at his vision and are dismayed to see that the wicked, who begin with the letter resh, are spreading like a green tree. Surely this should not be happening! The contrast is even greater because the Hebrew word order in verse 34 had made that verse end on the verb 'you will look on', which is the same word as begins verse 35 'I have seen'. The contrast between what was announced in verse 34 and the reality of verse 35 is stark.

Verse 36 resolves this tension with one Hebrew word: 'and he passed away'. The last letter of this word is the last resh we see till the end of the verse. The wicked man passes away and so does the letter which was connected with him. The verse continues: 'and behold he was no more' (no wicked and no letter resh) and then 'though I sought him (or it), he could not be found'. The thing that is true of the wicked is also true of the letter resh. This is how the language of the poem and the message of the poem go together. The whole Psalm is about not worrying when evildoers prosper. It says wait for God, even if the wicked seem to be doing well for a while. Like the letter resh, the wicked won’t last."

Translating Proper Names

Working with a translation team in DRC in both Luke and Genesis, I suggested we consider making the proper names consistent, even though French versions are split between rendering them the same or different in the two testaments. Nicholas Bailey recently posted an article on academia.edu that provides a framework for making such decisions, arguing for rendering them consistently.

Bailey's abstract for "Proper Names in the Bible: translation and transliteration issues Proper Names in the Bible: translation and transliteration issues":

According to one method of counting, there are about 2670 Old Testament Hebrew proper names and 580 New Testament Greek proper names, and out of these names, about 165 are common to both Testaments. Although a translation team may not be thrilled about working through all these names in their translation, there are, to be sure, unmistakable rewards if they handle them in a systematic and appropriate way. Handling them in a systematic way saves time and leads to a more consistent product. And, more importantly, doing the needed research and testing to find out what forms of names are most appropriate for their receptor language can improve the reception of their translation and the joy their readers will have from all those names.

This paper summarizes three topics that can help a team handle names systematically and appropriately: • general issues revolving around proper names, including (a) linguistic and (b) translation issues; • issues pertaining to transliterating Biblical proper names from Hebrew and Greek; • how a translation team can use the computer program NameTrans to automatically transliterate all of the names of the Bible, thereby creating a database that can be used for spellchecking and other functions.

Audio of Tachick Zephaniah Presentation

Sunday School Presentation on Zeph 3
March 10, 2019, I presented on Zephaniah 3:8-20 in my Sunday school class at Bethlehem Baptist Church.

• Click here for the audio recording (the recording intro says it is Jason, but actually I am the speaker!)
• Powerpoint for Zephaniah 3:8-20 presentation
• Text hierarchy of Zephaniah 3:8-20 

Book Publication and Summary
My book was published last year and can be found at Amazon or P&R:

Christopher S. Tachick, "King of Israel" and "Do Not Fear, Daughter of Zion": The Use of Zephaniah 3 in John 12. Reformed Academic Dissertations. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2018.

Scholars commonly indicate that John 12:13-15 cite Psalm 118:25-26 and Zechariah 9:9:

"So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, 'Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!' And Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, just as it is written, 'Fear not, daughter of Zion, behold your king is coming, sitting on a donkey's colt.'"

But Psalm 118 does not have "King of Israel," and Zechariah actually calls his audience to "rejoice" instead of "fear not." I argue that John intentionally alludes to Zephaniah 3:14-15, the only place in the OT that includes both "King of Israel" as Yahweh, and "Fear not" addressed to "daughter of Zion."

Readers and Foreword
My thesis advisor was Jason DeRouchie, Brian Tabb was a reader, and Andreas Köstenberger was my external reader. I follow the methodology laid out for New Testament use of the Old Testament in works like G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Baker, 2007).

Jason graciously agreed to write the foreword which can be found here.

