Comments on: 5 important primary sources for Hebrew Bible theology

By: Five Primary Sources « Anumma

Five Primary Sources « Anumma — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:29:23 +0000

[...] Ba?lu cycle (with Bryan): the characterization and activity of Ba?l and ?El just wonderfully illuminate many (most?) of [...]

By: Basics Of Biblical Worship. | 7Wins.eu

Basics Of Biblical Worship. | 7Wins.eu — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:36:23 +0000

[...] Prayer and Worship – Part Two – Christian Living TodayAnd Now? « Towards Conservative ChristianityHevel.org: A Chasing after Wind » Blog Archive » 5 important primary sources for Hebrew … [...]

By: John Anderson

John Anderson — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:58:31 +0000

Bryan:

I agree entirely with your assessment of Kuntillet Ajrud. Keel and Uehlinger failed to convince me. And, as I point out, they seem to be unconvinced of their initial conclusions already.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:36:11 +0000

Chris:

My Hebrew Bible Top-5 for biblical theology:

1) Genesis
2) Exodus
3) Leviticus
4) Numbers
5) Deuteronomy

By: Bryan

Bryan — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:35:23 +0000

Danny,

Good for you! There are some good workbook style Hebrew grammars that you could use at your own pace as well as internet sites that can help. I would recommend Nancy deClaisse-Walford’s Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Textbook. It’s what I used the last time I taught an intensive semester course. I will work up a post on the subject in the near future.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for the comment!

By: Bryan

Bryan — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:33:06 +0000

John, I understand the “his asherah” at Kuntillet Ajrud as well as Khirbet el-Qom to refer to the goddess. I’m not convinced by the syntactical argument that you can’t put a definite article on a proper name because the evidence (both in terms of classical Hebrew and at the sites) is not extensive enough to rule out the possibility. The name could have functioned something like el (or god, for that matter) with a shifting boundary between general and proper use. I don’t know what to make of the drawings, which are of particular interest to Keel and Uehlinger of course, but I don’t think they can rule out any possibilities.

Don’t forget that this is a scribble on a pithos and doesn’t necessarily meet the standards of proper Hebrew syntax or theology. The evidence for goddess worship in the Bible itself is strong enough to take this dual blessing at its face value.

By: Christopher Heard

Christopher Heard — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:54:09 +0000

So how come I haven’t seen anybody answering this meme cite, you know, the Bible as a primary source for biblical theology?

By: Danny

Danny — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:57:59 +0000

I have enjoyed reading some of your posts, and am hoping you can give me some information. I want to learn biblical hebrew. I want a hebrew bible, written in hebrew, but can only find them written in english. I do not want someone elses ‘translation’ of the scripture, I want to look at the original and know.

I have read that the aleph is the first letter, and that aleph used to be a picture of an ox. I want to know the history behind all the hebrew letters. Does any of this make sense? I don’t just want to know what letters to put together to make a word. I want to know why those letters make that word in the first place.

Thank you,
Danny

By: John Anderson

John Anderson — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:14:59 +0000

Bryan:

Good to have you back. Hope you enjoyed your time with family!

I am curious as to your view on the Kuntillet Ajrud inscription and iconography. I recall reading the extended treatment of Keel and Uehlinger in their Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, where they ultimately conclude that “his asherah” is not a separate deity/consort but rather a medium for mediation of divine glory or something to that affect. I do know that one of the two (Keel or Uehlinger, I don’t recall which) has come out in print since this volume and said they misunderstood the evidence, and that subsequent seal evidence does not point so tidily to a devaluation of the goddess in iconography. This would obviously, therefore, call their overall interpretation into question.