Podcasts about vetus testamentum

Dr Eve Levavi Feinstein discusses the uniqueness of the sexual prohibitions outlined in Leviticus 18 and 20. Dr. Eve Levavi Feinstein holds a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible from Harvard University. Her dissertation, Sexual Pollution in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford University Press), explores the Bible's use of purity and contamination language to describe sexual relationships. She has also written articles for Jewish Ideas Daily and Vetus Testamentum. 

Gavin Ortlund interacts with Dan McClellan's video about monotheism in the Bible. Dan's video: https://youtu.be/i6sD4Mc2-m8?si=wwxz07H5N_OlcHvcMatthew Lynch's Article: Matthew Lynch, “Mapping Monotheism: Modes of Monotheistic Rhetoric in the Hebrew Bible,” Vetus Testamentum 64 (2014), 47-68.Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/pagan-monotheism-in-late-antiquity-9780199248018?cc=us&lang=en&Truth Unites (https://truthunites.org) exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites, Visiting Professor of Historical Theology at Phoenix Seminary, and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville.SUPPORT:Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunitesFOLLOW:Website: https://truthunites.org/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/truth.unites/Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlundFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/

Comparing the Hebrew of Isaiah 9.6 to most popular English translations results in some serious questions. Why have our translations changed the tense of the verbs from past to future? Why is this child called “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father”? In this presentation I work through Isaiah 9.6 line by line to help you understand the Hebrew. Next I look at interpretive options for the child as well as his complicated name. Not only will this presentation strengthen your understanding of Isaiah 9.6, but it will also equip you to explain it to others. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts —— Links —— See my other articles here Check out my class: One God Over All Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read Sean’s bio here Below is the paper presented on October 18, 2024 in Little Rock, Arkansas at the 4th annual UCA Conference. Access this paper on Academia.edu to get the pdf. Full text is below, including bibliography and end notes. Abstract Working through the grammar and syntax, I present the case that Isaiah 9:6 is the birth announcement of a historical child. After carefully analyzing the name given to the child and the major interpretive options, I make a case that the name is theophoric. Like the named children of Isaiah 7 and 8, the sign-child of Isaiah 9 prophecies what God, not the child, will do. Although I argue for Hezekiah as the original fulfillment, I also see Isaiah 9:6 as a messianic prophecy of the true and better Hezekiah through whom God will bring eternal deliverance and peace. Introduction Paul D. Wegner called Isaiah 9:6[1] “one of the most difficult problems in the study of the Old Testament.”[2] To get an initial handle on the complexities of this text, let's begin briefly by comparing the Hebrew to a typical translation. Isaiah 9:6 (BHS[3]) כִּי־יֶ֣לֶד יֻלַּד־לָ֗נוּ בֵּ֚ן נִתַּן־לָ֔נוּ וַתְּהִ֥י הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה עַל־שִׁכְמ֑וֹ וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ פֶּ֠לֶא יוֹעֵץ֙ אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר אֲבִיעַ֖ד שַׂר־שָׁלֽוֹם׃ Isaiah 9:6 (ESV) For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Curiosities abound in the differences between these two. The first two clauses in English, “For to us a child is born” and “to us a son is given,” employ the present tense while the Hebrew uses the perfect tense, i.e. “to us a child has been born.”[4] This has a significant bearing on whether we take the prophecy as a statement about a child already born in Isaiah's time or someone yet to come (or both). The ESV renders the phrase,וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ  (vayikra sh'mo), as “and his name shall be called,” but the words literally mean “and he called his name” where the “he” is unspecified. This leaves room for the possibility of identifying the subject of the verb in the subsequent phrase, i.e. “And the wonderful counselor, the mighty God called his name…” as many Jewish translations take it.  Questions further abound regardingאֵל גִּבּוֹר (el gibbor), which finds translations as disparate as the traditional “Mighty God”[5] to “divine warrior”[6] to “in battle God-like”[7] to “Mighty chief”[8] to “Godlike hero,”[9] to Luther's truncated “Held.”[10]  Another phrase that elicits a multiplicity of translations is אֲבִיעַד (aviad). Although most versions read “Eternal Father,”[11] others render the word, “Father-Forever,”[12] “Father for all time,”[13] “Father of perpetuity,”[14] “Father of the Eternal Age,”[15] and “Father of Future.”[16] Translators from a range of backgrounds struggle with these two phrases. Some refuse to translate them at all, preferring clunky transliterations.[17] Still, as I will show below, there's a better way forward. If we understand that the child had a theophoric name—a name that is not about him, but about God—our problems dissipate like morning fog before the rising sun. Taking the four pairs of words this way yields a two-part sentence name. As we'll see this last approach is not only the best contextual option, but it also allows us to take the Hebrew vocabulary, grammar, and syntax at face value, rather than succumbing to strained translations and interpretational gymnastics. In the end, we're left with a text literally rendered and hermeneutically robust. Called or Will Call His Name? Nearly all the major Christian versions translate וַיִּקְרָא (vayikra), “he has called,” as “he will be called.” This takes an active past tense verb as a passive future tense.[18] What is going on here? Since parents typically give names at birth or shortly thereafter, it wouldn't make sense to suggest the child was already born (as the beginning of Isa 9:6 clearly states), but then say he was not yet named. Additionally, וַיִּקְרָא (vayikra) is a vav-conversive plus imperfect construction that continues the same timing sequence of the preceding perfect tense verbs.[19] If the word were passive (niphal binyan) we would read וַיִּקָּרֵא (vayikarey) instead of וַיִּקְרָא (vayikra). Although some have suggested an emendation of the Masoretic vowels to make this change, Hugh Williamson notes, “there is no overriding need to prefer it.”[20] Translators may justify rendering the perfect tense as imperfect due to the idiom called a prophetic past tense (perfectum propheticum). Wilhelm Gesenius notes the possibility that a prophet “so transports himself in imagination into the future that he describes the future event as if it had been already seen or heard by him.”[21] Bruce Waltke recognizes the phenomenon, calling it an accidental perfective in which “a speaker vividly and dramatically represents a future situation both as complete and independent.”[22] Still, it's up to the interpreter to determine if Isaiah employs this idiom or not. The verbs of verse 6 seem quite clear: “a child has been born for us … and the government was on his shoulder … and he has called his name…” When Isaiah uttered this prophecy, the child had already been born and named and the government rested on his shoulders. This is the straightforward reading of the grammar and therefore should be our starting point.[23] Hezekiah as the Referent One of the generally accepted principles of hermeneutics is to first ask the question, “What did this text mean in its original context?” before asking, “What does this text mean to us today?” When we examine the immediate context of Isa 9:6, we move beyond the birth announcement of a child with an exalted name to a larger prophecy of breaking the yoke of an oppressor (v4) and the ushering in of a lasting peace for the throne of David (v7). Isaiah lived in a tumultuous time. He saw the northern kingdom—the nation of Israel—uprooted from her land and carried off by the powerful and cruel Assyrian Empire. He prophesied about a child whose birth had signaled the coming freedom God would bring from the yoke of Assyria. As Jewish interpreters have long pointed out, Hezekiah nicely fits this expectation.[24] In the shadow of this looming storm, Hezekiah became king and instituted major religious reforms,[25] removing idolatry and turning the people to Yahweh. The author of kings gave him high marks: “He trusted in Yahweh, the God of Israel. After him there was no one like him among all the kings of Judah nor among those who were before him” (2 Kgs 18:5).[26] Then, during Hezekiah's reign, Sennacherib sent a large army against Judea and laid siege to Jerusalem. Hezekiah appropriately responded to the threatening Assyrian army by tearing his clothes, covering himself with sackcloth, and entering the temple to pray (2 Kings 19:1). He sent word to Isaiah, requesting prayer for the dire situation. Ultimately God brought miraculous deliverance, killing 185,000 Assyrians, which precipitated a retreat. There had not been such an acute military deliverance since the destruction of Pharaoh's army in the sea. Indeed, Hezekiah's birth did signal God's coming deliverance. In opposition to Hezekiah as the referent for Isa 9:6, Christian interpreters have pointed out that Hezekiah did not fulfill this prophecy en toto. Specifically, Hezekiah did not usher in “an endless peace” with justice and righteousness “from this time onward and forevermore” (Isa. 9:7). But, as John Roberts points out, the problem only persists if we ignore prophetic hyperbole. Here's what he says: If Hezekiah was the new king idealized in this oracle, how could Isaiah claim he would reign forever? How could Isaiah so ignore Israel's long historical experience as to expect no new source of oppression would ever arise? The language, as is typical of royal ideology, is hyperbolic, and perhaps neither Isaiah nor his original audience would have pushed it to its limits, beyond its conventional frames of reference, but the language itself invites such exploitation. If one accepts God's providential direction of history, it is hard to complain about the exegetical development this exploitation produced.[27] Evangelical scholar Ben Witherington III likewise sees a reference to both Hezekiah and a future deliverer. He writes, “[T]he use of the deliberately hyperbolic language that the prophet knew would not be fulfilled in Hezekiah left open the door quite deliberately to look for an eschatological fulfillment later.”[28] Thus, even if Isaiah's prophecy had an original referent, it left the door open for a true and better Hezekiah, who would not just defeat Assyria, but all evil, and not just for a generation, but forever. For this reason, it makes sense to take a “both-and” approach to Isa 9:6. Who Called His Name? Before going on to consider the actual name given to the child, we must consider the subject of the word וַיִּקְרָא (vayikra), “and he called.” Jewish interpreters have and continue to take אֵל גִבּוֹר (el gibbor), “Mighty God,” as the subject of this verb. Here are a few examples of this rendering: Targum Jonathan (2nd century) And his name has been called from before the One Who Causes Wonderful Counsel, God the Warrior, the Eternally Existing One—the Messiah who will increase peace upon us in his days.[29] Shlomo Yitzchaki (11th century) The Holy One, blessed be He, Who gives wondrous counsel, is a mighty God and an everlasting Father, called Hezekiah's name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth will be in his days.[30] Jacob ben Isaac Ashkenazi (16th century) “For a child is born to us.” A son will be born and this is Hezekiah. Though Ahaz is an evildoer, his son Hezekiah will be a righteous king. He will be strong in his service of the Holy One. He will study Torah and the Holy One will call him, “eternal father, peaceful ruler.” In his days there will be peace and truth.[31] The Stone Edition of the Tanach (20th century) The Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father, called his name Sar-shalom [Prince of Peace][32] Although sometimes Christian commentators blithely accuse Jewish scholars of avoiding the implications of calling the child “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father,” the grammar does allow multiple options here. The main question is whether Isaiah specified the subject of the verb וַיִקְרָ (vayikra) or not. If he has, then the subject must be אֵל גִבּוֹר (el gibbor). If he has not, then the subject must be indefinite (i.e. “he” or “one”). What's more, the Masoretic punctuation of the Hebrew suggests the translation, “and the Wonderful Adviser, the Mighty God called his name, ‘Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace'”[33] However, Keil and Delitzsch point out problems with this view on both grammatical and contextual grounds. They write: [I]t is impossible to conceive for what precise reason such a periphrastic description of God should be employed in connection with the naming of this child, as is not only altogether different from Isaiah's usual custom, but altogether unparalleled in itself, especially without the definite article. The names of God should at least have been defined thus, הַיּוֹעֵץ פֵּלֶא הַגִּבּוֹר, so as to distinguish them from the two names of the child.”[34] Thus, though the Masoretic markings favor the Jewish translation, the grammar doesn't favor taking “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God” as the subject. It's certainly not impossible, but it is a strained reading without parallels in Isaiah and without justification in the immediate context. Let's consider another possibility. His Name Has Been Called Instead of taking אֵל גִּבּוֹר (el gibbor) as the subject, we can posit an indefinite subject for וַיִקְרָ (vayikra): “one has called.” Examples of this outside of Isaiah 9:6 include Gen 11:9; 25:26; Exod 15:23; and 2 Sam 2:16. The phenomenon appears in Gesenius (§144d) and Joüon and Muraoka (§155e), both of which include our text as examples. However, the translation “one has called his name” is awkward in English due to our lack of a generic pronoun like on in French or man in German. Accordingly, most translations employ the passive construction: “his name has been called,” omitting the subject.[35] This is apparently also how those who produced the Septuagint (LXX) took the Hebrew text, employing a passive rather than an active verb.[36] In conclusion, the translation “his name has been called” works best in English. Mighty Hero Now we broach the question of how to render אֵל גִּבּוֹר el gibbor. As I've already noted, a few translations prefer “mighty hero.” But this reading is problematic since it takes the two words in reverse order. Although in English we typically put an adjective before the noun it modifies, in Hebrew the noun comes first and then any adjectives that act upon it. Taking the phrase as אֵל גִּבּוֹר (gibbor el) makes “mighty” the noun and “God” the adjective. Now since the inner meaning of אֵל (el) is “strong” or “mighty,” and גִּבּוֹר gibbor means “warrior” or “hero,” we can see how translators end up with “mighty warrior” or “divine hero.” Robert Alter offers the following explanation: The most challenging epithet in this sequence is ‘el gibor [sic], which appears to say “warrior-god.” The prophet would be violating all biblical usage if he called the Davidic king “God,” and that term is best construed here as some sort of intensifier. In fact, the two words could conceivably be a scribal reversal of gibor ‘el, in which case the second word would clearly function as a suffix of intensification as it occasionally does elsewhere in the Bible.[37] Please note that Alter's motive for reversing the two words is that the text, as it stands, would violate all biblical usage by calling the Davidic king “God.” But Alter is incorrect. We have another biblical usage calling the Davidic king “God” in Psalm 45:6. We must allow the text to determine interpretation. Changing translation for the sake of theology is allowing the tail to wag the dog. Another reason to doubt “divine warrior” as a translation is that “Wherever ʾēl gibbôr occurs elsewhere in the Bible there is no doubt that the term refers to God (10:21; cf. also Deut. 10:17; Jer. 32:18),” notes John Oswalt.[38] Keil and Delitzsch likewise see Isa 10:21 as the rock upon which these translations suffer shipwreck.[39] “A remnant will return,” says Isa 10:21, “the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God.” The previous verse makes it clear that “mighty God” refers to none other than “Yahweh, the holy one of Israel.” Without counter examples elsewhere in the Bible, we lack the basis to defy the traditional ordering of “God” as the noun and “mighty” or “warrior” as the adjective.[40] Mighty God-Man Did Isaiah foresee a human child who would also be the mighty God? Did he suddenly get “a glimpse of the fact that in the fullness of the Godhead there is a plurality of Persons,” as Edward Young thought?[41] Although apologists seeking to prove the deity of Christ routinely push for this reading, other evangelical scholars have expressed doubts about such a bold interpretation.[42] Even Keil and Delitzsch, after zealously batting away Jewish alternatives, admit Isaiah's language would not have suggested an incarnate deity in its original context.[43] Still, it would not be anachronistic to regard a king as a deity in the context of the ancient Near East. We find such exalted language in parallels from Egypt and Assyria in their accession oracles (proclamations given at the time a new king ascends the throne). Taking their cue from the Egyptian practices of bestowing divine throne names upon the Pharaoh's accession to the throne, G. von Rad and A. Alt envisioned a similar practice in Jerusalem. Although quite influential, Wegner has pointed out several major problems with this way of looking at our text: (1) the announcement is to the people in Isa 9:6, not the king; (2) Isa 9:6 does not use adoption language nor call the child God's son; (3) יֶלֶד (yeled), “child,” is never used in accession oracles; (4) the Egyptian parallels have five titles not four as in Isa 9:6; (5) Egyptians employ a different structure for accession oracles than Isa 9:6; and (6) we have no evidence elsewhere that Judean kings imitated the Egyptian custom of bestowing divine titles.[44] Another possibility, argued by R. A. Carlson, is to see the names as anti-Assyrian polemic.[45] Keeping in mind that Assyria was constantly threatening Judah in the lifetime of Isaiah and that the child born was to signal deliverance, it would be no surprise that Isaiah would cast the child as a deliberate counter-Assyrian hero. Still, as Oswalt points out, “[T]he Hebrews did not believe this [that their kings were gods]. They denied that the king was anything more than the representative of God.”[46] Owing to a lack of parallels within Israel and Isaiah's own penchant for strict monotheism,[47] interpreting Isa 9:6 as presenting a God-man is ad hoc at best and outright eisegesis at worst. Furthermore, as I've already noted, the grammar of the passage indicates a historical child who was already born. Thus, if Isaiah meant to teach the deity of the child, we'd have two God-men: Hezekiah and Jesus. Far from a courtly scene of coronation, Wegner makes the case that our text is really a birth announcement in form. Birth announcements have (1) a declaration of the birth, (2) an announcement of the child's name, (3) an explanation of what the name means, and (4) a further prophecy about the child's future.[48] These elements are all present in Isa 9:6, making it a much better candidate for a birth announcement than an accession or coronation oracle. As a result, we should not expect divine titles given to the king like when the Pharaohs or Assyrian kings ascended the throne; instead, we ought to look for names that somehow relate to the child's career. We will delve more into this when we broach the topic of theophoric names. Mighty God's Agent Another possibility is to retain the traditional translation of “mighty God” and see the child as God's agent who bears the title. In fact, the Bible calls Moses[49] and the judges[50] of Israel אֱלֹהִים (elohim), “god(s),” due to their role in representing God. Likewise, as I've already mentioned, the court poet called the Davidic King “god” in Ps 45:6. Additionally, the word אֵל (el), “god,” refers to representatives of Yahweh whether divine (Ps 82:1, 6) or human (John 10.34ff).[51] Thus, Isa 9:6 could be another case in which a deputized human acting as God's agent is referred to as God. The NET nicely explains: [H]aving read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king's deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way. Ps 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as “God” because he ruled and fought as God's representative on earth. …When the king's enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself.[52] Raymond Brown admits that this “may have been looked on simply as a royal title.”[53] Likewise Williamson sees this possibility as “perfectly acceptable,” though he prefers the theophoric approach.[54] Even the incarnation-affirming Keil and Delitzsch recognize that calling the child אֵל גִּבּוֹר (el gibbor) is “nothing further…than this, that the Messiah would be the image of God as no other man ever had been (cf., El, Ps. 82:1), and that He would have God dwelling within Him (cf., Jer. 33:16).”[55] Edward L. Curtis similarly points out that had Isaiah meant to teach that the child would be an incarnation of Yahweh, he would have “further unfolded and made central this thought” throughout his book.[56] He likewise sees Isa 9:6 not as teaching “the incarnation of a deity” but as a case “not foreign to Hebrew usage to apply divine names to men of exalted position,” citing Exod 21:6 and Ps 82:6 as parallels.[57] Notwithstanding the lexical and scholarly support for this view, not to mention my own previous position[58] on Isa 9:6, I'm no longer convinced that this is the best explanation. It's certainly possible to call people “Gods” because they are his agents, but it is also rare. We'll come to my current view shortly, but for now, let's approach the second controversial title. Eternal Father The word אֲבִיעַד (aviad), “Eternal Father,” is another recognizable appellative for Yahweh. As I mentioned in the introduction, translators have occasionally watered down the phrase, unwilling to accept that a human could receive such a title. But humans who pioneer an activity or invent something new are fathers.[59] Walking in someone's footsteps is metaphorically recognizing him as one's father.[60] Caring for others like a father is yet another way to think about it.[61] Perhaps the child is a father in one of these figurative senses. If we follow Jerome and translate אֲבִיעַד (aviad) as Pater futuri saeculi, “Father of the future age,” we can reconfigure the title, “Eternal Father,” from eternal without beginning to eternal with a beginning but without an end. However, notes Williamson, “There is no parallel to calling the king ‘Father,' rather the king is more usually designated as God's son.”[62] Although we find Yahweh referred to as “Father” twice in Isaiah (Isa 63:16; 64:7), and several more times throughout the Old Testament,[63] the Messiah is not so called. Even in the New Testament we don't see the title applied to Jesus. Although not impossible to be taken as Jesus's fatherly role to play in the age to come, the most natural way to take אֲבִיעַד (aviad) is as a reference to Yahweh. In conclusion, both “mighty God” and “eternal Father” most naturally refer to Yahweh and not the child. If this is so, why is the child named with such divine designations? A Theophoric Name Finally, we are ready to consider the solution to our translation and interpretation woes. Israelites were fond of naming their kids with theophoric names (names that “carry God”). William Holladay explains: Israelite personal names were in general of two sorts. Some of them were descriptive names… But most Israelite personal names were theophoric; that is, they involve a name or title or designation of God, with a verb or adjective or noun which expresses a theological affirmation. Thus “Hezekiah” is a name which means “Yah (= Yahweh) is my strength,” and “Isaiah” is a name which means “Yah (= Yahweh) has brought salvation.” It is obvious that Isaiah is not called “Yahweh”; he bears a name which says something about Yahweh.[64] As Holladay demonstrates, when translating a theophoric name, it is customary to supplement the literal phrase with the verb, “to be.” Hezekiah = “Yah (is) my strength”; Isaiah = “Yah (is) salvation.” Similarly, Elijah means “My God (is) Yah” and Eliab, “My God (is the) Father.” Theophoric names are not about the child; they are about the God of the parents. When we imagine Elijah's mother calling him for dinner, she's literally saying “My God (is) Yah(weh), it's time for dinner.” The child's name served to remind her who her God was. Similarly, these other names spoke of God's strength, salvation, and fatherhood. To interpret the named child of Isa 9:6 correctly, we must look at the previously named children in Isa 7 and 8. In chapter 7 the boy is called “Immanuel,” meaning “God (is) with us” (Isa 7:14). This was a historical child who signaled prophecy. Isaiah said, “For before the boy knows to reject evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be abandoned” (Isa 7:16). In Isa 8:1 we encounter “Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz,” or “The spoil speeds, the prey hastens.”[65] This child has a two-sentence name with an attached prophecy: “For before the boy calls, ‘my father' or ‘my mother,' the strength of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off before the king of Assyria” (Isa 8:4). Both children's sign names did not describe them nor what they would do, but what God would do for his people. Immanuel is a statement of faith. The name means God has not abandoned his people; they can confidently say, “God is with us” (Isa 8:10). Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz does not mean that the child would become a warrior to sack Damascus and seize her spoils, but that God would bring about the despoiling of Judah's enemy. When we encounter a third sign-named child in as many chapters, we are on solid contextual grounds to see this new, longer name in the same light. Isaiah prophecies that this child has the government upon his shoulder, sits on the throne of David, and will establish a lasting period of justice and righteousness (Isa 9:5, 7). This child bears the name “Pele-Yoets-El-Gibbor-Aviad-Sar-Shalom.” The name describes his parents' God, the mighty God, the eternal Father. Although this perspective has not yet won the day, it is well attested in a surprising breadth of resources. Already in 1867, Samuel David Luzzatto put forward this position.[66] The Jewish Publication Society concurred in their 2014 study Bible: Semitic names often consist of sentences that describe God … These names do not describe that person who holds them but the god whom the parents worship. Similarly, the name given to the child in this v. does not describe that child or attribute divinity to him, but describes God's actions.[67] The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV) footnote on Isa. 9:6 says, “As in many Israelite personal names, the deity, not the person named, is being described.”