Related posts
Book release

Numbers 4:20 and limitations of digital tools for exegesis

Numbers 4:20
Today I'm looking through a team's translation of Numbers 4 and stumbled on a difficult expression in Hebrew. I was scratching my head and found out that that all the commentaries were scratching their heads, too. Moses, what were you thinking here, when you wrote verse 20?

The translation issue is apparent for English readers by comparing the ESV and JPS:

"but they shall not go in to look on the holy things even for a moment, lest they die." (ESV)
"but they shall not go in to see the holy things as they are being covered, lest they die." (JPS)

In the MT (Hebrew) text, there is a grammatical expression called an infinitive construct here (כְּבַלַּ֥ע), which could be woodenly translated as "when swallowing/engulfing." The verb form (Piel stem) occurs 23 times in the OT, and seems to only refer to either engulfing (eating/swallowing/consuming) or destroying, neither of which seems to happen in this verse. So what can the expression mean? Options:

1. Metaphor for packaging?
Some commentators and Bible translations (e.g., NET, JPS, CJB) find warrant to extend the sense of "engulf" to "cover," since in the preceding verses of Numbers 4, the Kohathites were instructed to cover certain holy things with special cloths. The Aramaic Targum ("when covering the vessels") and Syriac Peshitta ("when covering the holy things") seem to have this reading.

2. Figure of speech for something ephemeral?
However, some commentators and translations interpret the root sense as "to swallow," and find warrant in interpreting this as a figure of speech for something momentary: "even for a moment" (e.g., ESV, NIV, NLT). I don't know about you, but it only takes a brief moment for me to do the action of swallowing! An akin English expression would be, "in the blink of an eye." The Greek Septuagint ("immediately") and another OT verse with a time limitation (Job 7:19) provide further evidence for this position.

3. "When communicating": Not listed in digital tools! 
The two above interpretations are the only two that I have seen discussed in literature. But I would like to propose a third possibility which brings up a limitation with using digital tools (e.g., Logos, BibleWorks, Accordance) for exegetical research. To put it simply, the editors of Bible software programs had to make choices in regard to which Hebrew root words to assign and tag in a given verse, and they had to exclude some possibilities. Often times this is straightforward, but other times there is debate. Standard print Hebrew lexicons had to make similar choices (NB: Bible software programs largely follow a certain lexicon's decisions, so both print and digital resources might seem to correspond), but the digital resources do not easily make available to you the other possible options.

For example, the Hebrew root word tagged in BibleWorks follows the assignment given in the standard Hebrew lexicon (HALOT): I בלע: Piel "to engulf" or to "destroy." But the keen eye will observe that there is an I at the front of the supposed root, which tips you off to knowing that there are other roots with the same consonants/letters based on parallels with other related languages. If you pull up the full lexicon of HALOT, you will notice that there are two other entries for these same consonants, and the second entry is based on an Arabic word meaning "to be eloquent, to report." Proverbs 19:28; 2 Samuel 17:16; and Job 37:20 are cited as possible occurrences with this meaning.

Could v20 then be translated as, "but they shall not go in to see the holy things while they are talking, lest they die"? Taking that possible reading up in the context, Numbers 4:19 refers to Aaron and his sons assigning tasks to the sons of Kohath, and verse 20 then provides the precision that the verbal conversation must take place outside the tent. Aaron and his sons oversee the assignments inside (v19), having already verbally designated who does what before entering the tent (v20).

My major hesitations with this proposal are that it lacks ancient manuscript (though I have not done an extensive search of this) and modern translation support. That modern commentators have also not picked up on this possibility does not bother me too much, since we are all scratching our heads on this one!

Explaining the unusual Hebrew word choice
I agree with certain commentators that one reason for the unusual Hebrew word choice here might be to prepare the reader for Numbers 16 and 26, when the rebellious sons of Korah are "engulfed" (same word) by the earth.1 I would not advocate for translating the action verbs in Numbers 4, and 16 and 26 the same way, since chapter 4 does not refer to the earth gobbling up people. But it is an important observation that the only times that this Hebrew verb occurs in Numbers, it is always in association with the Kohathites, in Number 4 and in the later chapters.

