Search

This article offers a fresh interpretation of Job 28 suggesting that it reflects the devout manifestation of the conventional concept of wisdom endorsed by Job’s friends. Articulated by Job, this serves as a rhetorical device in his counterargument to traditional wisdom and his challenge of God himself. The article further demonstrates that the “wisdom poem” is not an independent text but rather serves a distinct function in the rhetorical strategy of Job 27–31, which comprises Job’s final, emphatic rebuttal of his friends’ charges, framed as an oath of innocence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many previous interpretations of Job 31:5–6; Ps 44:21–22; and Josh 22:23 have mistaken these texts as simple conditionals or as fully-articulated oaths. These earlier readings misconstrue verbs of adjudicatory procedure as punishments serving as self-curses in oaths. Context and semantic content favor identifying truncated oaths of innocence followed by separate adjudicatory challenges to God. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The verb הֵעִיד in Biblical Hebrew is understood by most scholars primarily within the semantic field of עֵד , "witness." However, many of its biblical occurrences do not befit this reading. These were interpreted according to the context, as bearing the meaning of: "to warn," "to assure," "to command." Explaining the connection between all aspects of the verb poses a challenge. The present paper argues that all these meaning are in fact interrelated: they all derive from the meaning of הֵעִיד (and the verbal phrase הֵעִיד בְּ) as implying the imposition of an oath. Oaths are based on the summoning of divine witnesses as guarantors of the sworn undertakings. Convocation of witnesses thus became associated with oaths, and consequently הֵעִיד developed a secondary meaning of imposing an oath. Understanding the verb הֵעִיד as implying the imposition of an oath will reconcile the various meanings attributed to this verb, and unveil the internal links between them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Zephaniah 1:5b, which refers to "swearing to Yahweh, and/but swearing by mlkm ," represents an interpretative crux. Scholars have offered a variety of suggestions concerning who or what this " mlkm " is. After surveying previous proposals, this essay suggests that " mlkm " should be understood as " mōlek -sacrifices." This meaning fits the context well, as rites with the same name were bound up with vows in the Punic colonies of the central Mediterranean. In addition to clarifying the meaning of Zeph 1:5b, understanding " mlkm " as " mōlek -sacrifices" is also significant in that it would provide our first piece of native corroborating evidence that mōlek -sacrifices were bound up with vows in Israel, just as they were in the Punic colonies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The biblical oath has a particular formulation which juxtaposes it to a phrase containing the word and a reference to the party addressed. In my examination of this variant, I have attempted to demonstrate that this oath formula is a conscious expression of deference in a situation which necessitates this type of expression. Occasions in which an inferior party does not employ this formula may also be regarded as a deliberate flouting of the customary oath-formula, which should be understood as part of the message of the narrative. It may be concluded generally that oaths are carefully chosen and formulated to express central themes and ideas within the context of the narrative. By paying careful attention to oaths and their formulations, biblical passages can come into focus, revealing the rich subtext of the narrative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]