[68] Additional scholars advocating the view also include Holladay (1978), Wegner (1992), Goldingay (1999, 2015), and Williamson (2018). Even so, Keil and Delitzsch eschew “such a sesquipedalian name,” calling it “unskillful,” and arguing that it would be impractical “to be uttered in one breath.”[69] But this is to take the idea too literally. No one is going to actually call the child by this name. John Goldingay helpfully explains: So he has that complicated name, “An-extraordinary-counselor-is-the-warrior-God, the-everlasting-Father-is-an-officer-for-well-being.” Like earlier names in Isaiah (God-is-with-us, Remains-Will-Return, Plunder-hurries-loot-rushes), the name is a sentence. None of these names are the person's everyday name—as when the New Testament says that Jesus will be called Immanuel, “God [is] with us,” without meaning this expression is Jesus' name. Rather, the person somehow stands for whatever the “name” says. God gives him a sign of the truth of the expression attached to him. The names don't mean that the person is God with us, or is the remains, or is the plunder, and likewise this new name doesn't mean the child is what the name says. Rather he is a sign and guarantee of it. It's as if he goes around bearing a billboard with that message and with the reminder that God commissioned the billboard.[70] Still, there's the question of identifying Yahweh as שַׂר־שָׁלוֹם (sar shalom). Since most of our translations render the phrase “Prince of Peace,” and the common meaning of a prince is someone inferior to the king, we turn away from labeling God with this title. Although HALOT mentions “representative of the king, official” for the first definition their second is “person of note, commander.”[71] The BDB glosses “chieftain, chief, ruler, official, captain, prince” as their first entry.[72] Wegner adds: “The book of Isaiah also appears to use the word sar in the general sense of “ruler.””[73] Still, we must ask, is it reasonable to think of Yahweh as a שַׂר (sar)? We find the phrase שַׂר־הַצָּבָא (sar-hatsava), “prince of hosts,” in Daniel 8:11 and שַׂר־שָׂרִים (sar-sarim), “prince of princes,” in verse 25, where both refer to God.[74]  The UBS Translators' Handbook recommends “God, the chief of the heavenly army” for verse 11 and “the greatest of all kings” for verse 25.[75] The handbook discourages using “prince,” since “the English word ‘prince' does not mean the ruler himself but rather the son of the ruler, while the Hebrew term always designates a ruler, not at all implying son of a ruler.”[76] I suggest applying this same logic to Isa 9:6. Rather than translating שַׂר־שָׁלוֹם (sar shalom) as “Prince of Peace,” we can render it, “Ruler of Peace” or “Ruler who brings peace.” Translating the Name Sentences Now that I've laid out the case for the theophoric approach, let's consider translation possibilities. Wegner writes, “the whole name should be divided into two parallel units each containing one theophoric element.”[77] This makes sense considering the structure of Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which translates two parallel name sentences: “The spoil speeds, the prey hastens.” Here are a few options for translating the name. Jewish Publication Society (1917) Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace[78] William Holladay (1978) Planner of wonders; God the war hero (is) Father forever; prince of well-being[79] New Jewish Publication Society (1985) The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler[80] John Goldingay (1999) One who plans a wonder is the warrior God; the father for ever is a commander who brings peace[81] John Goldingay (2015) An-extraordinary-counselor-is-the-warrior-God, the-everlasting-Fathers-is-an-official-for-well-being[82] Hugh Williamson (2018) A Wonderful Planner is the Mighty God, An Eternal Father is the Prince of Peace[83] My Translation (2024) The warrior God is a miraculous strategist; the eternal Father is the ruler who brings peace[84] I prefer to translate אֵל גִּבּוֹר (el gibbor) as “warrior God” rather than “mighty God” because the context is martial, and  גִּבּוֹר(gibbor) often refers to those fighting in war.[85] “Mighty God” is ambiguous, and easily decontextualized from the setting of Isa 9:6. After all, Isa 9:4-5 tells a great victory “as on the day of Midian”—a victory so complete that they burn “all the boots of the tramping warriors” in the fire. The word פֶּלֶא (pele), though often translated “wonderful,” is actually the word for “miracle,” and יוֹעֵץ (yoets) is a participle meaning “adviser” or “planner.” Since the context is war, this “miracle of an adviser” or “miraculous planner” refers to military plans—what we call strategy, hence, “miraculous strategist.” Amazingly, the tactic God employed in the time of Hezekiah was to send out an angel during the night who “struck down one hundred eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians” (Isa 37:36). This was evidently the warrior God's miraculous plan to remove the threat of Assyria from Jerusalem's doorstep. Prophecies about the coming day of God when he sends Jesus Christ—the true and better Hezekiah—likewise foretell of an even greater victory over the nations.[86] In fact, just two chapters later we find a messianic prophecy of one who will “strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked” (Isa 11:4). The next phrase, “The eternal Father,” needs little comment since God's eternality and fatherhood are both noncontroversial and multiply attested. Literally translated, שַׂר־שָׁלוֹם (sar-shalom) is “Ruler of peace,” but I take the word pair as a genitive of product.[87] Williamson unpacks this meaning as “the one who is able to initiate and maintain Peace.”[88] That his actions in the time of Hezekiah brought peace is a matter of history. After a huge portion of the Assyrian army died, King Sennacherib went back to Nineveh, where his sons murdered him (Isa 37:37-38). For decades, Judah continued to live in her homeland. Thus, this child's birth signaled the beginning of the end for Assyria. In fact, the empire itself eventually imploded, a fate that, at Hezekiah's birth, must have seemed utterly unthinkable. Of course, the ultimate peace God will bring through his Messiah will far outshine what Hezekiah achieved.[89] Conclusion We began by considering the phraseוַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ  (vayikra sh'mo). We noted that the tense is perfect, which justifies a past-tense interpretation of the child who had already been born by the time of the birth announcement. I presented the case for Hezekiah as the initial referent of Isa 9:6 based on the fact that Hezekiah’s life overlapped with Isaiah’s, that he sat on the throne of David (v7), and that his reign saw the miraculous deliverance from Assyria's army. Furthermore, I noted that identifying the child of Isa 9:6 as Hezekiah does not preclude a true and better one to come. Although Isa 9:6 does not show up in the New Testament, I agree with the majority of Christians who recognize this text as a messianic prophecy, especially when combined with verse 7. Next we puzzled over the subject for phraseוַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ  (vayikra sh'mo.) Two options are that the phrase פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ אֵל גִּבּוֹר (pele yoets el gibbor) functions as the subject or else the subject is indefinite. Although the Jewish interpreters overwhelmingly favor the former, the lack of definite articles and parallel constructions in Isaiah make me think the latter is more likely. Still, the Jewish approach to translation is a legitimate possibility. I explained how a passive voice makes sense in English since it hides the subject, and settled on “his name has been called,” as the best translation. Then we looked at the phrase אֵל גִּבּוֹר (el gibbor) and considered the option of switching the order of the words and taking the first as the modifier of the second as in “mighty hero” or “divine warrior.” We explored the possibility that Isaiah was ascribing deity to the newborn child. We looked at the idea of Isaiah calling the boy “Mighty God” because he represented God. In the end we concluded that these all are less likely than taking God as the referent, especially in light of the identical phrase in Isa 10:21 where it unambiguously refers to Yahweh. Moving on to אֲבִיעַד (aviad), we considered the possibility that “father” could refer to someone who started something significant and “eternal” could merely designate a coming age. Once again, though these are both possible readings, they are strained and ad hoc, lacking any indication in the text to signal a non-straightforward reading. So, as with “Mighty God,” I also take “Eternal Father” as simple references to God and not the child. Finally, we explored the notion of theophoric names. Leaning on two mainstream Bible translations and five scholars, from Luzzatto to Williamson, we saw that this lesser-known approach is quite attractive. Not only does it take the grammar at face value, it also explains how a human being could be named “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father.” The name describes God and not the child who bears it. Lastly, drawing on the work of the Jewish Publication Society, Goldingay, and Williamson, I proposed the translation: “The warrior God is a miraculous strategist; the eternal Father is the ruler who brings peace.” This rendering preserves the martial context of Isa 9:6 and glosses each word according to its most common definition. I added in the verb “is” twice as is customary when translating theophoric names. The result is a translation that recognizes God as the focus and not the child. This fits best in the immediate context, assuming Hezekiah is the original referent. After all, his greatest moment was not charging out ahead of a column of soldiers, but his entering the house of Yahweh and praying for salvation. God took care of everything else. Likewise, the ultimate Son of David will have God's spirit influencing him: a spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, knowledge, and fear of God (Isa 11:2). The eternal Father will so direct his anointed that he will “not judge by what his eyes see or decide by what his ears hear” (Isa 11:3). In his days God will bring about a shalom so deep that even the animals will become peaceful (Isa 11:6-8). An advantage of this reading of Isa 9:6 is that it is compatible with the full range of christological positions Christians hold. Secondly, this approach nicely fits with the original meaning in Isaiah’s day, and it works for the prophecy’s ultimate referent in Christ Jesus. Additionally, it is the interpretation with the least amount of special pleading. Finally, it puts everything into the correct order, allowing exegesis to drive theology rather than the other way around. Bibliography Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament. Altamonte Springs: OakTree Software, 2012. The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text: A New Translation. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1917. The Jewish Study Bible. Edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. Second ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Net Bible, Full Notes Edition. Edited by W. Hall Harris III James Davis, and Michael H. Burer. 2nd ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2019. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Edited by Carol A. Newsom Marc Z. Brettler, Pheme Perkins. Third ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. The Stone Edition of the Tanach. Edited by Nosson Scherman and Meir Zlotowitz. Brooklyn, NY: Artscroll, 1996. Tanakh, the Holy Scriptures: The New Jps Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. 4th, Reprint. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1985. Translation of Targum Onkelos and Jonathan. Translated by Eidon Clem. Altamonte Springs, FL: OakTree Software, 2015. Alter, Rober. The Hebrew Bible: Prophets, Nevi’im. Vol. 2. 3 vols. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2019. Ashkenazi, Jacob ben Isaac. Tze’enah Ure’enah: A Critical Translation into English. Translated by Morris M. Faierstein. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017. https://www.sefaria.org/Tze’enah_Ure’enah%2C_Haftarot%2C_Yitro.31?lang=bi&with=About&lang2=en. Baumgartner, Ludwig Koehler and Walter. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Brown, Raymond E. Jesus: God and Man, edited by 3. New York: Macmillan, 1967. Carlson, R. A. “The Anti-Assyrian Character of the Oracle in Is. Ix, 1-6.” Vetus Testamentum, no. 24 (1974): 130-5. Curtis, Edward L. “The Prophecy Concerning the Child of the Four Names: Isaiah Ix., 6, 7.” The Old and New Testament Student 11, no. 6 (1890): 336-41. Delitzsch, C. F. Keil and F. Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Finnegan, Sean. “Jesus Is God: Exploring the Notion of Representational Deity.” Paper presented at the One God Seminar, Seattle, WA, 2008, https://restitutio.org/2016/01/11/explanations-to-verses-commonly-used-to-teach-that-jesus-is-god/. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910. Goldingay, John. “The Compound Name in Isaiah 9:5(6).” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 2 (1999): 239-44. Goldingay, John. Isaiah for Everyone. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015. Holladay, William L. Isaiah: Scroll of Prophetic Heritage. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. III, Ben Witherington. Isaiah Old and New. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2017. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1ggjhbz.7. Luzzatto, Samuel David. Shi’ur Komah. Padua, IT: Antonio Bianchi, 1867. O’Connor, Bruce K. Waltke and Michael P. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Esenbrauns, 1990. Ogden, Graham S., and Jan Sterk. A Handbook on Isaiah. Ubs Translator's Handbooks. New York: United Bible Societies, 2011. Oswalt, John. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39. Nicot. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986. Péter-Contesse, René and John Ellington. A Handbook on Daniel. Ubs Translator’s Handbooks. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1993. Roberts, J. J. M. First Isaiah. Vol. 23A. Hermeneia, edited by Peter Machinist. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001. Thayer, Joseph Henry. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Wegner, Paul D. “A Re-Examination of Isaiah Ix 1-6.” Vetus Testamentum 42, no. 1 (1992): 103-12. Williamson, H. G. M. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1-27. Vol. 2. International Critical Commentary, edited by G. I. Davies and C. M. Tuckett. New York: Bloomsbury, 2018. Yitzchaki, Shlomo. Complete Tanach with Rashi. Translated by A. J. Rosenberg. Chicago, IL: Davka Corp, 1998. https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Isaiah.9.5.2?lang=bi&with=About&lang2=en. Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-18. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965. End Notes [1] Throughout I'll refer to Isaiah 9:6 based on the versification used in English translations. Hebrew Bibles shift the count by one, so the same verse is Isaiah 9:5. [2] Paul D. Wegner, “A Re-Examination of Isaiah Ix 1-6,” Vetus Testamentum 42, no. 1 (1992): 103. [3] BHS is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the standard Hebrew text based on the Leningrad Codex, a medieval Masoretic text. [4] In Hebrew the perfect tense roughly maps onto English past tense and the imperfect tense to future tense. [5] See NRSVUE, ESV, NASB20, NIV, NET, LSB, NLT, NKJ, ASV, KJV. [6] See translations by Robert Alter, James Moffat, and Duncan Heaster.  Also see Westminster Commentary, Cambridge Bible Commentary, New Century Bible Commentary, and The Daily Study Bible. [7] See New English Bible. [8] See Ibn Ezra. [9] See An American Testament. [10] “Held” means “hero” in German. In the Luther Bible (1545), he translated the phrase as “und er heißt Wunderbar, Rat, Kraft, Held, Ewig -Vater, Friedefürst,” separating power (Kraft = El) and hero (Held = Gibbor) whereas in the 1912 revision we read, “er heißt Wunderbar, Rat, Held, Ewig-Vater Friedefürst,” which reduced el gibbor to “Held” (hero). [11] See fn 4 above. [12] See New American Bible Revised Edition and An American Testament. [13] See New English Bible and James Moffatt's translation. [14] See Ibn Ezra. [15] See Duncan Heaster's New European Version. [16] See Word Biblical Commentary. [17] See Jewish Publication Society translation of 1917, the Koren Jerusalem Bible, and the Complete Jewish Bible. [18] In the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1QIsaa 8.24 reads “וקרא,” the vav-conversed form of “קרא,” translated “he will call,” an active future tense. This reading is implausible considering the unambiguous past tense of the two initial clauses that began verse 6: “a child has been born…a son has been given.” [19] “Here the Hebrew begins to use imperfect verb forms with the conjunction often rendered “and.” These verbs continue the tense of the perfect verb forms used in the previous lines. They refer to a state or situation that now exists, so they may be rendered with the present tense in English. Some translations continue to use a perfect tense here (so NJB, NJPSV, FRCL), which is better.” Graham S. Ogden, and Jan Sterk, A Handbook on Isaiah, Ubs Translator's Handbooks (New York: United Bible Societies, 2011). [20] H. G. M. Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1-27, vol. 2, International Critical Commentary, ed. G. I. Davies and C. M. Tuckett (New York: Bloomsbury, 2018), 371. [21] Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), §106n. [22] Bruce K. Waltke and Michael P. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Esenbrauns, 1990), §30.5.1e. [23] John Goldingay takes a “both-and” position, recognizing that Isaiah was speaking by faith of what God would do in the future, but also seeing the birth of the son to the king as having already happened by the time of the prophecy. John Goldingay, Isaiah for Everyone (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015), 42. [24] Jewish authors include Rashi, A. E. Kimchi, Abravanel, Malbim, and Luzzatto. [25] See 2 Kings 18:3-7. [26] Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own. [27] J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah, vol. 23A, Hermeneia, ed. Peter Machinist (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001), 153. [28] Ben Witherington III, Isaiah Old and New (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2017), 95-6, 99-100. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1ggjhbz.7. [29] Translation of Targum Onkelos and Jonathan, trans. Eidon Clem (Altamonte Springs, FL: OakTree Software, 2015). [30] Shlomo Yitzchaki, Complete Tanach with Rashi, trans. A. J. Rosenberg (Chicago, IL: Davka Corp, 1998). https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Isaiah.9.5.2?lang=bi&with=About&lang2=en. [31] Jacob ben Isaac Ashkenazi, Tze’enah Ure’enah: A Critical Translation into English, trans. Morris M. Faierstein (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017). https://www.sefaria.org/Tze’enah_Ure’enah%2C_Haftarot%2C_Yitro.31?lang=bi&with=About&lang2=en. [32] Square brackets in original. The Stone Edition of the Tanach, ed. Nosson Scherman and Meir Zlotowitz (Brooklyn, NY: Artscroll, 1996). [33] Net Bible, Full Notes Edition, ed. W. Hall Harris III James Davis, and Michael H. Burer, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2019), 1266. [34] C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 249-50. [35] As mentioned above, the Hebrew is not actually passive. [36] The LXX reads “καὶ καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ” (kai kaleitai to onoma autou), which means “and his name is called.” [37] Rober Alter, The Hebrew Bible: Prophets, Nevi’im, vol. 2, 3 vols. (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2019), 651. [38] John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39, Nicot (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 247. [39] Delitzsch, 252. [40] The אֵלֵי גִבּוֹרִים (eley gibborim) of Ezek 32.21 although morphologically suggestive of a plural form of el gibbor, is not a suitable parallel to Isa 9:6 since אֵלֵי (eley) is the plural of אַיִל (ayil), meaning “chief” not אֵל (el). Thus, the translation “mighty chiefs” or “warrior rulers” takes eley as the noun and gibborim as the adjective and does not actually reverse them. [41] Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-18, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 338. [42] Translator's note A on Isa 9:6 in the NET states, “[I]t is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way.” Net Bible, Full Notes Edition, 1267. [43] “The Messiah is the corporeal presence of this mighty God; for He is with Him, He is in Him, and in Him He is with Israel. The expression did not preclude the fact that the Messiah would be God and man in one person; but it did not penetrate to this depth, so far as the Old Testament consciousness was concerned.” Delitzsch, 253. [44] See Wegner 104-5. [45] See R. A. Carlson, “The Anti-Assyrian Character of the Oracle in Is. Ix, 1-6,” Vetus Testamentum, no. 24 (1974). [46] Oswalt, 246. [47] Isa 43:10-11; 44:6, 8; 45:5-6, 18, 21-22; 46:9. Deut 17:14-20 lays out the expectations for an Israelite king, many of which limit his power and restrict his exaltation, making deification untenable. [48] Wegner 108. [49] See Exod 4:16; 7:1. The word “God” can apply to “any person characterized by greatness or power: mighty one, great one, judge,” s.v. “אֱלֹהִים” in Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament.. The BDAG concurs, adding that a God is “that which is nontranscendent but considered worthy of special reverence or respect… of humans θεοί (as אֱלֹהִים) J[ohn] 10:34f (Ps 81:6; humans are called θ. in the OT also Ex 7:1; 22:27,” s.v. “θεός” in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. [50] See Exod 21.6; 22:8-9. The BDB includes the definition, “rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power,” s.v. “אֱלֹהִים” in The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon [51] Thayer points this out in his lexicon: “Hebraistically, equivalent to God’s representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges, John 10:34f after Ps. 81:6 (Ps. 82:6)” s.v. “θέος” in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. [52] Net Bible, Full Notes Edition, 1267. [53] Raymond E. Brown, Jesus: God and Man, ed. 3 (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 25. [54] Williamson, 397. [55] Delitzsch, 253. See also fn 40 above. [56] Edward L. Curtis, “The Prophecy Concerning the Child of the Four Names: Isaiah Ix., 6, 7,” The Old and New Testament Student 11, no. 6 (1890): 339. [57] Ibid. [58] Sean Finnegan, “Jesus Is God: Exploring the Notion of Representational Deity” (paper presented at the One God Seminar, Seattle, WA2008), https://restitutio.org/2016/01/11/explanations-to-verses-commonly-used-to-teach-that-jesus-is-god/. [59] Jabal was the father of those who live in tents and have livestock (Gen 4:20) and Jubal was the father of those who play the lyre and the pipe (Gen 4:21). [60] Jesus told his critics, “You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father's desires” (John 8:44). [61] Job called himself “a father to the needy” (Job 29:16) and Isaiah prophesied that Eliakim would be “a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (Isa 22:21). [62] Williamson, 397. [63] For references to Yahweh as father to the people see Deut 32:6; Ps 103:13; Prov 3:12; Jer 3:4; 31.9; Mal 1.6; 2:10. For Yahweh as father to the messiah see 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chron 7:13; 28:6; Ps 89:27. [64] William L. Holladay, Isaiah: Scroll of Prophetic Heritage (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 108. [65] See NRSVUE fn on Isa 8:1. [66] והנה המכוון במאמר פלא יועץ וגו’ הוא כי האל הגבור שהוא אבי עד ואדון השלום, הוא יועץ וגוזר לעשות פלא לישראל בזמן ממלכת הילד הנולד היום, ואח”כ מפרש למרבה המשרה וגו’. ולפי הפירוש הזה לא לחנם האריך כאן בתארי האל, כי כוונת הנביא לרמוז כי בבוא הפלא שהאל יועץ וגוזר עתה, יוודע שהוא אל גבור ובעל היכולת ושהוא אב לעד, ולא יפר בריתו עם בניו בני ישראל, ולא ישכח את ברית אבותם. ושהוא אדון השלום ואוהב השלום, ולא יאהב העריצים אשר כל חפצם לנתוש ולנתוץ ולהאביד ולהרוס, אבל הוא משפילם עד עפר, ונותן שלום בארץ, כמו שראינו בכל הדורות. Chat GPT translation: “And behold, the intention in the phrase ‘Wonderful Counselor’ and so on is that the mighty God, who is the Eternal Father and the Prince of Peace, is the Counselor and decrees to perform a wonder for Israel at the time of the reign of the child born today. Afterwards, it is explained as ‘to increase the dominion’ and so on. According to this interpretation, it is not in vain that the prophet elaborates on the attributes of God here, for the prophet’s intention is to hint that when the wonder that God now advises and decrees comes about, it will be known that He is the Mighty God and possesses the ability and that He is the Eternal Father. He will not break His covenant with His sons, the children of Israel, nor forget the covenant of their ancestors. He is the Prince of Peace and loves peace, and He will not favor the oppressors whose every desire is to tear apart, destroy, and obliterate, but He will humble them to the dust and grant peace to the land, as we have seen throughout the generations.” Samuel David Luzzatto, Shi’ur Komah (Padua, IT: Antonio Bianchi, 1867). Accessible at Sefaria and the National Library of Israel. [67]The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, Second ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 784. [68] The New Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. Carol A. Newsom Marc Z. Brettler, Pheme Perkins, Third ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 991. [69] Delitzsch, 249. [70] Goldingay, 42-3. [71] Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. M. E. J. Richardson (Leiden: Brill, 2000). [72] See s.v. “שַׂר” in The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon [73] Wegner 112. [74] Keil and Delitzsch say the sar of Dan 8:11 refers to “the God of heaven and the King of Israel, the Prince of princes, as He is called in v. 25,” Delitzsch, 297. [75] René and John Ellington Péter-Contesse, A Handbook on Daniel, Ubs Translator’s Handbooks (New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1993). [76] Ibid. [77] Wegner 110-1. [78] The main text transliterates “Pele-joez-el-gibbor-/Abi-ad-sar-shalom,” while the footnote translates as indicated above. The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text: A New Translation (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1917), 575. [79] Holladay, 109. [80] Tanakh, the Holy Scriptures: The New Jps Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (4th: repr., Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1985), 634. [81] John Goldingay, “The Compound Name in Isaiah 9:5(6),” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 2 (1999): 243. [82] Goldingay, Isaiah for Everyone, 40. [83] Williamson, 355. [84] An alternative is “The warrior God is planning a miracle; the eternal Father is the ruler of peace.” [85] For גִּבּוֹר in a military context, see 1 Sam 17:51; 2 Sam 20.7; 2 Kgs 24:16; Isa 21.17; Jer 48:41; Eze 39:20; and Joel 2:7; 3:9. [86] See 2 Thess 2:8 and Rev 19:11-21 (cp. Dan 7:13-14). [87] See Gesenius § 128q, which describes a genitive of “statements of the purpose for which something is intended.” [88] Williamson, 401. [89] Isaiah tells of a time when God will “judge between nations,” resulting in the conversion of the weapons of war into the tools of agriculture and a lasting era when “nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall they learn war any more” (Isa 2:4).

Find us on Twitter @BloodyBiblePod, on Facebook @TheBloodyBiblePodcast, and on Instagram @bloodybiblepodcast. You can also email the podcast at BloodyBiblePodcast@gmail.com.The Bloody Bible podcast is produced by Caroline Blyth, Emily Colgan and Richard BonifantEpisodes are recorded and edited by Richard BonifantOur podcast music is ‘Stalker' by Alexis Ortiz Sofield, courtesy of Pixabay music https://pixabay.com/music/search/stalker/ Our podcast art was created by Sarah Lea Westhttps://www.instagram.com/sarahleawest.art/?fbclid=IwAR0F4i-R7JpRePmm8PmGta_OkOCWa-kMjR3QGSSeOKi6SWNrCk3rA5VuIZk Resources for this episodeBBC, “Church of England failures ‘allowed child sexual abusers to hide.'” 6 October 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54433295 Omri Boehm, “Child Sacrifice, Ethical Responsibility and the Existence of the People of Israel.” Vetus Testamentum 54, no. 2 (2004), pp. 145–56.Bravehearts, “Child sexual abuse & religious organisations.” https://bravehearts.org.au/research-lobbying/stats-facts/child-sexual-abuse-religous-organisations/Aris Folley, “Jeffress suggests Democrats may worship pagan god Moloch, ‘who allowed for child sacrifice'.” The Hill, 2 October 2019. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/464073-jeffress-suggests-democrats-worship-pagan-god-moloch-who/ Maxine Jacobs, “‘We failed in our sacred duty': Methodist Church responds to Abuse in Care inquiry.” Stuff, 19 October 2022. https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/300715313/we-failed-in-our-sacred-duty-methodist-church-responds-to-abuse-in-care-inquiry Simone Sunghae Kim, “Psychological Contours of Multicultural Feminist Hermeneutics: Han and Relationality.” Pastoral Psychology 55 (2007), pp. 723–30.Jon D. Levensen, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son. Yale University Press, 1995.Lauren A. S. Monroe, “Disembodied Women: Sacrificial Language and the Deaths of Bat-Jephthah, Cozbi, and the Bethlehemite Concubine.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75 (2013), pp. 32–52.Nathaniel J. Pallone, “Sin, Crime, Arrogance, Betrayal: A Psychodynamic Perspective on the Crisis in American Catholicism.” Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention 2, no. 4 (2002), pp. 341–72. Monika Pesthy-Simon, Isaac, Iphigeneia, and Ignatius: Martyrdom and Human Sacrifice. Central European University Press, 2017. Royal Commission of Inquiry (Aotearoa New Zealand), “Abuse in Care.” https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/our-progress/reports/ Emily St James, “The sexual abuse scandal rocking the Southern Baptist Convention, explained.” Vox, 7 June 2022. https://www.vox.com/culture/23131530/southern-baptist-convention-sexual-abuse-scandal-guidepost.Francesca Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities. Walter de Gruyter, 2004.Francesca Stavrakopoulou, “The Jerusalem Tophet: Ideological Dispute and Religious Transformation.” Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 29-30 (2012-2013), pp. 137–58.Mark Townsend, “Home Office faces legal action over children missing from UK asylum hotels.” The Guardian, 11 June 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/11/home-office-faces-legal-action-over-children-missing-from-uk-asylum-hotels Mark Townsend, Sian Norris and Katharine Quarmby, “Children reaching UK in small boats sent to jail for adult sex offenders.” The Guardian, 27 August 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/27/children-reaching-uk-in-small-boats-sent-to-jail-for-adult-sex-offenders Support ServicesSafe to Talk (New Zealand) http://www.safetotalk.nz/ Youthline (NZ) https://www.youthline.co.nz/ List of sexual assault support services (NZ) – https://sexualabuse.org.nz/resources/find-sexual-assault-support-near-you/ 1800 Respect (Australia) https://www.1800respect.org.au/ Full Stop (Australia) – https://fullstop.org.au/ Stop It Now (UK) https://www.stopitnow.org.uk/helpline/ Rape Crisis (UK) – https://rapecrisis.org.uk/ Rape Crisis Scotland –​​ https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/ Child Help (USA) https://www.childhelphotline.org/ Life in Mind (Australia) https://lifeinmind.org.au/organisations/kids-helpline Shine (NZ) - https://www.2shine.org.nz/ Family Violence - It's Not Okay (NZ) - https://www.areyouok.org.nz/ National Domestic Violence Hotline (USA) - https://www.thehotline.org/ Women's Aid (UK) - https://www.womensaid.org.uk/ RAINN (USA) – https://www.rainn.org/ Helping Survivors (USA) – https://helpingsurvivors.org/ Financial abuse resource https://www.annuity.org/financial-literacy/financial-abuse/

Wir springen in dieser Folge ins 6. Jahrhundert vdZw, wo im heutigen Iran ein lokaler Fürst kurz davor ist, das erste Weltreich der Geschichte zu begründen. Wir sprechen in dieser Folge über Kyros II., unter dem das Achämenidenreich Form annehmen wird, und der schließlich nicht nur zum idealen König hochstilisiert wird, sondern sogar als Messias Einzug ins alte Testament findet. //Literatur - Amélie Kuhrt. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources From the Achaemenid Period. Routledge, 2007. - Granerød, Gard. „‚By the Favour of Ahuramazda I Am King‘: On the Promulgation of a Persian Propaganda Text among Babylonians and Judaeans“. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 44, Nr. 4/5 (2013): 455–80. - Leuenberger, Martin. „Kyros-Orakel und Kyros-Zylinder Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Vergleich ihrer Gottes-Konzeptionen“. Vetus Testamentum 59, Nr. 2 (2009): 244–56. - Lynette Mitchell. Cyrus the Great: A Biography of Kingship. Routledge, 2023. - Tom Holland. Persian Fire. Little, 2005. //Erwähnte Folgen GAG333: Alexandria https://gadg.fm/333 GAG416: Wie das Münzgeld entstand https://gadg.fm/416 GAG404: Not Found https://gadg.fm/404 GAG378: Ein langer Marsch durch Feindesland https://gadg.fm/378 GAG435: Die Schlacht bei Carrhae https://gadg.fm/435 // Episodenbild Das Episodenbild zeigt eine Aufnahme des Grabmals Kyros II. Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts //Aus unserer Werbung Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte: https://linktr.ee/GeschichtenausderGeschichte //Wir haben auch ein Buch geschrieben: Wer es erwerben will, es ist überall im Handel, aber auch direkt über den Verlag zu erwerben: https://www.piper.de/buecher/geschichten-aus-der-geschichte-isbn-978-3-492-06363-0 Wer Becher, T-Shirts oder Hoodies erwerben will: Die gibt's unter https://geschichte.shop Wer unsere Folgen lieber ohne Werbung anhören will, kann das über eine kleine Unterstützung auf Steady oder ein Abo des GeschichteFM-Plus Kanals auf Apple Podcasts tun. Wir freuen uns, wenn ihr den Podcast bei Apple Podcasts oder wo auch immer dies möglich ist rezensiert oder bewertet. Wir freuen uns auch immer, wenn ihr euren Freundinnen und Freunden, Kolleginnen und Kollegen oder sogar Nachbarinnen und Nachbarn von uns erzählt!

In this video JC Schroeder reads and breaks down the first verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:1, in both Hebrew and Greek from the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Septuagint.

"Deus assiste na congregação divina; no meio dos deuses, estabelece o seu julgamento" (Salmos 82.1, ARA). O que a Bíblia quer dizer quando fala de outros deuses? Não existe um só? Junto a um dos maiores estudiosos bíblicos e filósofos judeus do século 20, o ucraniano Yehezkel Kaufmann (1889-1963), veja neste episódio como a Bíblia Hebraica revela um Deus singular, totalmente diferente dos deuses pagãos que concorriam pela atenção do seu povo, até mesmo em versículos difíceis como este. Veja uma transcrição deste episódio no blog da Pilgrim Ficou curioso sobre como interpretar a história de Israel depois desse episódio? Um dos melhores recursos em português está disponível na Pilgrim: https://thepilgrim.com.br/catalogue/product/3976/ _____ PARA SE APROFUNDAR: Benjamin Sommer. “Yehezkel Kaufmann and Recent Scholarship:Toward a Richer Discourse of Monotheism” In: Jindo, Sommer e Staubli (eds.) Yehezkel Kaufmann and the Reinvention of Jewish Biblical Scholarship. Yehezkel Kaufmann. A religião de Israel. Trad. Adap. Moshe Greenberg. Londres: George Allen & Unwin, 1961. Matthew Lynch. “Mapping Monotheism: Modes of Monotheistic Rhetoric in the Hebrew Bible”. Vetus Testamentum. _____ JÁ CONHECE A PILGRIM? A nossa plataforma oferece acesso a conteúdos cristãos de qualidade no formato que você preferir. Na Pilgrim você encontra audiolivros, ebooks, palestras, resumos, livros impressos e artigos para cada momento do seu dia e da sua vida: https://thepilgrim.com.br/ _____ SEJA PILGRIM PREMIUM Seja um assinante da Pilgrim e tenha acesso a mais de 9000 livros, cursos, artigos e muito mais em uma única assinatura mensal: https://thepilgrim.com.br/seja-um-assinante Quais as vantagens? Acesso aos originais Pilgrim + Download ilimitado para ouvir offline + Acesso a mais de 9.000 títulos! + Frete grátis na compra de livros impressos em nossa loja _____ SIGA A PILGRIM No Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/pilgrim.app/ no Twitter: https://twitter.com/AppPilgrim no TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@pilgrimapp e no YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCy1lBN2eNOdL_dJtKnQZlCw Entre em contato através do contato@thepilgrim.com.br. Em suma é um podcast original Pilgrim. Todos os direitos reservados. O ponto de vista deste texto é de responsabilidade de seu(s) autor(es) e colaboradores diretos, não refletindo necessariamente a posição da Pilgrim ou de sua equipe de profissionais.

Hey guys! So glad to have you back! I am excited to give you the final epsiode from the Ishtar section of my disso!! I hope you guys have a great week and I'll see you guys next time!! Chloe insta: @yeoman_chloe newsletter: chloeyeoman.substack.com Bibliography Anon., 2020. The Epic of Gilgamesh. 2nd Edition ed. Milton Keynes: Penguin Books. Collins, J. J., 2018. The Near Eastern Context. In: Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. s.l.:1517 Media: Fortress Press, pp. 25-51. Harris, R., 1991. Inanna-Ishtar as Paradox and a Coincidence of Opposites. History of Religions, 30(3), pp. 261-278. History.com Editors, 2021. Mesopotamia. [Online] Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-middle-east/mesopotamia [Accessed 7 March 2022]. Howard, S., 2017. En Hedu'anna. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 103(2), pp. 21-34. Jacobsen, T., 1987. Inanna's Descent. In: The Harps that Once.... Yale: Yale University Press, pp. 205-232. Kriwaczek, P., 2012. Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilisation. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. Marcovich, M., 1996. From Ishtar to Aphrdotite. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 30(2), p. 45. Oppenheim, A. L., 1977. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilisation. 2nd Edition ed. London: University of Chicago Press. Pinker, A., 2005. Descent of the Goddess Ishtar to the Netherworld and Nahum II 8. Vetus Testamentum, 55(1), pp. 89-100. Pryke, L., 2017. Ishtar. New York: Routledge.

Hey guys! So glad to have you back! I am excited to give you the final epsiode from the Ishtar section of my disso!! I hope you guys have a great week and I'll see you guys next time!! Chloe insta: @yeoman_chloe newsletter: chloeyeoman.substack.com Bibliography Anon., 2020. The Epic of Gilgamesh. 2nd Edition ed. Milton Keynes: Penguin Books. Collins, J. J., 2018. The Near Eastern Context. In: Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. s.l.:1517 Media: Fortress Press, pp. 25-51. Harris, R., 1991. Inanna-Ishtar as Paradox and a Coincidence of Opposites. History of Religions, 30(3), pp. 261-278. History.com Editors, 2021. Mesopotamia. [Online] Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-middle-east/mesopotamia [Accessed 7 March 2022]. Howard, S., 2017. En Hedu'anna. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 103(2), pp. 21-34. Jacobsen, T., 1987. Inanna's Descent. In: The Harps that Once.... Yale: Yale University Press, pp. 205-232. Kriwaczek, P., 2012. Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilisation. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. Marcovich, M., 1996. From Ishtar to Aphrdotite. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 30(2), p. 45. Oppenheim, A. L., 1977. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilisation. 2nd Edition ed. London: University of Chicago Press. Pinker, A., 2005. Descent of the Goddess Ishtar to the Netherworld and Nahum II 8. Vetus Testamentum, 55(1), pp. 89-100. Pryke, L., 2017. Ishtar. New York: Routledge.

Hi Folks! Sorry for the long break, but I am now back! I had COVID and went away twice so I didn't have it in me to create, unfortunately. But I am back now and I hope you all enjoy this new episode!! It is a brief summary of the epic with some literary commentary thrown in! Any queries please do not hesitate to reach out! insta: @yeoman_chloe newsletter: chloeyeoman.substack.com Bibliography Anon., 2020. The Epic of Gilgamesh. 2nd Edition ed. Milton Keynes: Penguin Books. Collins, J. J., 2018. The Near Eastern Context. In: Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. s.l.:1517 Media: Fortress Press, pp. 25-51. Harris, R., 1991. Inanna-Ishtar as Paradox and a Coincidence of Opposites. History of Religions, 30(3), pp. 261-278. History.com Editors, 2021. Mesopotamia. [Online] Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-middle-east/mesopotamia [Accessed 7 March 2022]. Howard, S., 2017. En Hedu'anna. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 103(2), pp. 21-34. Jacobsen, T., 1987. Inanna's Descent. In: The Harps that Once.... Yale: Yale University Press, pp. 205-232. Kriwaczek, P., 2012. Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilisation. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. Marcovich, M., 1996. From Ishtar to Aphrdotite. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 30(2), p. 45. Oppenheim, A. L., 1977. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilisation. 2nd Edition ed. London: University of Chicago Press. Pinker, A., 2005. Descent of the Goddess Ishtar to the Netherworld and Nahum II 8. Vetus Testamentum, 55(1), pp. 89-100. Pryke, L., 2017. Ishtar. New York: Routledge.

Hi Folks! Sorry for the long break, but I am now back! I had COVID and went away twice so I didn't have it in me to create, unfortunately. But I am back now and I hope you all enjoy this new episode!! It is a brief summary of the epic with some literary commentary thrown in! Any queries please do not hesitate to reach out! insta: @yeoman_chloe newsletter: chloeyeoman.substack.com Bibliography Anon., 2020. The Epic of Gilgamesh. 2nd Edition ed. Milton Keynes: Penguin Books. Collins, J. J., 2018. The Near Eastern Context. In: Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. s.l.:1517 Media: Fortress Press, pp. 25-51. Harris, R., 1991. Inanna-Ishtar as Paradox and a Coincidence of Opposites. History of Religions, 30(3), pp. 261-278. History.com Editors, 2021. Mesopotamia. [Online] Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-middle-east/mesopotamia [Accessed 7 March 2022]. Howard, S., 2017. En Hedu'anna. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 103(2), pp. 21-34. Jacobsen, T., 1987. Inanna's Descent. In: The Harps that Once.... Yale: Yale University Press, pp. 205-232. Kriwaczek, P., 2012. Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilisation. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. Marcovich, M., 1996. From Ishtar to Aphrdotite. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 30(2), p. 45. Oppenheim, A. L., 1977. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilisation. 2nd Edition ed. London: University of Chicago Press. Pinker, A., 2005. Descent of the Goddess Ishtar to the Netherworld and Nahum II 8. Vetus Testamentum, 55(1), pp. 89-100. Pryke, L., 2017. Ishtar. New York: Routledge.

Hey guys!! Part two is out now! I can't wait for you guys to listen to this one. I hope you enjoy it! Chloe Bibliography Anon., 2020. The Epic of Gilgamesh. 2nd Edition ed. Milton Keynes: Penguin Books. Collins, J. J., 2018. The Near Eastern Context. In: Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. s.l.:1517 Media: Fortress Press, pp. 25-51. Harris, R., 1991. Inanna-Ishtar as Paradox and a Coincidence of Opposites. History of Religions, 30(3), pp. 261-278. History.com Editors, 2021. Mesopotamia. [Online] Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-middle-east/mesopotamia [Accessed 7 March 2022]. Howard, S., 2017. En Hedu'anna. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 103(2), pp. 21-34. Jacobsen, T., 1987. Inanna's Descent. In: The Harps that Once.... Yale: Yale University Press, pp. 205-232. Kriwaczek, P., 2012. Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilisation. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. Marcovich, M., 1996. From Ishtar to Aphrdotite. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 30(2), p. 45. Oppenheim, A. L., 1977. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilisation. 2nd Edition ed. London: University of Chicago Press. Pinker, A., 2005. Descent of the Goddess Ishtar to the Netherworld and Nahum II 8. Vetus Testamentum, 55(1), pp. 89-100. Pryke, L., 2017. Ishtar. New York: Routledge.

Hey guys!! Part two is out now! I can't wait for you guys to listen to this one. I hope you enjoy it! Chloe Bibliography Anon., 2020. The Epic of Gilgamesh. 2nd Edition ed. Milton Keynes: Penguin Books. Collins, J. J., 2018. The Near Eastern Context. In: Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. s.l.:1517 Media: Fortress Press, pp. 25-51. Harris, R., 1991. Inanna-Ishtar as Paradox and a Coincidence of Opposites. History of Religions, 30(3), pp. 261-278. History.com Editors, 2021. Mesopotamia. [Online] Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-middle-east/mesopotamia [Accessed 7 March 2022]. Howard, S., 2017. En Hedu'anna. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 103(2), pp. 21-34. Jacobsen, T., 1987. Inanna's Descent. In: The Harps that Once.... Yale: Yale University Press, pp. 205-232. Kriwaczek, P., 2012. Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilisation. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. Marcovich, M., 1996. From Ishtar to Aphrdotite. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 30(2), p. 45. Oppenheim, A. L., 1977. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilisation. 2nd Edition ed. London: University of Chicago Press. Pinker, A., 2005. Descent of the Goddess Ishtar to the Netherworld and Nahum II 8. Vetus Testamentum, 55(1), pp. 89-100. Pryke, L., 2017. Ishtar. New York: Routledge.

Hi hi hi! I am so glad to see you here!! I'm excited to bring you this new series based on my dissertation and what I studied for it! I hope you enjoy the journey and hopefully learn something too! Just a short episode this week to ease you into the subject and a quick tw, I do talk about infertility briefly at the very end. I won't be hurt if you skip the end or this whole episode. You have to protect yourself and your energy first. My newsletter can be found at: chloeyeoman.substack.com and my insta handle is: @yeoman_chloe Please feel free to let me know what you think and if you want to hear about anything in particular! Sending all my love, Chloe Bibliography Anon., 2020. The Epic of Gilgamesh. 2nd Edition ed. Milton Keynes: Penguin Books. Collins, J. J., 2018. The Near Eastern Context. In: Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. s.l.:1517 Media: Fortress Press, pp. 25-51. Harris, R., 1991. Inanna-Ishtar as Paradox and a Coincidence of Opposites. History of Religions, 30(3), pp. 261-278. History.com Editors, 2021. Mesopotamia. [Online] Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-middle-east/mesopotamia [Accessed 7 March 2022]. Howard, S., 2017. En Hedu'anna. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 103(2), pp. 21-34. Jacobsen, T., 1987. Inanna's Descent. In: The Harps that Once.... Yale: Yale University Press, pp. 205-232. Kriwaczek, P., 2012. Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilisation. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. Marcovich, M., 1996. From Ishtar to Aphrdotite. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 30(2), p. 45. Oppenheim, A. L., 1977. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilisation. 2nd Edition ed. London: University of Chicago Press. Pinker, A., 2005. Descent of the Goddess Ishtar to the Netherworld and Nahum II 8. Vetus Testamentum, 55(1), pp. 89-100. Pryke, L., 2017. Ishtar. New York: Routledge.

Hi hi hi! I am so glad to see you here!! I'm excited to bring you this new series based on my dissertation and what I studied for it! I hope you enjoy the journey and hopefully learn something too! Just a short episode this week to ease you into the subject and a quick tw, I do talk about infertility briefly at the very end. I won't be hurt if you skip the end or this whole episode. You have to protect yourself and your energy first. My newsletter can be found at: chloeyeoman.substack.com and my insta handle is: @yeoman_chloe Please feel free to let me know what you think and if you want to hear about anything in particular! Sending all my love, Chloe Bibliography Anon., 2020. The Epic of Gilgamesh. 2nd Edition ed. Milton Keynes: Penguin Books. Collins, J. J., 2018. The Near Eastern Context. In: Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. s.l.:1517 Media: Fortress Press, pp. 25-51. Harris, R., 1991. Inanna-Ishtar as Paradox and a Coincidence of Opposites. History of Religions, 30(3), pp. 261-278. History.com Editors, 2021. Mesopotamia. [Online] Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-middle-east/mesopotamia [Accessed 7 March 2022]. Howard, S., 2017. En Hedu'anna. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 103(2), pp. 21-34. Jacobsen, T., 1987. Inanna's Descent. In: The Harps that Once.... Yale: Yale University Press, pp. 205-232. Kriwaczek, P., 2012. Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilisation. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. Marcovich, M., 1996. From Ishtar to Aphrdotite. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 30(2), p. 45. Oppenheim, A. L., 1977. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilisation. 2nd Edition ed. London: University of Chicago Press. Pinker, A., 2005. Descent of the Goddess Ishtar to the Netherworld and Nahum II 8. Vetus Testamentum, 55(1), pp. 89-100. Pryke, L., 2017. Ishtar. New York: Routledge.

Episode: In this episode, Kyle and Chris interview Erez Ben-Yosef (Tel Aviv University) concerning his work on the 11th through 9th century BC copper industry in the Arabah of Israel and Jordan. The discoveries of the last decade or so - in Timna and in Feinan - have revolutionized our understanding of ancient Edom and its relationship with Israel, Phoenicia, and Egypt. Erez has also argued that archaeologists have tended to reconstruct history with an "architectural bias" when in reality there existed complex societies that did not leave large-scale archaeological remains. This has massive implications for understanding the biblical account - particularly in the early Iron Age. Resources: * For the Vetus Testamentum paper on “The Architectural Bias in Current Biblical Archaeology” and other publications of Professor Ben-Yosef: https://telaviv.academia.edu/ErezBenYosef/Papers * For his most recent edited book, Mining for Ancient Copper: Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg (Eisenbrauns 2018): https://www.eisenbrauns.org/books/titles/978-1-57506-964-7.html * The Timna Valley Expedition website: https://www.tau.ac.il/~ebenyose/CTV/And on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CentralTimnaValleyProjectCtv Give: Help support OnScript's Biblical World HERE. Thanks to all of you who have supported us!

Episode on Job 3 is LiveJoin us as Dr. Jeff Leonard (Samford University) talks to us about Job 3. We discuss a number of things including: the pivotal role of Job 3 in the book, its connections with Genesis, Jeremiah, and ancient Near Eastern mythology, its rhetorical function, and its vision of the afterlife.Enter the Giveaway to Win a Free BookThis post contains affiliate linksThis week we are giving away a copy of Jeff Leonard's book, Creation Rediscovered: Finding New Meaning in an Ancient Story, Hendrickson, 2020. (Thanks to Hendrickson Publishers for the giveaway copy.)To enter this giveaway, look out for the giveaway posts on social media: like and retweet the giveaway post on Twitter, or like and share the giveaway post on Facebook or on Instagram. Giveaway closes Sunday, Oct 31st at 11:59 pm. USA and Canada only.This Week's BlurbsIn this episode, Jeff Leonard recommends Samuel Balentine's Have You Considered My Servant Job? Jeff also recommends the movie, Arrival, directed by Denis Villeneuve, starring Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, and Forest Whitaker.Other Books and Articles Mentioned in This EpisodeFishbane, Michael. “Jeremiah IV 23–26 and Job III 3–13: A Recovered Use of the Creation Pattern.” Vetus Testamentum 21 (1971): 151–67.Leonard, Jeffery M. “Let the Day Perish: The Nexus of Personification and Mythology in Job 3.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43 (2018): 247-270.Visit our website at thetwotestaments.com, where you can subscribe, see our release schedule, and meet our guides through Job.Find us on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Vurbl, and Pocket Casts.You can also watch us on Youtube. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thetwotestaments.substack.com

Create Your Sermon Notes HERE   1) Bathsheba's Sin? Read 11:1-2 Not uncommon to view Bathsheba as a temptress, seducing the king Bathsheba is “a willing and equal partner to the events that transpire” [Randall Bailey] “Feminine flirtation” [H. W. Hertzberg] “Bathsheba’s complicity in the sexual adventure.” [Lillian Klein] “The text seems to imply that Bathsheba asked to be ‘sent for’ and ‘taken.’” [Cheryl A. Kirk-Duggan]   Four Reasons Bathsheba is far more victim than villain:   A) Bathsheba's Honor Verse 4 tells us the bath she was taking was a ritual bath to purify herself after her monthly cycle "Bathsheba was simply taking a purificatory bath . . . without knowing that the ‘good’ King was spying on her. The specific mentioning of the time of the bath, (‘in the evening’) further exonerates Bathsheba. Since her seven day ritual impurity ended at sunset (evening) on the seventh day (Lev 15:19), then her taking of a ritual bath at that time is not unexpected. It was David’s inability to control his . . . passion stirred by the bathing woman’s beauty that made him send messengers to get Bathsheba. To blame Bathsheba . . . is tantamount to blaming her for David’s lack of self-control. Without doubt, Bathsheba was a victim of David’s . . . lust. We argue, consequently, against the suggestion that Bathsheba seduced David. [Alexander Izuchukwu Abasili, “Was It Rape?: The David and Bathsheba Pericope Re-Examined,” Vetus Testamentum 61, no. 1 (2011): 15] If she knew God's laws about ritual impurity, she certainly knew His laws against adultery She knew the penalty for adultery was death   B) David's Dishonor First, he's not going out to battle as expected but is lazily remaining in Jerusalem Second, he's leering at his subjects from his palace It was helpful for me in January to personally see the view of the Kidron Valley from David's palace...   "It is not unreasonable to assume that the generally-accepted code of decency in David’s day included the understanding that it was inappropriate to look out from one’s rooftop or upper-story down into the courtyard of a neighbor’s property at this time of day, out of respect for privacy, since this was the normal time for baths to be taken. Still today this is part of an unwritten but strictly-enforced code of ethics prevalent in Middle Eastern culture" [Did King David Rape Bathsheba? A Case Study in Narrative Theology by Richard M. Davidson. Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17/2 (Autumn 2006): 81–95.]   C) David's Power Consider the verbs in these verses: David saw . . . sent . . . inquired . . . sent . . . took . . . lay ... But what about Bathsheba?!? She . . . "came to him" (v. 4) Same verb used of Uriah in v. 7 ("Uriah came to him")   Neither Bathsheba nor Uriah had much of a choice!! "That the authority of David’s command was not to be trifled with is also confirmed in the later experience of Uriah: 'Uriah’s noncompliance with David’s suggestions, commands, and manipulations cost him his life.' Bathsheba is portrayed as “a powerless woman who was victimized by the conglomeration of David’s power, gender, and violence.” [Did King David Rape Bathsheba? A Case Study in Narrative Theology by Richard M. Davidson. Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17/2 (Autumn 2006): 81–95.]   D) David's Condemnation Read v. 27  The thing David (not Bathsheba) had done. . .  Also, in chapter 12 Nathan rebukes David, not Bathsheba Nathan's parable presents David as a rich thief who takes what doesn't below to him and Bathsheba as an innocent lamb.   Read 12:13-14 David, not Bathsheba, is the sinner who is being punished But the thing about sin is it always causes collateral damage. And Bathsheba, is not just a victim of David's sin, but she's affected by the consequences of David's sin... 2) Bathsheba's Shame Read vv. 4b-5 These are the only words Bathsheba speaks in the entire narrative I think her shame runs much deeper than the fact that she's found herself pregnant outside of her marriage to Uriah   "Given the context of (at least psychological) coercion in this passage, the best modern expression to describe David’s action is “power rape,” in which a person in a position of authority abuses that “power” to victimize a subservient and vulnerable person sexually, whether or not the victim appears to give “consent.” David, the king, appointed by God to defend the helpless and vulnerable, becomes a victimizer of the vulnerable. Just as intercourse between an adult and a minor, even a “consenting” minor, is today termed “statutory rape,” so the intercourse between David and his subject Bathsheba (even if Bathsheba, under the psychological pressure of one in power over her, acquiesced to the intercourse) is understood in biblical law, and so presented in this narrative, to be a case of rape—what today we call “power rape,” and the victimizer, not the victim, is held accountable."  [Did King David Rape Bathsheba? A Case Study in Narrative Theology by Richard M. Davidson. Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17/2 (Autumn 2006): 81–95.] Careful to note that the Bible doesn't use modern terms like "power rape," but it describes it even if it uses different terms   Justin & Lindsey Holcomb write sexual assault is “any type of sexual behavior or contact where consent is not freely given or obtained and is accomplished through force, intimidation, violence, coercion, manipulation, threat, deception, or abuse of authority.” [Rid of My Disgrace, 28]   Enduring this type of abuse from another (especially someone you trust to love and protect you) always leads to shame... Sometimes shame is related to our own sin Sometimes shame is related to being sinned against   Ed Welch: two types of shame (1) Shame from sinning and (2) Shame from being sinned against  “Shame from . . .sinful victimization is more difficult to resolve. Though the shame from [personal] sin is the deeper spiritual problem of the two, in many ways it is easier to cover. Such shame can be covered through a confession of sin, repentance, and faith in the finished work of Jesus. . . . Shame from victimization can be more stubborn. Confession of sin cannot release it because the victim is not the guilty party.” [When People Are Big And God is Small, 65]   A few months ago Rachael Denhollander shared a piece she wrote about her own battle with shame after being abused by Nassar as a young girl: Why didn’t you cry out? He probably would have stopped if you had. In fact, if he thought you would, it probably wouldn’t have happened at all. Why didn’t you cry out?   Why? Because I trusted. I was a child. He was a doctor. He knows best. He had cared for me. He knew me. There had to be a reason. I must be reading too much into it. It isn’t fair to assume he was being sexual. Think about who he is. Give the benefit of the doubt. I must be the one with the dirty mind if I can even think something like that.   Terror. Shame. Confusion. Shattered trust. Humiliation. Horror. Revulsion. Dirty. Used.   How could you not cry out?   I didn’t know.   Foolish. How could you not know?   Because I trusted.   It’s over.   But it’s not done.   You didn’t cry out.   I did inside.   Is that enough?   If you've been a victim of the abuse of another, you may feel dirty. You may feel like damaged goods.  We will work hard to listen to you, to grieve with you, to help you, and not to blame you If you've been the victim of any form of abuse, we will trust civil authorities to investigate. The church does not have the resources or the authority to investigate claims of assault or abuse.  The collateral damage of sin is greater than just feelings of shame, as devastating as those are. It also leads to real sorrow.   3) Bathsheba's Sorrow David's attempts to cover up his sin, culminating in Uriah's murder Read v. 26 "She doesn’t merely engage in customary “mourning” (v. 27) but “wails/laments with loud cries” (v. 26). The narrator here “uses a strong verb to express her wailing and lamentation, much more heavily freighted with emotion than the one he uses in the next verse of the rites of mourning.” [Did King David Rape Bathsheba? A Case Study in Narrative Theology by Richard M. Davidson. Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17/2 (Autumn 2006): 81–95.]   Your sorrow may be different from Bathsheba's: Read page 39, Rid of My Disgrace     CHURCH: We must bear with those who feel like damaged goods     SINNER: See what your sin does!!!!   I know this is a tough text, but there is so much hope here when we understand the Good News of the Gospel!   4) Bathsheba's Savior   Bathsheba's sorrow is not the end of the story! She'll later have a baby named Solomon and from his line will come the Messiah!   The Gospel means we can actually condemn wrongdoing By what standard do you say abuse is wrong?!   C.S. Lewis -- "My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it?"   The Gospel means we can have confidence that justice will be satisfied Abusers will not get away with it!!! BUT DAVID DID!!!! No he didn't, the son of David died in his place GOSPEL!!!!   The Gospel means we have someone who can identify with us in our shame Hebrews 12:2 -- Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.   The message of Christmas isn't for the holy and the whole, but for those who feel like they’re damaged goods like Bathsheba, and like you and me.  

Protestants in the West have a rich heritage of systematic theology—but it doesn't always translate easily into new cultural contexts. Is a return to narrative-focused, biblical theology the answer? Chris Bruno, Assistant Professor of Greek and New Testament at Bethlehem College and Seminary, joins us to answer and weigh in on his own cross-cultural experiences in Hawaii. We also address ways for small, unconnected churches can pool their resources together to deepen their impact at home and abroad. Chris Bruno is a Christian, husband, father, pastor, and teacher who desires to give his life to helping others see the centrality of Jesus in all the Scriptures for the glory of God. He has served at Northland International University, Cedarville University, and Trinity Christian School in Kailua, HI. Before that, he was pastor of discipleship and training at Harbor Church in Honolulu, HI. He has written and co-written five books, as well as written articles and reviews for several publications and websites, including The Journal for the Evangelical Theological Society, Tyndale Bulletin, Westminster Theological Journal, Vetus Testamentum, Themelios, The Bulletin for Ecclesial Theology, Reformation 21, and The Gospel Coalition and has presented papers at the Tyndale Fellowship Triennial Meeting, the ETS Annual meeting, the SBL Annual meeting, and the CPT Fellowship. He is a member of ETS, SBL, IBR, and CPT. Chris and his wife Katie have been married since 2001 and have four sons who love to be outdoors playing ball or pretending to be super heroes, all while wrestling their dad. You can follow Chris on Twitter at @chrisbruno1. Here's a recap of the resources we recommended in this episode: The Whole Message of the Bible in 16 Words (Chris Bruno) The Whole Story of the Bible in 16 Words (Chris Bruno) Churches Partnering Together: Biblical Strategies for Fellowship, Evangelism, and Compassion (Chris Bruno and Matt Dirks) The King in His Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Thomas Schreiner) Biblical Theology in the Life of the Church (Michael Lawrence) The Short Studies in Biblical Theology series (Crossway) The New Studies in Biblical Theology series (IVP) Remember to share, rate, leave a review, and subscribe. Together we can help bridge the gap between the worlds of theology and missions. Want to ask a question for a future episode? Email alex@missionspodcast.com. Powered by ABWE International.

On this program, I spoke with Joseph Lam about his book, Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible: Metaphor, Culture, and the Making of a Religious Concept (Oxford University Press, 2016). Joseph Lam is an assistant professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern languages and civilizations from the University of Chicago. His articles have appeared in Vetus Testamentum and the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. Sin, often defined as a violation of divine will, remains a crucial idea in contemporary moral and religious discourse. However, the apparent familiarity of the concept obscures its origins within the history of Western religious thought. Informed by a deep engagement with theoretical perspectives on metaphor coming out of linguistics and the philosophy of language, Lams book identifies four patterns that pervade the biblical texts: sin as burden, sin as an account, sin as path or direction, and sin as stain or impurity.In exploring the permutations of these metaphors and their development within the biblical corpus, Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible offers a compelling account of how a religious and theological concept emerges out of the everyday thought-world of ancient Israel, while breaking new ground in its approach to metaphor in ancient texts. Far from being a timeless, stable concept, sin becomes intelligible only when situated in the matrix of ancient Israelite culture. In other words, sin is not as simple as it might seem. Garrett Brown is a book publisher and editor and the host of New Books in Biblical Studies. In addition to several other trade publishers, he worked for almost seven years at the National Geographic Society, where he acquired and developed books on religion and on science. He blogs intermittently at noteandquery.com and can be reached at noteandquery@gmail.com. Twitter: @newbooksbible Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this program, I spoke with Joseph Lam about his book, Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible: Metaphor, Culture, and the Making of a Religious Concept (Oxford University Press, 2016). Joseph Lam is an assistant professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern languages and civilizations from the University of Chicago. His articles have appeared in Vetus Testamentum and the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. Sin, often defined as a violation of divine will, remains a crucial idea in contemporary moral and religious discourse. However, the apparent familiarity of the concept obscures its origins within the history of Western religious thought. Informed by a deep engagement with theoretical perspectives on metaphor coming out of linguistics and the philosophy of language, Lams book identifies four patterns that pervade the biblical texts: sin as burden, sin as an account, sin as path or direction, and sin as stain or impurity.In exploring the permutations of these metaphors and their development within the biblical corpus, Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible offers a compelling account of how a religious and theological concept emerges out of the everyday thought-world of ancient Israel, while breaking new ground in its approach to metaphor in ancient texts. Far from being a timeless, stable concept, sin becomes intelligible only when situated in the matrix of ancient Israelite culture. In other words, sin is not as simple as it might seem. Garrett Brown is a book publisher and editor and the host of New Books in Biblical Studies. In addition to several other trade publishers, he worked for almost seven years at the National Geographic Society, where he acquired and developed books on religion and on science. He blogs intermittently at noteandquery.com and can be reached at noteandquery@gmail.com. Twitter: @newbooksbible

On this program, I spoke with Joseph Lam about his book, Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible: Metaphor, Culture, and the Making of a Religious Concept (Oxford University Press, 2016). Joseph Lam is an assistant professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern languages and civilizations from the University of Chicago. His articles have appeared in Vetus Testamentum and the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. Sin, often defined as a violation of divine will, remains a crucial idea in contemporary moral and religious discourse. However, the apparent familiarity of the concept obscures its origins within the history of Western religious thought. Informed by a deep engagement with theoretical perspectives on metaphor coming out of linguistics and the philosophy of language, Lams book identifies four patterns that pervade the biblical texts: sin as burden, sin as an account, sin as path or direction, and sin as stain or impurity.In exploring the permutations of these metaphors and their development within the biblical corpus, Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible offers a compelling account of how a religious and theological concept emerges out of the everyday thought-world of ancient Israel, while breaking new ground in its approach to metaphor in ancient texts. Far from being a timeless, stable concept, sin becomes intelligible only when situated in the matrix of ancient Israelite culture. In other words, sin is not as simple as it might seem. Garrett Brown is a book publisher and editor and the host of New Books in Biblical Studies. In addition to several other trade publishers, he worked for almost seven years at the National Geographic Society, where he acquired and developed books on religion and on science. He blogs intermittently at noteandquery.com and can be reached at noteandquery@gmail.com. Twitter: @newbooksbible Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this program, I spoke with Joseph Lam about his book, Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible: Metaphor, Culture, and the Making of a Religious Concept (Oxford University Press, 2016). Joseph Lam is an assistant professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern languages and civilizations from the University of Chicago. His articles have appeared in Vetus Testamentum and the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. Sin, often defined as a violation of divine will, remains a crucial idea in contemporary moral and religious discourse. However, the apparent familiarity of the concept obscures its origins within the history of Western religious thought. Informed by a deep engagement with theoretical perspectives on metaphor coming out of linguistics and the philosophy of language, Lams book identifies four patterns that pervade the biblical texts: sin as burden, sin as an account, sin as path or direction, and sin as stain or impurity.In exploring the permutations of these metaphors and their development within the biblical corpus, Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible offers a compelling account of how a religious and theological concept emerges out of the everyday thought-world of ancient Israel, while breaking new ground in its approach to metaphor in ancient texts. Far from being a timeless, stable concept, sin becomes intelligible only when situated in the matrix of ancient Israelite culture. In other words, sin is not as simple as it might seem. Garrett Brown is a book publisher and editor and the host of New Books in Biblical Studies. In addition to several other trade publishers, he worked for almost seven years at the National Geographic Society, where he acquired and developed books on religion and on science. He blogs intermittently at noteandquery.com and can be reached at noteandquery@gmail.com. Twitter: @newbooksbible Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this program, I spoke with Joseph Lam about his book, Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible: Metaphor, Culture, and the Making of a Religious Concept (Oxford University Press, 2016). Joseph Lam is an assistant professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern languages and civilizations from the University of Chicago. His articles have appeared in Vetus Testamentum and the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. Sin, often defined as a violation of divine will, remains a crucial idea in contemporary moral and religious discourse. However, the apparent familiarity of the concept obscures its origins within the history of Western religious thought. Informed by a deep engagement with theoretical perspectives on metaphor coming out of linguistics and the philosophy of language, Lams book identifies four patterns that pervade the biblical texts: sin as burden, sin as an account, sin as path or direction, and sin as stain or impurity.In exploring the permutations of these metaphors and their development within the biblical corpus, Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible offers a compelling account of how a religious and theological concept emerges out of the everyday thought-world of ancient Israel, while breaking new ground in its approach to metaphor in ancient texts. Far from being a timeless, stable concept, sin becomes intelligible only when situated in the matrix of ancient Israelite culture. In other words, sin is not as simple as it might seem. Garrett Brown is a book publisher and editor and the host of New Books in Biblical Studies. In addition to several other trade publishers, he worked for almost seven years at the National Geographic Society, where he acquired and developed books on religion and on science. He blogs intermittently at noteandquery.com and can be reached at noteandquery@gmail.com. Twitter: @newbooksbible Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this program, I spoke with Joseph Lam about his book, Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible: Metaphor, Culture, and the Making of a Religious Concept (Oxford University Press, 2016). Joseph Lam is an assistant professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern languages and civilizations from the University of Chicago. His articles have appeared in Vetus Testamentum and the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. Sin, often defined as a violation of divine will, remains a crucial idea in contemporary moral and religious discourse. However, the apparent familiarity of the concept obscures its origins within the history of Western religious thought. Informed by a deep engagement with theoretical perspectives on metaphor coming out of linguistics and the philosophy of language, Lams book identifies four patterns that pervade the biblical texts: sin as burden, sin as an account, sin as path or direction, and sin as stain or impurity.In exploring the permutations of these metaphors and their development within the biblical corpus, Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible offers a compelling account of how a religious and theological concept emerges out of the everyday thought-world of ancient Israel, while breaking new ground in its approach to metaphor in ancient texts. Far from being a timeless, stable concept, sin becomes intelligible only when situated in the matrix of ancient Israelite culture. In other words, sin is not as simple as it might seem. Garrett Brown is a book publisher and editor and the host of New Books in Biblical Studies. In addition to several other trade publishers, he worked for almost seven years at the National Geographic Society, where he acquired and developed books on religion and on science. He blogs intermittently at noteandquery.com and can be reached at noteandquery@gmail.com. Twitter: @newbooksbible Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Led by Christine Hayes (Yale University). The classic frontal lecture aimed at delivering content in real time is the mainstay of many university courses. How might classroom instruction be reimagined when content is delivered through online lectures in virtual time? This workshop explores the changing role of the instructor and the transformation of the classroom from lecture hall to learning laboratory in the digital age. Christine Hayes is Robert F. and Patricia R. Weis Professor of Religious Studies in Classical Judaica. Before joining the Yale faculty in 1996, she was Assistant Professor of Hebrew Studies in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University for three years. Her published works include several books and many articles in Vetus Testamentum, The Journal for the Study of Judaism, The Harvard Theological Review, and various scholarly anthologies. Her first book, entitled Between the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds (Oxford University Press, 1997) was honored with a Salo Baron prize for a first book in Jewish thought and literature, awarded by the American Academy for Jewish Research (1999). The Craft of Teaching (CoT) is the Divinity School's program of pedagogical development for its graduate students, dedicated to preparing a new generation of accomplished educators in the field of religious studies. We bring together Divinity School faculty, current students, and an extensive alumni network of decorated teachers to share our craft and to advance critical reflection on religious studies pedagogy.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Led by Christine Hayes (Yale University). The classic frontal lecture aimed at delivering content in real time is the mainstay of many university courses. How might classroom instruction be reimagined when content is delivered through online lectures in virtual time? This workshop explores the changing role of the instructor and the transformation of the classroom from lecture hall to learning laboratory in the digital age. Christine Hayes is Robert F. and Patricia R. Weis Professor of Religious Studies in Classical Judaica. Before joining the Yale faculty in 1996, she was Assistant Professor of Hebrew Studies in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University for three years. Her published works include several books and many articles in Vetus Testamentum, The Journal for the Study of Judaism, The Harvard Theological Review, and various scholarly anthologies. Her first book, entitled Between the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds (Oxford University Press, 1997) was honored with a Salo Baron prize for a first book in Jewish thought and literature, awarded by the American Academy for Jewish Research (1999). The Craft of Teaching (CoT) is the Divinity School's program of pedagogical development for its graduate students, dedicated to preparing a new generation of accomplished educators in the field of religious studies. We bring together Divinity School faculty, current students, and an extensive alumni network of decorated teachers to share our craft and to advance critical reflection on religious studies pedagogy.

Wed, 1 Jan 1147 12:00:00 +0100 http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10935/ http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10935/1/Cim._19.pdf Unbekannter Autor Cim. 19 (= 2° Cod. ms. 28) Biblia sacra (Vetus Testamentum) – Biburger Bibel Entstehungsort: Benediktinerkloster Biburg Entstehungszeit: 1147 Provenienz: Die in einer karolingischen Minuskel abgefaßte Schaf- und Kalbpergamenthandschrift wurde 1147 auf Veranlassung des Erzbischofs Eberhard von Salzburg (1089-1164), der von 1138 bis 1147 als Abt dem Benediktinerkloster Biburg vorstand, von dem Professen Ebrordus aus dem Benediktinerkloster Prüfening, dem Biburger Professen Henrich und einem ungenannten Dritten geschrieben. In Biburg hat der Humanist und Historiograph Johannes Aventinus bzw. Johann Georg Turmair (1477-1534) aus Abensberg in Niederbayern die Handschrift benutzt. Das bei Kelheim gelegene Kloster wurde 1589 den Ingolstädter Jesuiten übergeben, die die Handschrift in ihre Kollegsbibliothek aufnahmen. Mit der Auflösung des Jesuitenordens 1773 gelangte sie an die UB Ingolstadt.