Abstract This article responds to M. J. Albanese, “What the Holy Seed Defiled: The Textual Problem of Genesis 49:4,” VT 69 (2019): 1‒18. Instead of proposing textual emendation to solve the so-called “problem” in Gen 49:4, the present article uses a literary-stylistic approach to argue in favour of the Masoretic Text (MT).

Abstract In a fascinating article, Michael L. Barré noted the topos of “wandering about” as a symptom of depression and mourning in world literature in general, and in the literature of the ancient Near East and the Bible in particular. Building on his insights, this paper argues that the phrase “he went there” (וילך שם) from Ezra 10:6 builds another instance of the topos of “wandering about.” Thus, there is no need to emed MT to “he spent the night there” (וילן שם), as has often been suggested.

Abstract Scholars have struggled to reach consensus about the literary relationship between the anti-Elide material in 1 Sam 2–3 and the so-called “Ark Narrative” in 1 Sam 4–6. I propose a new resolution to this problem. I argue that the two named characters, Hophni and Phinehas, have been introduced secondarily to and independently from the unnamed “sons of Eli” and represent a redactional layer that runs through chs. 1–2, and 4. Before the addition of these characters, the “sons of Eli” designated a generic priesthood associated with the character, Eli. The material about this priesthood is comprised of discrete passages that have been appended to Samuel’s birth story and its extension. The anti-Elide material was later connected to 1 Sam 4 through the addition of Hophni and Phinehas, who serve to recast the Elides’ iniquities as the reason for the Israelite defeat and loss of the ark.

Abstract This article challenges the ideas that we should either re-read the form or appeal to a present tense rendering of וַיָּעַל in 1 Sam 2:6. Instead, I argue that the prospect of gnomic semantics due to the surrounding participles is leveraged to highlight a past time wayyiqtol “he raised up.” This past time makes sense of the context both within the poem itself (1 Sam 2) and the preceding narrative (1 Sam 1). What is more, a past tense meaning of וַיָּעַל is corroborated by recent robust linguistic research of the form. Reading the wayyiqtol as past makes reference to a specific, historical action done to Hannah. This reference to the past tightens the cohesion of and provides further coherence for Hannah’s narrative (1 Sam 1) and her song (1 Sam 2).

Abstract Although scholars have generally treated Ugaritic ltn as a cognate of Hebrew liwyātān, the vocalization of this word and its relationship to the Hebrew form remain debated. In this article, we will argue that ltn should be vocalized /lītan-/ and that Ugaritic ltn and Hebrew liwyātān derive from Proto-Northwest Semitic *lawiy-(a)t-an- through a series of attested sound changes. We will also discuss the morphology of *lawiy-(a)t-an- and the syntax of the Northwest Semitic formula *lawiy(a)tanu baṯnu barīḥu … baṯnu ʕaqallatānu “Leviathan, the fleeing serpent … the twisting serpent” found in KTU 1.5 i 1–3 and Isa 27:1.

Abstract In the twelfth chapter of the Book of Judith, the eponymous heroine departs from the Assyrian camp in order to bathe and pray over three successive nights. Judith’s bath has been interpreted as a ritual bath which achieves purification. Scholars have offered various reasons for Judith’s purificatory wash, but none fully account for all the details of this episode. This paper discusses the proposed solutions and offers a new suggestion to account for Judith’s bath; Judith bathes to prepare herself for the assassination of Holofernes.

Abstract The priestly law of women’s vows (Num 30:2–17), which is well understood overall, contains a three-verse section that poses a multitude of structural and substantive problems (vv. 14–16). The section culminates in the phrase וְנָשָׂא אֶת עֲוֹנָהּ (v. 16b), translated as “he will bear her sin” and understood as presenting the possibility of the woman’s male guardian incurring her guilt. I propose to solve all the problems by assuming that וְנָשָׂא אֶת עֲוֹנָהּ expresses an indefinite subject, a common but underappreciated grammatical phenomenon in Biblical Hebrew, and should be read “her sin will be lifted.” It thus becomes clear that the section is a summary of the pericope and that the phrase in question simply restates what has already been said three times with the words וַה׳ יִסְלַח לָהּ, “and Yhwh will forgive her” (vv. 6, 9, 13): that a woman whose vow was nullified is not culpable for her non-fulfillment of the vow.

Abstract Scholars routinely discern the diachronic development of the book of Isaiah with a discreet focus on vocabulary, phrases, themes, and motifs. All but absent from consideration are the distribution and recurrence of grammatical, morphological, and syntactic features within the text. This study serves as a proof-of concept for the linguistic analysis of such features now available with the launch of the Tiberias Stylistic Classifier for the Hebrew Bible (https://tiberias.dicta.org.il/#/). Measuring and weighing the linguistic features of Isa 1–33 and Isa 40–55, the study brings to light the morphological and syntactic features most characteristic of each text corpus. The study also demonstrates that chs. 34 and 35 of Isaiah are much closer in morphology and syntax to chs. 1–33 than they are to chs. 40–55. The implications of these findings are examined in consideration of the scholarly debate concerning the provenance of these two chapters.

Abstract The corrupt Masoretic reading לַחְפֹּר פֵּרוֹת at Isa 2:20 is usually restored as לַחֲפַרְפָּרוֹת, which is interpreted as “to the moles.” The alternative interpretation of לחפרפרות as “to the bats,” first attested in Ibn Ezra, may in fact be preferable, as it is supported by the (previously ignored) evidence of the Fragmentary Targum, which use חפרפרא to translate Hebrew עֲטַלֵּף (“bat”) at Deut 14:18.