Baylor University Press was kind enough to send me a copy of my friend, Robert Holmstedt’s, new book, Ruth: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text, which is part of the fairly new BHHB (Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew Bible) series.  This book is not a traditional commentary in the sense that it explains contextual background, textual criticism, theological significance, etc.  But, it is a fantastic resource for understanding the Hebrew grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of the book.  Holmstedt guides the reader clause by clause through the book of Ruth and explains their features from a linguistic perspective.

In order to orient those who are unfamiliar with linguistic terminology, the first chapter provides a quick survey which includes: clauses and their constituents, compliments and adjuncts, verbal semantics, pragmatics, and constituent movement.  Then, Holmstedt presents the role of linguistic features in dating the book.  His treatment is measured and he points out the weaknesses and ambiguities associated with each feature.  He concludes by dating the book to the “early Persian period” (39).  Finally, he discusses the use of language to color characters’ speech.  Holmstedt identifies seven features which he believes highlight Ruth’s foreignness, however, the audience is “encouraged, by linguistic means, to identify with her” (49).  The rest of the book follows a clause by clause analysis of the Hebrew text of Ruth.

I usually read the book of Ruth with my second semester biblical Hebrew classes and I will use Holmstedt’s book as my new textbook for this component–it really is an excellent resource and I think all students and profs alike will benefit from it.  Since the book is designed as an introductory handbook it does not include a deep bibliography and it only surveys (albeit very well) the topics in the first three introductory chapters.  There were times in which I wished Holmstedt had gone a bit deeper or included some important citations.  For instance, in his discussion of linguistically dating the book he discusses orthographic conventions of spelling the name David (22) he does not mention Rick Hess’s very good study on this topic nor does Hess appear in the bibliography even though I consider him to be the foremost expert on West Semitic onomastics.  However, this is not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of Ruth and in most cases Holmstedt judiciously chooses which resources to provide.

In short, I think this book will be tremendously helpful for anyone reading the book of Ruth in Hebrew.

With the upcoming release Jo Ann Hackett’s new biblical Hebrew grammar Karyn Traphagen has a review based on electronic galleys sent by the publisher.  From her review it seems that the only thing really new about this grammar is Hackett’s terminology of the so-called waw-consecutive/conversive, etc. as the “consecutive preterite.”  This is a good descriptive term but does it really justify an entirely new grammar?  It doesn’t seem to me that she is doing anything pedagogically new with this book.

I think the time may have come to place a moratorium on the publication of new biblical Hebrew grammars unless they do something that present grammars do not do, that is, unless they teach people better.  I think there are a couple grammars in the works that will do this but they are extreme departures from the standard deductive fare.

What do you think?

HT: Thanks to David Everson for the link to the site and the Leningrad Codex and to Danny Frese and Daniel Wilson for the heads up on Aleppo.

A Biblical Hebrew and Akkadian Comparative Lexicon
Etymological-Semantic and Idiomatic Equivalents with Supplements on Biblical Aramaic

by Hayim Tawil
KTAV Publishing House, 2009
456 pages, English
Cloth, 8.5 x 11
ISBN: 1883053943
Your Price: $125.00
www.eisenbrauns.com/item/TAWBIBLIC

What is particularly upsetting to me is that this is not an unusual situation for me.  I am constantly amazed at how many people believe that they can maintain a rigorous theology while having a shoddy philological and critical understanding.  As I reflected upon our conversation I came across some very insightful observations in Moberly’s new book, The Theology of the Book of Genesis:

There is obvious value in [Historical Criticism].  Not least, those who hold the Bible to be God’s self-revelation, a gift and a truth that is given to Israel and the church for the benefit of the world, have an interest in wanting to discern as accurately as possible what the text really says, lest God’s word be misunderstood, or lest it be confused with their own preferences and predilections.  On any reckoning, the insights of good philology and history will only be downplayed or despised by those who have never come to appreciate what those insights are or who have failed to master the disciplines necessary to acquire them (6).

This is my first time teaching an exegesis class and the first day was a blast.  It is an elective so all the students are very motivated and really want to dive in.  The class will focus on syntax and poetic analysis of Hebrew poetry through a study of readings in Isaiah 1-39.  To introduce the students to various poetic features we read Rudyard Kipling’s poem, “The Story of Uriah.”  It is a great poem; here it is for your enjoyment:
“Now there were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.”

Jack Barrett went to Quetta
Because they told him to.
He left his wife at Simla
On three-fourths his monthly screw.
Jack Barrett died at Quetta
Ere the next month’s pay he drew.

Jack Barrett went to Quetta,
He didn’t understand
The reason of his transfer
From the pleasant mountain-land:
The season was September,
And it killed him out of hand.

Jack Barrett went to Quetta
And there gave up the ghost:
Attempting two men’s duty
In that very healthy post;
And Mrs. Barrett mourned for him
Five lively months at most.

Jack Barrett’s bones at Quetta
Enjoy profound repose;
But I shoulndn’t be astonished
If now his spirit knows
The reason of his transfer?
From the Himalayan snows.

And, when the Last Great Bugle Call
Adown the Hurnai thrubs,
When the last grim joke is entered
In the big black Book of Jobs,
And Quetta graveyards give again
Their victims to the air,
I shouldn’t like to be the man,
Who sent Jack Barrett there.

It shows a sorry lack of understanding about the fact that our text is a linguistic hybrid which makes this enterprise flawed from the start. Its form of presentation only aggravates that problem, since against its stated objectives it will not present anything remotely resembling an eclectic edition of a supposed archetype. And finally it fails to take into account the ways in which the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible inevitably differs from that of most other texts, leading, I fear, to further confusion on the part of those who are not already well versed in the subject.

Biblica, “Do We Need a New Bible? Reflections on the Proposed Oxford Hebrew Bible,” 174.

However, part of me senses that this effort to revise BDB is really just a half-measure.  No where in the summary that Brandon provides (I don’t have access to the newly published piece he references) is there mention of touching the actual definitions or sub-definitions.  I would have to think that there would be changes made and presumably the changes would extend beyond mere contemporizing of language.  However, the silence on this matter makes is seem like these changes will not be extensive.  Why not?  Is the etymological data therefore useless since it wouldn’t substantially change glosses?  Why would these scholars spend that much effort and buyers spend that much money buying beefed up etymologies that are superfluous for definitions.  Or, are the definitions going to be substantially edited but this was not mentioned (maybe it is assumed)?  In this case is the Hackett-Huehnergard team up to the challenge?

The way that BDB is structured in an almost concordance-like manner by providing sub-definitions keyed with specific verses (and even occasional translations of phrases) means that BDB is more than just a lexicon–it is a translation.  In order to provide a close to exhaustive key for all of the Hebrew definitions Hackett-Huehnergard will basically be providing us with their translation of the Bible.  To bring this point home we should note that by using a concordance and a computer Wacholder and Abegg were able to reconstruct a close approximation of the text of the Dead Sea Scrolls before they were actually published.  Presumably, someone with more computer expertise than me would be able to do this with the revised BDB (however, there are the inevitable conflicts between different entries which already exist in BDB).

I have no doubt that this team is probably the best positioned to provide etymological updates but I wonder about providing a virtual translation through definitions.  After all, biblical translation takes many more skills than merely a finely honed knowledge of Semitics (let me reiterate my profound respect for Huehnergard in this area; he is one of the best of the very best–I haven’t followed Hackett’s work but from her blurb on Harvard’s page she has done work in Judges, Numbers, and such).   Most modern translations involve large teams and committees–this team encompasses two people only one of which apparently works with biblical interpretation.  Granted they are not providing much syntactical analysis but there will still be a tremendous amount of interpretation involved in providing definitions keyed with verses.  I just wonder if they have worked through all the philosophical, theological, historical, etc. aspects that it takes to translate this stuff.

What are your thoughts?

Furthermore, one of the reasons why BDB is so cheap (at least the slap-dash glued binding version produced by Hendrickson; the sewed Oxford version is bit more pricey but worth it) is that its copyright has run out.  Doubtlessly the new, revised version will be more expensive, granted, probably not as pricey as HALOT.  Also, organizing the lexemes by (hypothetical in some cases) roots is fascinating from a philological point of view (and pedagogical as well) but beginning and intermediate Hebrew students are often very frustrated with this when they are trying to locate an entry.  And, there are many times in which I disagree with how BDB has separated words that share the same consonantal root–maybe this will be remedied somewhat in BDB 13.0 or whatever edition it is up to by now.

I don’t mean to minimize the incredible contribution that BDB has made in the history of Hebrew lexicography–it is breath-taking.  However, it seems to me to have been eclipsed by HALOT.  Currently, I think BDB occupies the no-man’s land of lexicons similar to “Middle Liddell.”  There are three editions of the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon: an abridged version, a not-as-abridged version, and the full version.  In most cases a beginning student who wants to save some cabbage can get away with the first one while those who know they want to progress in Greek spring for the big, bad boy.  In a like manner I think BDB now occupies the middling position of Middle Liddell–why not just get the handy pocket sized Langenscheidt or the full-bodied HALOT which is also organized by alphabet and is accessible to beginning students?  Raise the price and the benefits of BDB begin to disappear…