Sunday, July 22, 2007

What ancient language are you?

Jim at PaleoJudaica pointed to a personality test, and I was hooked by its perspective... The Which Ancient Language Are You Test. Hmm... apparently I am Akkadian. I would have preferred Hebrew, but schizoid and long-lasting works for me, too...

You are Akkadian, a blend of the incomprehensible symbols of the Sumerians with the unwritable sounds of the early Semitic peoples. However, the writing just doesn't suit the words and doesn't represent everything needed, so you end up a schizoid mess. Invented in Babylon, you're probably to blame for that tower story. However, crazy as you are, you're much loved and appreciated, and remain actively in use by records keepers long after schools have switched to other languages.

Labels: ,

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Free Bible Study program

As you may know, I work for WORDsearch Corp., a Bible study software company. We have two main programs, WORDsearch 7 and Bible Explorer 4. Well, we have just made Bible Explorer available as a FREE download! This program has many features that make it a better choice than other free Bible study programs, and I highly encourage you to check it out. Let me know what you think about it, too!

Labels: ,

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Biblical Archaeology Reading List

When I went to Israel on the Tel Tamar archaeological dig in January, I got to spend a lot of time with my friend Terrance, who is working on his Ph.D. dissertation in Biblical Archaeology. I asked Terrance at one point what books he suggested I read if I wanted to become an expert in (or at least more knowledgeable about) Biblical Archaeology. He replied by grabbing a little notebook that I had with me and writing down a long list of books and other resources that would get me on the right path.

Well, I have finally recovered that book from a secret hiding place that only my subconscious mind knew about, and I decided that I should preserve Terrance's list for posterity. So, I have added it as a static page on my website: Biblical Archaeology Reading List. I may add to or adjust the list if Terrance reads it and says that I am missing something. If you have your own thoughts or additions, please comment on this post!

Labels:

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Why is Ezra 7-10 in our Bibles?

Rabbi Stuart Dauermann, one of the leaders in our movement and a man I respect greatly, recently wrote a post on his blog discussing the need for covenant faithfulness among the Jews in our movement. I appreciate and applaud his comments with every fiber of my being.

Covenant faithfulness is about heeding the words of the Torah and putting them into practice. It is amazing and sad to me that I see so many Jews in our movement who have become so assimilated that they do not know Hebrew, or are so anti-Torah ("free from the Law") that they have no problem eating treif food. Common complaints about following Torah include the idea that it is hard to do and that it is restrictive. I have been progressively becoming more observant for the last 7 years, and I can honestly say that it is not an extremely hard lifestyle to live. It takes time and energy to think about your actions, but the time is certainly well spent. I have gained more understanding of G-d and more closeness to Him in my time studying and implementing Torah than I ever had before, and that is saying a lot.

If you are Jewish, I encourage you to read Rabbi Dauermann's words and take them to heart. Your covenant with G-d is a major part of His redemptive plan for mankind. If you are Gentile, I encourage you to read Rabbi Dauermann's words and consider what you can do to encourage your Jewish friends to become more faithful to their covenant. Can you work to ensure that they do not have to eat non-kosher food? Can you help them rest on Shabbat? Can you encourage them to daven (pray)?

The world hangs in the balance. Which side are you adding weight to?

Labels:

Saturday, May 28, 2005

Tanach Linkify 1.2

Josh Waxman, writer of parshablog, has developed a very cool extension for Firefox called Tanach Linkify. It turns references to Tanach passages into links to the interlinear Hebrew Bible on Mechon-Mamre and turns references to the Talmud into links to that page on E-Daf.

I am very impressed with Josh's work, and I can't wait to see where he goes with it. I am also planning to do some extensive testing of the extension so that I can pass on an helpful info that I find.

On a related note, it sad to me that E-Daf does not display properly in Firefox (nothing major, just the navigation links are bunched together). I will have to check on Monday at work, but I suspect that it will also have issues displaying in Safari. I think I might take a little time and work on that. I am sure that they would like the input.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

"From Symposium to Eucharist"

Following are some notes I made on the book From Symposium to Eucharist, by Dennis Smith, which Dr. Michael White “made” me read after we had a discussion on the origins of the “Last Supper”. Some of it may not make much sense if you have not read the book, but I hope that I have explained the issues and my positions well enough to make most of it understandable.