Translating Numbers 4:20 in a language in Africa
A translation in Africa that I am consulting seems to follow interpretation #2 above, which--as I indicated above--is a viable interpretation of the Hebrew expression:

"But if the Kohathites enter in the tent and see the dedicated holy things, even if it is small, they will die."

I do need to make sure, however, that "it is small" refers to a short amount of time (not tiny holy things!):
__________________________

1 See Dale A. Brueggemann, “Numbers,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, ed. Philip W. Comfort, vol. 2 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996), 251–252.

Where was Ruth in Ruth 2:7f?: Wrestling with a translation in Nigeria

Ruth 2:7f

I recently ran into Ruth 2:7 while prepping to consultant check the book of Ruth with a team in Nigeria. Here is what I am wrestling with in a part of that verse...

In Ruth 2:7, we reach the point in the narrative where Ruth had been gleaning in Boaz's field, and he now arrives, first talking with his harvesters. The leader of the harvesters reports to Boaz about the young Moabite woman, Ruth.

There is some discussion about establishing the original text of verse 7 (a practice called textual criticism). This post is about an issue in verse 7f, the last part of the verse. 

First off, note that the external evidence is not in agreement:

• ‎ Hebrew text: זֶ֛ה שִׁבְתָּ֥הּ הַבַּ֖יִת מְעָֽט׃   ("This her-sitting the-house a-little")      

• Septuagint (Greek) text: οὐ κατέπαυσεν ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ μικρόν (“She did not rest a bit in the field," NETS), referring to “rest” and “field” instead of MT’s “sitting/dwelling” and “house”.

• ‎Peshitta (Syriac) text: 9xynl amd[ arpc !m  (מִן הַבֹּקֶר וְעַד־שׁבתה “from the morning until the (time of) rest^[1]”), referring to neither “house” nor “field”

• Aramaic text: ‎ פון זעיר דין דיתבא בביתא ציבחר׃  ("then a-few this-one she-sat in-house small-amount," my word-for-word rendering = “It is only for a short time that she has sat in the house but a little while,” Brady’s translation), referring to “house” like the MT does. Btw, the standard Aramaic lexicon (CAL: Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon) is available online for free!: http://cal.huc.edu/       

So, in Ruth 2:7, where does the lead harvester say Ruth had been?

The issues are complex—as is clear even from the external textual evidence above—and much has been written about them (and other text crit issues in this verse). But staying with this one question….

Block comments, 

“it is unclear what the young man meant in lines 7d–f, arguably the most difficult in the book….The interpretive problems continue in 7f, which translates literally, ‘This (masculine) her sitting/dwelling the house a little.’ While consensus on the meaning of this utterance is lacking, it seems the narrator has intentionally preserved a convoluted reading to aid in characterizing the supervisor. Not only has the young man painted Ruth with negative brush strokes, but his stammering style at this point also conveys his own insecurity and nervousness before his boss, who may see through his exaggeration if not fabrication of Ruth’s intent.”^[2] NB: Block counts at least 19 different interpretations of the sentence by 1971!

Brotzman provides a good model of reasoning through the external and internal evidence, and of following text critical principles (I’ve highlighted his conclusion). He writes:

“Having gathered all of the information, we are now in a position to summarize and draw a conclusion. First, it is clear that there are multiple, actual differences between the versions and the MT [Hebrew]. Second, the differences involve multiple noncontinuous words. This suggests that they were not caused by a simple scribal error. Third, the MT is difficult, but G [Greek] and S [Syriac] are clear and simple. However, G and S are clear and simple in different ways. G has a common word pair (morning and evening) and makes more sense in regard to the story (i.e., she was in the field, not the house). S is simpler because it is shorter and does not contain any of the difficult elements that are in the MT. It seems likely, then, that the MT is original and the preferable reading. G and S both had a Hebrew text like the MT before them, but they used different means to 'fix' it. G changed several difficult words to easier ones that made more sense; S simply omitted several words and combined the two clauses. 

This conclusion is very significant for our exegesis. Did Ruth work in the field and then take a rest? Or did she wait in the house until she had permission from Boaz to work in the field? According to G, she did not rest at all during her day of gleaning! G and S represent particular exegetical perspectives and are themselves a kind of commentary on what they thought the Hebrew text was saying. If the MT is original, as we think, then we must first explain what the foreman is telling Boaz and then how that relates to the rest of the story. One interesting proposal, made by Avi Hurvitz, is that the text is intentionally confused and ungrammatical in order to reflect the foreman’s stammering speech. He is worried that Boaz will be angry that Ruth has been allowed to sit in the house.”^[3]

Block and Brotzman both conclude with the possibility that the story depicts the lead harvester as “stammering” due to worry/fear (something like, “This…her sitting…the house…a little”)—though they imagine different causes for his supposed concern/worry—which to me seems a reasonable take on the evidence. The Hebrew text does seem a bit choppy. And the lead harvester was talking with his boss, after all, which may have been an unnerving experience.

Translation takeaways for translating Ruth 2:7 in Nigeria

This is a back-translation of what the translation team has currently drafted for the last sentence of v7: 

“It is now that she sat down small in the shade so she can rest small.”

My two big takeaways from the above discussion in relation to consulting the team's translation are:

1. Suggest that the team avoid a (lengthy) description of a sitting/resting booth. It is not at all firmed up that the original text indicated that she was in a booth in the field. So, one question for the translators would be where this shade is located, and if it can possibly refer to the shade of the house. A further consideration to this is how the modern translations that impact their language community have rendered this. Many English versions have “shelter” (e.g., NIV, NLT), which suggests they think of her being in the field. I should also ask the team what the Hausa versions (the major regional trade language) have for this verse…
2. I am also interested to know what the translators think that the lead harvester was feeling as he shared this bit of info with his boss in v7f. If there is a way to bring out the nervousness/worry he may have felt, I might suggest they add an ideophone or something…

For more discussion on this complicated textual issue and others in this verse, see the resources cited below and the NET notes on this verse. 

---

^[1] Ellis R. Brotzman and Eric J. Tully, Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2016), 153.

^[2] Daniel I. Block, Ruth: The King Is Coming, ed. Daniel I. Block, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 128.

^[3] Ellis R. Brotzman and Eric J. Tully, Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2016), 153–154.

Testing the Limits of Translation Consulting without Knowing the Target Language: Psalm 24 in Context

Earlier this year, I revised and submitted this paper (click here to download the pdf) as part of a course Translating the Psalms with Lynell Zogbo and Ernst Wendland at JCBT (you can catch a few snapshots of me in the video above). I now have permission to post my paper. Since it may be revised and incorporated in a forthcoming publication, your feedback is welcome. I am blessed to put this training into additional practice by co-leading an upcoming Hebrew poetry workshop for translators!

From the introduction:

What can a translation consultant do when preparing to work with a translation team in a language family with which he is not familiar? Given a scenario where minimal written language data is available to him (e.g., a translation of Scripture with BT; and one TL poem [not Scripture] with BT), how much preparatory analysis on the translation can a global consultant undertake?[1] Despite such challenges, translation consultants strive to understand as much as possible of the TL’s language structure, discourse, etc., in order to make valuable contributions with the team.[2] 

This paper examines important features of Psalm 24 and observes translation strategies employed by one translation, in a language [Olunyaneka, Angola] unfamiliar to the author. We model how using the following method aids the consultant in making important observations in both the Hebrew and TL to prepare for consultant checking. But we also note how minimal TL data results in tentative hypotheses of the translation (esp. the translation’s cognitive effects on the audience).

---

[1] Stephen Doty poses a related question in his article about translation advisors (“Should a Translation Advisor Learn the Target Language?” Notes 10 [1996]: 7–10; cf. a similar question in David M. Golomb and Susan T. Hollis, Working with No Data: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987]).

[2] Adding to the pressure, the consultant pool reduces as the demands for consultant services remain steady or even increase in the lead-up to 2025. Jordan Monson documents the projections regarding the number of available consultants, noting that in the 10-year period of 2018-2027, 36% of SIL’s consultants (the Baby Boomer generation) are likely to retire, that is, 15 experienced consultants per year (“The Crisis of Youth,” BT Conference paper, October 2017).

Forthcoming publication of digital scans of manuscripts from St. Catherine's Monastery

Thousands of digital scans of important manuscripts housed in the library St. Catherine’s Monastery at the foot of Egypt’s Mount Sinai are currently being digitally scanned. Reuters announced earlier this year that the goal was for publication to begin this Fall. If anyone has an update on this, please leave a comment. 

The aim is to create the first digital archive of all 4,500 manuscripts in the library, starting with around 1,100 in the Syriac and Arabic languages, which are particularly rare. 

The task could take more than a decade, using digital cameras and computer arrays alongside sophisticated cradles designed to support the more fragile manuscripts. 

The project began last year and is being undertaken by the non-profit research organization Early Manuscripts Electronic Library (EMEL), in collaboration with the monastery and the Library of the University of California, Los Angeles. UCLA Library said it will start publishing the manuscripts online, in full color, from the fall of 2019.

(HT: Andy Warren-Rothlin)

Proverbs 26:23: "Silver Dross" or "Like Glaze"?

Doing a little Ugaritic research in preparation for presenting a paper on the impact Ugaritic makes on Bible translation...For example, Proverbs 26:23.

"Like the glaze(1) covering an earthen vessel are fervent lips with an evil heart" (Prov. 26:23 ESV). 

Why the textual footnote (1) in the ESV? 

The Hebrew text seems to have "silver dross" (ksp-sgm). But silver was not used in plating those vessels, and silver dross would not make an attractive exterior. Keeping the same Hebrew letters, a parallel Ugaritic expression "like/similar to" + "glaze" (k-spsgm) makes good sense in this proverb, argues Kenneth L. Barker (p. 128-29; see also NET). 

Point well-taken: an evil heart tends to conceal itself, so beware!

Gath: New Archaeological Findings

New archaeological discoveries at Gath (summer 2019)
This new article explains how the archaelogical dig this summer at Tell-es-Safi/Gath uncovered evidence that the "iron age city was the New York of the Levant":

A giant of a man may have sprouted from an equally giant-sized city. Super-sized remains of “enormous” architecture and fortifications from a new, unexpected “biblical-era” layer of the Philistine city of Gath were unearthed this summer at the ongoing Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project. 

Whereas most of the site’s previously excavated areas date to the 10th and 9th centuries BCE, this new layer dates to the 11th century, when, according to the biblical narrative in Samuel I 17, the future King David slew the giant Goliath.  

Other significant finds regarding Goliath and Gath:
1. The "Goliath" inscription, 10th century BC

The oldest Philistine inscription ever discovered was recently excavated in Goliath's home town of Gath (Tel es-Safi) by an expedition headed by Aren Maeir of Bar-Ilan University. 

The inscription was scratched with a needle-like instrument on a small pot-sherd and dates from the tenth to mid-ninth century B.C.E.  Of the two names on the sherd, the first consists of four Semitic letters: TWLA [Hebrew font, alef-lamed-vav-tav], which Maeir says may be the equivalent of the name Goliath.

2. The "RFA" inscription, 10th century BC
A jar with "RFA" inscribed was found at Gath. My wife and I saw this displayed at the Corinne Maman Museum of Philistine Culture in Ashdod. Goliath descended from the giant Rafa people (2 Samuel 21:19-20).

Tracking developments on Gath
For those interesting in following developments or catching up with the buzz on this archaeological dig, check out these links.

• Gath blog, with official posts from Gath's excavation director
• Weekend Roundup at the BiblePlaces' blog
• Info on Gath at BiblePlaces (with several external links)

Book release: King of Israel and "Do Not Fear, Daughter of Zion": The Use of Zephaniah 3 in John 12

The book updates and slightly revises Chris' ThM thesis submitted at Bethlehem College & Seminary. 

From the book cover:This thoroughly researched, groundbreaking examination of John 12:13-15 demonstrates the seminal role that Zephaniah 3:14-15 plays in John's portrayal of Jesus as the King of Israel, the Lord whose return Zephaniah prophesied, the righteous King who brings salvation to Jew and Gentile and whose presence teaches us not to fear.

Recommendations:

• "The study before you by Christopher Tachick helps clarify how the assertions by both the apostle [Acts 3:18, 24; 10:43] and Luther [Zephaniah "the clearest prophecies" concerning the messiah in the book of the 12] are true. It does so by adding to the significant wrestling done over the last five decades on how the New Testament authors cite, allude to, or echo the Old Testament. Tachick’s formal training as a linguist, exegete, and theologian, his grasp of the biblical languages, along with English, French, and German, and his years of service with Wycliffe Bible Translators have supplied him with key skills for this task. But even more, he knows the God of Scripture, and he is convinced of the Bible’s overarching unity and of the way the whole progresses, integrates, and climaxes in Christ. This study is both careful and thoughtful, and engages the best scholarship on both Zephaniah and the Fourth Gospel. Tachick persuasively argues that John’s narrative of Jesus’ triumphal entry alludes at two different points (John 12:13, 15) to Zephaniah 3:14–15, and the study helpfully unpacks the significance of this fact for the message of John’s Gospel." —from the Foreword, Jason S. Derouchie, Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology, Bethlehem College & Seminary; Elder, Bethlehem Baptist Church

• “What a delight it is to watch my former students who continue their education and distinguish themselves as Christian scholars in their own right! This is what Chris Tachick has done with his Th.M. thesis concerning the use of Zephaniah 3 in John’s Gospel. He demonstrates insightful capability in the languages of both Testaments. Therefore, I heartily commend his careful, skillful, and convincing exegetical work that advances our insights and understanding of the apostle John’s uses of the Old Testament by way of verbal links and evocative allusions, imageries, and figures drawn from Holy Scripture as he testifies that Israel’s prophesied Messiah is Jesus of Nazareth.”—Ardel B. Caneday, Professor of New Testament & Greek, University of Northwestern—St. Paul

• “I am delighted to see Christopher Tachick’s thorough and competent study of the use of Zephaniah in the New Testament. This Minor Prophet has been mostly overlooked and deserves the serious attention given it here. Tachick’s methodology is sound, his research is thorough, and his argumentation is careful. He makes a compelling case for his ‘Zephaniah proposal’ and at the same time provides important insights into the study of both Zephaniah and John’s Gospel. I heartily recommend his work.”—E. Ray Clendenon, Senior Editor of Bible and Reference Publishing, B&H Publishing Group

• “Christopher Tachick’s exploration of the evocative use of Zephaniah 3 in the triumphal entry account in John’s Gospel exemplifies best practices in intracanonical, intertextual studies. It is thoroughly researched, cogently argued, and keenly sensitive to the broader literary-theological contexts of both the Old Testament source(s) and the interpretation offered by the inspired New Testament author.”—Dennis E. Johnson, Professor of Practical Theology, Westminster Seminary California

• “In this thoroughly researched and well-written study, the author makes a very plausible case for the use of Zephaniah 3 in John 12. Tachick clearly articulates and capably defends his thesis, excelling in both in-depth analysis and theological synthesis. I highly recommend this exemplary piece of scholarship.”—Andreas J. Köstenberger, Senior Research Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; Founder, Biblical Foundations (www.biblicalfoundations.org)

• “This is a very detailed analysis of the arguments for reading the entry narrative in John as referencing Zephaniah and the theological consequences of such a reading. The author uses a wide range of data and skills in textual criticism, Hebrew grammar, linguistics, discourse analysis, exegesis, intertestamental literature, and New Testament theology, resulting in an exemplary piece of biblical scholarship. Among all the details, the reality of the King’s coming to take his rightful place shines through. It’s a great encouragement to see the contribution of this author and his writing to both biblical scholarship and Bible translation!”—Andy Warren-Rothlin, Global Translation Advisor, United Bible Societies; former Professor of Hebrew, Theological College of Northern Nigeria

• “This is an exemplary study of the use of the Old Testament in the New that sheds fresh light on Jesus’s triumphal entry in John. Christopher Tachick carefully and persuasively argues that an under-appreciated allusion to Zephaniah 3 informs John’s presentation of Jesus as ‘King of Israel.’ I warmly recommend this book to theological students, scholars, and pastors.”—Brian J. Tabb, Academic Dean, Bethlehem College & Seminary

• “This carefully argued thesis makes important contributions to our understanding the Fourth Gospel’s use of the OT and of the book of Zephaniah alike. The author’s expertise in discourse linguistics lends methodological clarity and nuance to his exegesis, which interacts capably with an impressive range of scholarship. Together with his keen theological eye, this makes it an excellent example of solidly grounded whole-Bible interpretation.”—Daniel C. Timmer, Professor of Biblical Studies, Doctoral Program, Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

Leviticus 13:56 and Hinduism

Compare these two passages:

• "If, when the priest examines it, the mold has faded after the article has been washed, he is to tear the spoiled part out of the fabric, the leather, or the woven or knitted material." (Leviticus 13:56 NIV)
• "'Of a garment which has been defiled in the highest degree, let him cut off that part which, having been washed, is changed in color' (Visnusmṛti 23:6; Jolley 1880: 98)" (as cited in Milgrom, AYBC, Leviticus 1-16, 3:814)

In Leviticus 13:55, God has the article with fungi/mold burned with fire, but in v56 he grants keeping the garment in a different situation, after tearing out the affected part. This is a gracious provision. Milgrom makes the above connection and speculates that Hinduism's motivation behind this law is due to "the same economic concerns" (i.e., not destroying clothing that may be the sole protection for the body).

Judson and Bible Translation and Zephaniah

John Hans de Jong analyzed Adoniram Judson's translation of Zephaniah into Burmese, finding it had a high register but missed the target occasionally. The Bible Translator provides the following abstract of de Jong's article:

Adoniram Judson’s 1840 translation of the Bible into Burmese (Myanmar) remains the most used version amongst Protestants in Myanmar. This article examines in detail Judson’s translation of the book of Zephaniah, comparing it with the Hebrew text, in order to assess translation tendencies and identify specific areas that revision would need to address. The analysis reveals that Judson’s translation is of a high standard due to his thorough scholarship. Nevertheless, several areas emerge where improvement could be made. One is in passages where biblical scholarship has made advances in the understanding of texts since Judson’s time. The Judson Bible also has a restricted vocabulary in places where it could be expanded, and in other passages Judson gives a free translation which at times could be improved to translate the Hebrew text more clearly. Another area for improvement is consistency in translating some words and phrases.

Computers Decipher Burnt Scroll Dated to 1st or 2nd century A.D.

It is quite amazing how God has enabled us to use technology in the realm of capturing data from old (and even burned) scrolls. The Ein Gedi Scroll has been digitally scanned (while still in its rolled up and burned state) and deciphered to be early chapters from Leviticus.

Reported at National Geographic: Scientists have formally announced their reconstruction of the Ein Gedi Scroll, the most ancient Hebrew scroll since the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The short (2:13) video below shows the amazing process of scanning and deciphering the writing on the Ein Gedi Scroll: