Ruth 1:2

וְשֵׁ֣ם הָאִ֣ישׁ אֱֽלִימֶ֡לֶךְ וְשֵׁם֩ אִשְׁתּ֙וֹ נָעֳמִ֜י וְשֵׁ֥ם שְׁנֵֽי־בָנָ֣יו׀ מַחְל֤וֹן וְכִלְיוֹן֙ אֶפְרָתִ֔ים מִבֵּ֥ית לֶ֖חֶם יְהוּדָ֑ה וַיָּבֹ֥אוּ שְׂדֵי־מוֹאָ֖ב וַיִּֽהְיוּ־שָֽׁם׃

Translation: Now the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife was Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion: Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah, and they came to the fields of Moab, and they remained there.

Notice that the verse begins with vav + noun. This is an indicator that we now have an explanatory comment off the main line of the narrative (the main line of the narrative being carried by the vav-consecutive + imperfect). The narrative then picks up again with (וַיָּבֹ֥אוּ). This explanatory comment gives us the names and place of origin of these people. Some commentators want to make something out of the names, noting, for example, that “Elimelech” means “my God is king.” However, the etymology and thus the meanings of the names of Mahlon and Chilion are uncertain, and the only name that is given particular attention is “Naomi,” and that is later in the narrative. At this point in the story, the author has simply identified the characters for us.

The use of (וַיִּֽהְיוּ) may seem unusual for the beginning student, but see BDB III.3 for the use of (הָיָה) for remaining in a place.

The main line of the narrative so far tells us that in the time of the judges, there was a famine in Israel. A certain man from Bethlehem sets off to Moab, arrives there, and settles there. Additional explanatory information tells us that the man did not go alone, but rather took his wife and sons, who are then named.

Psalm 1:1

אַ֥שְֽׁרֵי־הָאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר׀ לֹ֥א הָלַךְ֮ בַּעֲצַ֪ת רְשָׁ֫עִ֥ים וּבְדֶ֣רֶךְ חַ֭טָּאִים לֹ֥א עָמָ֑ד וּבְמוֹשַׁ֥ב לֵ֜צִ֗ים לֹ֣א יָשָֽׁב׃

Translation: O the blessedness of the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, and in the way of sinners he does not stand, and in the seat of scoffers he does not sit.

There are three things particular to note here. First is the use of the perfect form of the verb in the three verbal clauses. This is a difficulty for many beginning students, because they ordinarily translate the perfect as a past tense. However, there are a number of different uses of the perfect, and not all of them are appropriately translated by the English past tense. The use here is described by Gesenius (GKC ¶106k) as using the perfect “to express facts which have formerly taken place, and are still of constant recurrence, and hence are matters of common experience." Williams (¶168) classifies it as an experience perfect. Van der Merwe, et al. (¶19.2.4) describes such a perfect as indicating “actions, events and/or facts that are not time-bound.” Hence, the Septuagint translates these verbs with the gnomic aorist, and the English versions regularly translate them with an English present tense.

The second item of note here is the use of (הָאִ֗ישׁ), “the man” in the older English versions, (ἀνήρ) in the Septuagint. Both the Hebrew and the Greek word can be used in the sense of “person,” (reflected, for example in the NLT and other modern versions by pronouns in order to avoid gender-specific references). However, the use of the word here seems to me to indicate that we ought to take it in the sense of male person as opposed to female person, since there is an overtone of messianic allusion here. Christ is the perfectly blessed man, in whom and with whom we participate in the blessedness of a life not characterized by wickedness.

The third item of note is that the blessedness is not a blessing earned by behavior, but rather the blessedness results in the godly behavior. 

Notes on Ruth—1:1

WTT Ruth 1:1 וַיְהִ֗י בִּימֵי֙ שְׁפֹ֣ט הַשֹּׁפְטִ֔ים וַיְהִ֥י רָעָ֖ב בָּאָ֑רֶץ וַיֵּ֙לֶךְ אִ֜ישׁ מִבֵּ֧ית לֶ֣חֶם יְהוּדָ֗ה לָגוּר֙ בִּשְׂדֵ֣י מוֹאָ֔ב ה֥וּא וְאִשְׁתּ֖וֹ וּשְׁנֵ֥י בָנָֽיו׃

Translation: And it happened in the days of the judging of the judges that there was a famine in the land. And a man from Bethlehem of Judah went to sojourn in the fields of Moab: he, and his wife, and his two sons.

Ruth is one of several books (the others being Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, Ezekiel, and Esther) beginning with (וַיְהִ֗י). Except for 1 Samuel, they all begin with a temporal clause, connecting the following events to a particular time. Here, the use of (וַיְהִ֗י) is doubled, indicating not only the time of the judges, but the time of a particular famine during that period.

(בִּימֵי֙ שְׁפֹ֣ט הַשֹּׁפְטִ֔ים) lit. “in the days of the judging of the judges.” The proposition + the infinitive + the [participial] noun is a standard construction for a temporal clause. Thus: “when the judges judged.”

(בִּשְׂדֵ֣י מוֹאָ֔ב) refers to the land of Moab. The phrase is used throughout Ruth and a couple of times in 1 Chronicles. Outside of those places it is usually (  אֶ֣רֶץ מוֹאָ֑ב).

(גוּר֙) usually has the sense of staying temporarily, even though the stay may be somewhat extended from our point of view.

“In the days of the judges” is intended to bring the reader to recall the generally dissolute practices of Israel during that period. Following both Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, the famine was an indicator of divine judgment. Thus the man (named in the next verse) takes his family, attempting to escape the judgment of God.

                                                                                                                 

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol 56, No. 3

The reader should be warned that there was an error by the printer, so that the cover is actually from the preceding issue (Vol. 56, No. 2).

Article 1: Two Testaments in Parallel: The Influence of the Old Testament on the Structure of the New Testament Canon, Gregory Goswell. This article examines the idea, currently under discussion, that the organization of the Old Testament canon influenced that of the NT canon. He discusses both the possible influence of the Septuagint arrangement (similar to our OT book order) and that of the Hebrew OT (Law-Prophets-Writings). He suggests that either one may have had influence. He then gives examples of ways that influence may affect the way we read the NT. It struck me as similar to the discussions of the organizational principles of the Book of Psalms—a lot of discussion, but very little significant result.

Article 2: Recent Archaeological Discoveries that Lend Credence to the Historicity of the Scriptures, Michael Grisanti. Current debates in Near Eastern archaeology seem to focus on whether the OT is at all a reliable guide to what really happened, and what archaeology can really tell us. Grisanti summarizes some key recent findings that lend support to the truthfulness of the OT’s presentation. It makes a nice addition to Yamauchi’s classic work, The Stones and the Scriptures.

Article 3: Presuppositions and Harmonization: Luke 23:47 as a Test Case, Vern Poythress. Poythress does not reach a conclusion regarding Luke 23:47 and its parallels in Matthew and Mark. But he does set out the way our presuppositions and assumptions will affect the way we harmonize, or whether we even think it is proper to harmonize. It certainly is an essay that creates an interest in his book Inerrancy and the Gospels.

Article 4: “On the Third Day”: The Time Frame of Jesus’ Death and Resurrection, Martin Pickup. This is the most helpful thing I have read on the subject regarding the issue springing from 1 Corinthians 15:4 and related passages. Pickup argues that the importance of the third day relates to the contemporary notion that bodily corruption of the dead began on the fourth day after death (that is, when the results of the corruption began to be evident). Hence Jesus’ resurrection on the third day is confirmation that he did not see corruption, and that he was truly raised bodily from the dead. The non-specialist reader might be surprised by how many NT scholars disavow the idea of Jesus’ bodily resurrection. Highly recommended.

Article 5: 1 Timothy 2:13-15: Paul’s Retelling of Genesis 2:4-4:1, Andrew B. Spurgeon. This article suggests that the reason 1 Tim 2:15 has been such a problem is that interpreters fail to recognize that Paul does not stop dealing with Adam and Eve at the end of verse 14, but that verse 15 refers to the restoration of the relationship of Adam and Eve and its fulfillment in the birth of the first child. I’m not convinced, but it is an interesting argument.

Article 6: Healing in the Pauline Epistles: Why the Silence?, Eliezer Gonzalez. In NT studies there is a fair amount of debate about the relationship between Acts and the Pauline epistles, especially with regard to Paul’s working of miracles. This article explores the issue and concludes that there is no real issue.

Article 7-8: A short debate between Stanley E. Porter and Verlyn Verbrugge about the use of the Greek negative construction ou monon in Romans 5:3 and whether the “we have” in Romans 5:1 ought to be indicative or subjunctive. For Greek grammar junkies only.

Book Reviews: About 75 pages worth. Apparently no one writes a bad book these days, because they are all recommended.

Translation Commentary: Jeremiah 12:9

The NKJV translates the first part of the verse as: My heritage is to Me like a speckled vulture. The ESV renders it: Is my heritage to me like a hyena's lair? (Jer 12:9 ESV). Other translations are similar to one or the other. There are two issues here. First, is it “speckled vulture” or “hyena’s lair”? Second, is it a question or a statement?

As for the first question, the NKJV, perhaps, follows the Hebrew text more closely. The first word in Hebrew (ha’ayit) is certainly vulture or bird of prey. It is attested in a number of other passages, for example, Gen 15:11, Is 18:6, Ezek 39:4. The following word (tsabua’), which modifies “bird of prey,” occurs only here in the Old Testament. It may mean “speckled” or “spotted,” coming from an Aramaic verb that means “dip” or “dye,” but which is not used in the Old Testament (this is the explanation given in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon). Hence, “speckled vulture” makes good sense of the Hebrew text. But the word “speckled” may in fact be another word that means “hyena.” This meaning is attested in the newer Hebrew lexicons. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that the Septuagint translates it by the standard Greek word for hyena. The first word in the verse the Septuagint translates as “cave,” though this is not the meaning of ‘ayit. It is not clear where the Septuagint translator got the idea of “cave” here. At any rate, the ESV has essentially followed the Septuagint and the Hebrew if the word tsabua’ means hyena. The NKJV has followed the Hebrew text more closely, assuming that tsabua’ means “speckled.”

The second issue is whether this line is a question or not. The first syllable of the first word is usually parsed as the interrogative particle. Hence the ESV, the Holman CSB, and the NASB translate it as a question. This particle may, however, function to introduce a rhetorical question with a presumed affirmative answer, so other translations have rendered this as a plain statement.

Keeping Your Hebrew 2: Setting Goals

I did well in first-year Hebrew, so I had a fair amount of self-confidence at the end of that year. I set myself the goal of reading in the Psalms that summer. I mentioned this to my professor, and he told me that the Psalms were a difficult place to start. I found out that summer that he was right. A little bit of practice in Hebrew narrative does not leave you prepared for Hebrew poetry.

One man I know set himself the goal of reading through the Hebrew Bible. He did, but it took him seven years. That works out to about nine verses per day, though I'm sure there were some day he did many more, and some days he did fewer.

The points from these two stories are: 1) make your goals reasonable. It was not reasonable for me to attempt Hebrew poetry after only first-year Hebrew; 2) set intermediate goals, even if your eventual goal is to read through the whole Hebrew Bible. Seven years is a long time, and most people do not have the persistence to stick with such a long-term goal.

My recommendation is that you begin by setting a daily goal of time--say ten to fifteen minutes. Anyone, no matter how busy, can find ten to fifteen minutes per day. Second, I would recommend that you try to do that ten to fifteen minutes every day. Don't beat yourself up if you miss a day or two, but get back on track. It is harder to keep the habit than it is to break it. With this time goal, set a timer. When the time is over, you can quit (for the day). That way, if you're in the middle of a frustrating verse, you can come back the next day with a fresh look. The timer gives you the freedom to quit. On the other hand, if you're moving along quickly, you have the freedom to continue.

As to where to begin your reading, Campbell ( in Keep Your Greek) recommends the Gospel of John. For Hebrew, any of the narrative books will do, though Ruth and Jonah (excepting chapter 2) are often used as introductory texts, because the narrative is straightforward and the vocabulary is simple. Further, both books are short, and you get a sense of accomplishment quickly.

Keeping Your Hebrew 1: Great Expectations.

This is the first in a series on keeping up your Hebrew after seminary (or even while in seminary).

My first recommendation is that you buy and read Con Campbell's book Keep Your Greek, as most of what he suggests works for Hebrew as well. That being said, I don't intend to repeat what he has already said so well.

My first recommendation is that you not expect more from your first-year Hebrew class than it can actually deliver. In some seminaries, first-year Hebrew is intended only to give you enough Hebrew so that you you can make reasonable use of the electronic resources. Such a course is not designed to enable you to begin learning to read Hebrew.

Assuming that your Hebrew course is intended to help you begin the process of learning to read Hebrew, keep some things in mind.

First, remember first grade? When you learned the alphabet, and began to learn how to sound out words, and spell? In first-year Hebrew, you're back in first grade all over again. At the end of your first year, you'll have a modicum of vocabulary (usually around 400 words--everything that occurs more than 100 times in the OT). You'll also have a modicum of grammar and syntax; enough to help you make sense of most narrative sentences. That would be great if the OT were written in first-grade Hebrew, like those old Dick and Jane books were written in first-grade English.

Second, remember that you did not, at the end of first grade, begin reading Great Expectations. However, many people who want to use their Hebrew after finishing first-year Hebrew have great expectations about reading the Hebrew Bible. It's an understatement to say that such expectations are unreasonable. It is like setting a second-grader to reading Dickens. He might be able to do it, but it would happen very slowly, with frequent reference to a dictionary, and there would be many passages that he would be uncertain about. And that's "reading" a book written in his native language.

So. You have finished first-year Hebrew and you pick a passage, maybe a favorite passage in Isaiah, and you realize you have no idea what it says. You look up all the words and you still don't know what it says. Don't blame your first-year course. You're just not ready for Isaiah yet.