Interesting Apocrypha quotes

Note the correlation between Jubilees 7:20-21 and Acts 15. (“Noahide” commands)

20 And in the twenty-eighth jubilee [1324-1372 A.M.] Noah began to enjoin upon his sons’ sons the ordinances and commandments, and all the judgments that he knew, and he exhorted his sons to observe righteousness, and to cover the shame of their flesh, and to bless their Creator, and honour father and mother, and love their neighbour, and guard their souls from fornication and uncleanness and all iniquity.

21 For owing to these three things came the flood upon the earth, namely, owing to the fornication wherein the Watchers against the law of their ordinances went a whoring after the daughters of men, and took themselves wives of all which they chose: and they made the beginning of uncleanness.

Esther did not defile herself with the Gentile food or wine (14:17 - Greek additions to Esther):

And thy servant has not eaten at Haman’s table, and I have not honored the king’s feast or drunk the wine of the libations. (RSV)

Tobit did not, either (1:5,10-12):

All the tribes that joined in apostasy used to sacrifice to the calf Baal, and so did the house of Naphtali my forefather.... Now when I was carried away captive to Nineveh, all my brethren and my relatives ate the food of the Gentiles; 11 but I kept myself from eating it, 12 because I remembered God with all my heart. (RSV)

Judith brought her own food with her when she went somewhere else, bringing enough to provide for herself. (12:1-2,19):

Then he commanded them to bring her in where his silver dinnerware was kept, and ordered them to set a table for her with some of his own delicacies, and with some of his own wine to drink. 2 But Judith said, “I cannot partake of them, or it will be an offense; but I will have enough with the things I brought with me.” 3 Holofernes said to her, “If your supply runs out, where can we get you more of the same? For none of your people are here with us.” 4 Judith replied, “As surely as you live, my lord, your servant will not use up the supplies I have with me before the Lord carries out by my hand what he has determined.” (RSV)


Smith uses Ben Sira as a model for the entirety of Jewish table practice; however, it is clear that Ben Sira was teaching aristocratic Jews, not the general public. This requires Ben Sira to write from a distinctly Greek/Hellenized context, despite his proclamations regarding observance of the Torah.


Smith gives some interesting information on the “Chaverim”. He says that they made distinctions between themselves and the amei ha’aretz and that they focused on strict observance of purity laws and tithes. Is it possible that they are Beit Shammai portion of the P’rushim we see Yeshua dealing with in the Torat Hashlichim?


Common table customs are not indicative of common understanding. I can easily see Paul giving basic instructions to the Gentiles in Greek cities and teaching them in ways that they can understand. I can also see the Gentile Greek believers continuing to follow their old ritual practices as they adopt new ideas and theologies. We know for sure that the Gentile believers did not observe all of the Jewish practices, else we would not have the “Church” as we know it today. The commonality of the table practices does not require that the “Last Supper” be seen as a Greco-Roman meal and not a Pesach seder.


Notes on the incident at Antioch: Galatians 2:11-14

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? (NASB)

  • Paul and Peter are both surprised by the situation. It was atypical, not something that had been encountered much, if ever, before.
  • The issue was that of Jewish identity and the common thought of the day that eating with Gentiles would make one impure. Those of the “circumcision group” (and, later, Peter) appear to be experiencing some shock at the idea of eating with Gentiles, since that issue is not encountered in the congregations in Jerusalem.
  • Paul’s argument, and Peter’s original perspective, is consistent with Peter’s experience with Cornelius in Acts 10: Gentiles are not impure.

Notes on the issue of meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8 and 10):

  • Cannot be talking about Jewish believers.
  • Gerd Theissen proposes the most likely reason for the discussion: “strong” = rich, “weak” = poor. The poor believers have only associated meat at festival meals, while the rich believers are accustomed to eating meat at most or all communal meals. This is the source of controversy.

The correlations in Paul’s discussion of the “Lord’s Supper” in 1 Corinthians 11 to the Greco-Roman meal practices of the day make sense. I can see easily that Paul’s discussion is intended to make correlations between the practices already being observed by the Gentile believers and the teaching of Messiah’s death. Remember that the context of the book is that of unity. Thus, Paul's approach of building a correlation between the Gentiles’ cultural practices and an ethical teaching on unity is a midrashic approach.

Some questions this brings up:

  1. Is the Eucharist in its current form the best manner in which to observe it? (And which form is that?)
  2. How much influence did the Greek symposium practices really have on Jewish table practices? How much of the Jewish practices were just outgrowths of the Jewish tradition and prior practice (e.g. hand washing)?

We can’t forget that nothing happens in a vacuum. The practices followed by Yeshua and Paul were influenced by their communities, and the Jewish world was Hellenized to some degree, even in Eretz Israel. How much is probably the real issue up for debate.


Smith does not really go so far as to address the issue of the current form of the Eucharist itself, or even to put into a concise statement what he thinks of its origins. He really appears to be laying a foundation—making the case for symposium influences on the event. The next step I would take is to look at the 1st-3rd century developments of the Eucharist and see how the communal symposium turned into sacrament devoid of a meal setting.


Smith’s work is starkly lacking in discussions on Jewish practice of the day, except for one chapter with few details. This is apparently due to his scholarly focus on Greco-Roman customs and Greek literature. He consistently quotes from Plato and other Greek philosophers and sources, but not from Jewish sources. He then goes on to compare Jewish practice to Greco-Roman practice based on his own context of Greek understanding. I have questions about his knowledge of Hebrew (he offers no interpretations of Hebrew words in the book, and offers no other evidence that he is fluent in the language) and of his knowledge of ancient Jewish sources. For instance, his large discourse on Ben Sira shows a decidedly one-sided approach. He puts a lot of emphasis on a book that is not accepted as canon or even used at all in the Jewish world—more emphasis than he puts on rabbinic writings or other texts of the day. Granted, he book-ends his discussion of the historical place of Greco-Roman meal customs in Jewish society, but he also does not make any attempts to offer other literary evidence on the Ben Sira side, as he does on the Tosefta side.

Labels:

Monday, March 28, 2005

What was right in their own eyes...

Rabbi Michael mentioned something in his Torah teaching this Shabbat that I wanted to take a deeper look at. He was talking about the sacrificial system and the need for the shedding of blood and he brought up the topic of Cain and Abel's offerings within that context.

Beresheet 4:3-5 says:

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto Hashem. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And Hashem had respect unto Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

The point the rabbi was making was that Cain's offering was not acceptable because it was not a blood sacrifice. While produce was offered in the Tabernacle and Temple, it was always placed on the altar in conjunction with a blood sacrifice.

This got me thinking, however, about the way Cain opted to follow Hashem’s command. Cain decided that it was okay for him to offer a grain offering, even though the only precedent Hashem had set was for blood offerings. Cain's actions bear a striking resemblance to David's and Uzzah's in 2 Samuel 6:3-8:

And they set the ark of G-d upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in the hill; and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drove the new cart. And they brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was in the hill, with the ark of G-d, and Ahio went before the ark. And David and all the house of Israel played before Hashem with all manner of instruments made of cypress-wood, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with sistra, and with cymbals. And when they came to the threshing-floor of Nacon, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of G-d, and took hold of it; for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of Hashem was kindled against Uzzah; and G-d smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of G-d. And David was displeased, because Hashem had broken forth upon Uzzah; and that place was called Perez-uzzah, unto this day.

This translation (JPS 1917 Edition) says that Cain was “very wroth” and that David was “displeased”, but the Hebrew for both is the same word: וַיִּחַר (vayichar), which comes from the root ‏חָרָה‎ (charah)—“burn, be kindled (of anger)’.

So, what is the correlation? Cain, David, and Uzzah all apparently had pure desires. Cain was offering the best of his produce, the results of his labor in the hot sun—something that meant a lot to him. David wanted to bring the aron kodesh to Jerusalem after it had been recovered from the P'lishtim. He bought a new cart and formed a party to celebrate along the entire road. Uzzah reached out to steady the ark to keep it from falling off the cart and being damaged, an act that was surely performed out of a pure heart. However, Hashem dealt harshly with all three of these men. He banished and cursed Cain and killed Uzzah, making David afraid (see verse 9).

What stands out to me in all three of these men is that despite their pure hearts and motives, they did not observe Hashem's commands as He had declared them. Hashem mandated blood sacrifices; Hashem mandated that the aron kodesh be carried by priests and not placed on a cart (Numbers 7:9); Hashem mandated that no one touch the aron kodesh (Numbers 4:15). These men, however, thought, “That's okay. Hashem will be okay with me just doing this the way that makes the most sense to me.” Then, after events did not turn out the way they planned, they became angry at Hashem. They felt rejected and rebuked... and they were. Hashem taught them the lesson that we all should learn: G-d does not want us to follow Him in the ways we think are right. He wants us to follow him in the ways that He mandated. He is G-d and He does not change.

Hashem has established the Torah as the foundation stone for the rest of the Scriptures, and He demands that we follow it. Common sense is fine, but we need to be very careful to not be drawn into the trap of thinking that observing Hashem’s commands as He has given them is not important. We should not neglect the “dill, mint and cumin” while we practice the “weightier matters of Torah.” (Mattityahu 23:23)

How do we do that? Well, I believe that the best way to follow Hashem is to join with the people who have been doing so the longest. If we join ourselves to the Jewish people then we will automatically find ourselves immersed in obedience to the Torah. Yes, there are areas of disagreement, and yes, there are differences of opinion. But when it all comes down, the fact still remains that observing the Torah is not possible without the Jews. It is their covenant with Hashem and we Gentiles have been given the opportunity to hitch along for the ride. Just don’t get the idea that you can drive better than the people behind the wheel.

Labels:

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Why G-d Never Received University Tenure

  • He had only one major publication.
  • It was in Hebrew; had no references; wasn't published in an academic journal; and some doubt he wrote it himself.
  • He may have created the world, but what has he done since?
  • The scientific community cannot replicate his results.
  • He never received permission from the ethics board to use human subjects.
  • When one experiment went awry, he tried to cover it up by drowning the subjects.
  • He rarely came to class; telling the students to, "Read the book."
  • Some say he had his son teach the class.
  • He expelled his first two students.
  • His office hours were irregular and sometimes held on a mountain top.
  • Although there were only ten requirements, most students failed.

Via Tyndale Tech (incidentally, as Jim Davilla notes, a great list of primary and other sources for Jewish study).

Labels:

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Kingdom of Edom confirmed

The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age is my favorite time in history, and this finding, if it is confirmed by other archaeologists, could make a huge difference in our understanding of that time.

Update:

My brother reprimanded me for not attributing him as my source for this news, so I will point you to his blog entry on the topic. Sorry Richard!

Labels:

Tuesday, December 21, 2004

The Quest Continues

Jim Davila at Paleojudaica is continuing the quest for a proper title for us ______bloggers. I have to say that Peter Kirby's Scriptoblogger™ is a pretty good attempt, though I will point out (as has been mentioned before) that we invariably talk about much more than just Scripture.

I considered "CryptoBlogger" for a minute, but I think it can be too easily associated with a group of funeral home attendants (or possibly grave-robbers).

Now, "antiquiblogger" (an-TĬ-kwĭ-) has a certain ring to it. It easily shows that we are interested in Antiquity and related subjects, and it can be differentiated from "AntiqueBloggers" in the same way "bibliobloggers" can be differentiated from "bibliabloggers."

Labels:

Sunday, December 12, 2004

What's in a name?

Being new to the blogosphere and thus not solidified as a "Bible Scholar Blogger", I am not sure that I even have a right to chime in on the discussion about what bloggers who talk about Biblical scholarship should call themselves.

That said, I think that "bibliablogger" is a decent option, even though it sounds like Spanish, not Greek. Of course, we could also try "圣经blogger" (Chinese), "bijbelblogger" (Dutch), "bibelblogger" (German), "Βίβλοςblogger" (Greek), "bibbiablogger" (Italian), "聖書blogger" (Japanese), "성경blogger" (Korean), "библияblogger" (Russian), or "תנךblogger" (Hebrew). Some of those might even help with the need for more Unicode acceptance in the scholarly world...

Labels: