Killing Goliath? Elhanan the Bethlehemite and the Text of 2 Samuel 21:19

The text of 2 Sam 21:19 states in summary fashion that a certain Elhanan, son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the Gittite in battle (thus, in apparent contradiction to the famous extended pericope of 1 Sam 17). A text-critical reconstruction of the verse is presented which accounts for the relationship between “the Bethlehemite” in 2 Sam 21:19 and the name “Lahmi” which is recorded as belonging to Goliath’s brother in 1 Chr 20:5. Along these lines it is further argued that a text-critical analysis is a viable option for resolving the tension with 1 Sam 17, without the need to resort to additional literary or source-critical solutions.

Does God Command and Punish in the Garden of Eden?

Most interpretations of Gen 2–3 center the motifs of divine command, human obedience, and divine punishment. These ideas, however, are not intrinsic to the narrative. They represent only one possible way of interpreting certain semantic and narrative ambiguities in the story. One can also read Gen 2–3 as a story about a divine warning and a consequential decision. This alternative reading does a better job making sense of the narrative details and better reflects the unique way the J source of the Pentateuch understands how God interacts with humanity.

A Doe’s Call Grows into Lament: The Comparison with the Doe in Psalm 42:1 and its Meaning for the Description of the Næpæš

This paper questions the conventional interpretation of the doe-comparison in Ps 42:1 based on linguistic indications and a biological phenomenon. When the verb ערג is considered as a form of crying out and not of longing, it can be recognised that the næpæš is not only trying to reach God but is also constructively influencing the praying person towards this goal. This leads to a new perspective on the self-perception of the praying person and the role of the næpæš throughout the prayer. After initially rejecting the needs of the næpæš, in the last stanza, the praying person is finally transforming the performative screaming into formulated prayer: lament, petition, and praise. By turning to lament they are taking up the doe’s call and vindicating the næpæš’s intentions as essential and justified expressions of the self.

The Cup or Qôs? Lost Prayer and Wordplay in Lamentations 4:21–22

The article discusses the reference to Edom at the end of Lam 4. It makes two proposals. First, it argues that we should understand nearly all of the clauses in Lam 4:21–22 as volitive expressions that convey the speaker’s wishes or prayers. Second, it argues that the Hebrew text of Lam 4:21 contains a wordplay lost in the ancient Greek translation and, thus, lost in the subsequent tradition. When Lam 4:21 uses the Hebrew word כּוֹס (“cup”) together with the syntagma עבר עַל in a context of irony and concerning “Daughter Edom,” כּוֹס alludes to Qôs (קוֹס), the patron god of the Edomites and the Idumaeans. The Septuagint understood the Hebrew text’s volitive expressions as ordinary indicatives. It “quenched” the Hebrew text’s ironic pun and made an unambiguous expression of what originally was ambiguous.

The Verb שָׁאַף in Biblical Hebrew

Biblical Hebrew lexicons unanimously present the basic meaning of the verb שׁאף as “pant, snuff.” Absent etymological evidence, however, the lexical value of the verb hangs on the contextual interpretation of three attestations where the verb has not undergone semantic expansion: Isa 42:14; Jer 2:24; 14:6. Fresh analysis of the philological evidence garners support for an alternate interpretation of שׁאף רוח in Jer 2:24; 14:6 as “bray, cry out” and suggests that ואשׁאף in Isa 42:14 constitutes an elliptical form of the phrase with the same meaning. This new semantic understanding in turn allows for a reanalysis of derived meanings, furnishing a revised understanding of the verb שׁאף.

“They Whored in Egypt” (Ezek 23:3)—When?

In this essay I make three arguments on Ezek 23:3–4: first, “in Egypt … in their youth” (v. 3) does not refer to Israel’s time in Egypt before the exodus, but to the early political histories of Samaria and Jerusalem. Second, the statement ותהיינה לי (v. 4) should not be rendered “and they became mine” (referring to the event of marriage), but rather “and they were mine” (referring to the fact of marriage). Third, the vocabulary used in vv. 3–4 functions at the local level within the argument of Ezek 23:1–27, but also on a larger level as part of the editorial coordination of Ezek 16 and 23. The allegory in Ezek 23:1–27 can therefore be understood as a coherent critique of Judahite foreign policy, without any reference to traditions of Israel’s origins in Egypt.

Quenching Tears: A Note on 2 Kings 22:17 and 19

The verbal forms תִכְבֶּה and וַתִּבְכֶּה in 2 Kgs 22:17 and 19 exhibit metathesis. This metathesis represents the reversal that Josiah’s weeping accomplishes by momentarily delaying Judah’s judgment.

“After such knowledge, what forgiveness?”

This study attempts to resolve some of the difficulties in understanding Zeph 2:1–3 by offering a holistic reading of the oracle presented in 1:2–2:3. It argues that the passage’s sacrificial imagery and the embedded polemic against the wealthy provide the key to understanding Zephaniah’s audience in Zeph 2:1–3. This analysis suggests that rather than attempting to persuade his audience to change their behavior—as is commonly argued—Zephaniah’s condemnation of the upper classes (e.g., שרים and עם־כנען) offers no hope for the repentant. Instead, Zephaniah extends the possibility of survival only to the poor (ענוי הארץ). This message is then contextualized within the Josianic reform movement to which the book’s heading attributes its content.

Lot’s Struggle for “Masculinity”: Use, Function, and Ideology of Masculinity in the Lot Stories

Taking a look at Lot through the lens of Biblical Masculinity Studies, we see him constantly trying to meet ideals of a performance of hegemonic masculinity but failing to do so. This paper uncovers masculinity as the motor of the narrative in the Lot stories, especially in Gen 19. The stories make fun of Lot and his offspring, the Moabites and Ammonites, as “failed” men. This paper analyses how this is achieved by the authors. Masculinity and masculine traits are artistically and deliberately used as a highly idealised background foil in order to highlight Lot’s failure. Furthermore, the authors’ point of view is highly ideological. They are in a superior and dominant position from which they portray Lot and his masculinity. They do this from safe distance, since they themselves are not represented in the stories by a character.

Times as Task, Not Timing: Reconsidering Qoheleth’s Catalogue of the Times

This essay examines Qoheleth’s Catalogue of the Times poem in Eccl 3:2–8. I argue that the two most common scholarly interpretations of the poem’s overall meaning fail to sufficiently account for its literary context and that an underdeveloped alternative reading is to be preferred. When we read the poem in light of two other closely related passages, 1:4–11 and 3:9–15, it becomes clear that a poem ostensibly about “time” is much less concerned with “timing” than is typically thought, but instead signifies Qoheleth’s frustration with the inevitable equilibrating tendency embedded into every human task.