RCS 421 Heb Exegesis STD Matl 2020

LECTURE NOTES IN OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES
COURSE CODE: RCS 421

COURSE TITLE: HEBREW EXEGESIS
PREPARED BY: Very Rev. Dr. O. O. Berekiah, Dept. of Religious
Studies, University of Ibadan.
2019 /2020 Session
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
The course is designed to equip the participants with practical skills for exegesis of selected
books from the prose and poetry sections of the Hebrew Bible. It brings to practical realisation, the
relationship between scholarship and biblical literary structure, vis a vis Christian understanding of
Scripture.
This would be achieved by showing practical demonstration of the relevance and application
of various tools of biblical scholarship like the historical - critical, and the literary - critical tools in
the analysis of the literary structure of the text, and how this bears upon its interpretation.
COURSE OUTLINE:
1.0 General Introduction
2.0 Scholarly Tools of Exegesis

2.1 The Peshat
2.2 The literary critical methods
2.3 The historical critical method
3.0 Practical Guide in Doing Exegesis

3.1 Translation and the Peshat
3.2 Literary context
3.3 Historical context
3.4 Theological Interpretation
3.5 Application
4.0 Practical Exercises from selected passages (Psalm 51; Ps.100; Deut.26:1-10;
Ezekiel.36:25-27; Isaiah 45:9-11)
5.0 General Revision
RCS 421: Hebrew Exegesis // Berekiah, O. O // Dept of Religious Studies, University of Ibadan // berekiah2@yahoo.com; 08034412449 // Pg.1
1.0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
This course, Hebrew Exegesis focuses on skill acquisition to enable the student carry out
simple exegesis of passages from both the prose and the poetry section of the Hebrew Bible. We
would depend for the most part on the Hebrew text of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS). As
part of the course, the student would be trained in the use of the Critical apparatus of the BHS.
In order to engender a practical realisation of the relationship between scholarship and
biblical literary structure, vis a vis Christian understanding of Scripture, we would attempt to show
a practical demonstration of the relevance and application of various tools and methodologies which
have emerged out of several decades of biblical scholarship, in the analysis of the literary structure
of the text, and how this bears upon its interpretation. Among such tools are the historical - critical,
and the literary - critical methods.
Scholarship had always played a central role in the Christian religion from inception.
Christianity had been classified as a “religion of the book”. Paul urged Timothy to “study” to show
himself approved of God…” 2Tim.3:15. Daniel learned from the books that the captivity of Israel
was to be accomplished for 70years (Dan.9:2).
From the witness of African Experience, it could be argued that Christianity in African
consciousness cannot be divorced from scholarship. For many Africans in the colonial era, the
fundamental purpose of Western education was the necessity of literacy as a vehicle of religious
development. Most Africans learnt reading primarily because they had wanted to read the Bible.
They learned English language because the Bible they had access to at the time was the English
Bible. It is notable therefore that the role of literacy and scholarship in Christian Religion cannot the
overemphasised.
Initially under the colonial influence, many would have thought that a working knowledge
of English language would have been sufficient to have a good understanding of the Scriptures.
Some had even thought that Christianity as a religion originated from Europe; hence they term it
“Western Religion”. But having been weaned from the colonial influence, the importance of the
Hebrew language and Jewish culture as the original context of Christian scripture and religion has
now dawned on most African theologians and churchmen. It is now very pertinent for African
Biblical scholars to seek a more direct interaction with the Bible in its real linguistic and cultural
context without the interface of Western culture and Language as intermediary. The most
fundamental skill needed for this is a working knowledge of the original languages of scripture, and
the ability to harness and directly apply the tools of biblical scholarship that has accrued over the
decades, in harnessing the resources from scriptures and apply them directly to the real life situation
of the African.
The art and science of deciphering the message of the text for what it says is termed
“exegesis”. Exegesis, as opposed to “eisegesis” is the first step toward responsible Biblical
hermeneutics. However, a clear-cut margin could not be drawn between exegesis and hermeneutics.
Both disciplines are intricately connected and one cannot be totally separated from the other.
1.1. REVISION QUESTIONS

1. Discuss the relationship between scholarship and the Christian faith
2. What is exegesis? Differentiate between exegesis and eisegesis.
3. From your familiarity with the BHS, write short notes on the following: (i) Masorah
maginalis, (ii) Masorah parva (iii) Masorah magna (iv) Masorah finalis (v) Critical apparatus
(vi) Masoretic Text.
4. Give the Hebrew name of the following biblical books and describe their location in the
Tanakh. (i) Malaki (ii) 2Chronicles (iii) Genesis (iv) Deuteronomy (v)Joshua
2.0 SCHOLARLY TOOLS OF EXEGESIS
What are the so called “tools of biblical scholarship”? These were various methodologies
that had been developed and applied in the analysis and interpretation of the Biblical Text across
decades of scholarship. For convenience, I would classify them into three specific groups, according
to their approach. The first is not a group per-se, but could be regarded as the fundamental task
underlying any responsible exegesis. I have chosen to select a terminology common among Biblical
scholars to describe this procedure – Peshat. This is the literal reading of the text. The other two
groups are the Literary Critical methods, and the Historical Critical methods. The literary critical
methods1 consists of a conglomerate of methodologies and approaches, whose common
presupposition is that the text has a complete life of its own and is sufficient to fully convey a
message, without necessarily looking for resources outside the text to illuminate it. Under this
category I classified methodologies and approaches like Rhetorical Criticism; Narrative Criticism;
Reader-Response Criticism; e.tc. The Historical Critical methods on the other hand, believed that
the scriptures originated within a “knowable historical context” and that knowledge of this
historical context would aid in proper understanding of the text. Under this category are Textual
Criticism; Source Criticism; Form Criticism; Redaction Criticism; and Traditio-Historical Criticism.
2.1 THE PESHAT

I used the term “Peshat” here to denote the basic literal understanding of the text. It has been
referred to alternatively, as “the literal method” which is “meant to serve as the basis for other types
of interpretation”2. This aspect of exegesis is often overlooked by many textbooks and scholars
because it is often assumed that the student is aware that proper understanding of the written text is
the first step in any exegetical exercise. However, for students, to whom the language of the text is a
second, or perhaps third or fourth language, or who had received the text in a language other than its
original language, experience has shown that efforts must be made to overcome the linguistic gap;
therefore there is particular need to emphasise the peshat.
2.1.1 Resources for Peshat

The basic tools needed for a good peshat include: (i) Knowledge of the original language;
(ii) Multi-version/ Interlinear Bibles; (iii) Parallel / Multilingual Bibles (iv) Bible Dictionaries; (v)
Theological Dictionaries (vi) Lexicons (vii) Bible Concordance. An exegete equipped with a
working knowledge of the Biblical Languages, vitz: Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, stands at a
vantage point. Such exegetes can work directly with the Biblical text, and thereby significantly
overcome the linguistic gap. However, exegetes who do not have sufficient mastery of the Biblical
Languages can take advantage of various available resources. Multi-version/ Interlinear Bibles
provide different versions of the text in the same language, thereby making it easy to compare and
contrast diverse interpretations of the text. This would allow the exegete to construct a fuller
meaning of the text, since the various interpretations, in most cases, would have provided an insight
into different shades of meaning that can be constructed from the original language. Parallel /
Multilingual Bibles present the text in two or more languages in parallel columns. The Old
Testament is available in Hebrew-English parallel versions. There are also complete English-Yoruba
versions of the complete Bible. There are also numerous other versions that contain the English in a
1
Just as a matter of convenience, I use the term “literary critical methods” as a terminology to denote a general
category exegetical approaches that focus on the text rather than the historical context. I do not intend to confuse this
with “literary criticism”.
2
See Further, Akao. J. O. (2000) 33.
parallel column with one or other African Languages. Bible Dictionaries are very essential in doing
exegesis. Bible Dictionaries are different from Theological Dictionaries. They give the cognitive
and contextual meanings of Bible words. In some cases they also give sufficient treatment of the
etymology of Biblical words. Theological Dictionaries on the other hand, give in-depth theological
analysis of Biblical words, giving proper attention to their etymology in the original languages.
Lexicons are dictionaries of ancient languages like Hebrew, Greek and Latin. A lexicon is more or
less “a language's inventory of lexemes”, that is, an exhaustive list of words in the particular
language. Hence a Hebrew-English lexicon provides a catalogue of Hebrew words with their
meanings in English. The Bible Concordance is an indispensable companion in Biblical Exegesis.
Aside from its use in the peshat, it also helps in inner-biblical exegesis. The main function of the
concordance is to help the exegete locate all the verses in scripture where a particular word occurs.
An analytical concordance is highly recommended for exegetes, since these normally provide the
linguistic analysis of the various biblical words. Plain concordances usually serve to help locate
verses in which a biblical quotation can be found, but they often do not include the linguistic
analysis. Also a plain concordance is often compiled on the basis of a particular version of the
Bible. Hence a concordance based on the KJV may not index words that are found only in the NIV.
This is why an Analytical Concordance is recommended for exegetes since it would index words
based on the original language, giving adequate treatment of grammatical analysis of the words.
While undertaking the peshat, adequate considerations should be given to alternative
readings provided in various manuscripts, versions, and particularly the Ketibh / Qere system. This
is most important where there are significant differences in meaning between the alternative
readings. In order to do this effectively, the Text-Critical Method would come very handy. Please
refer to the section on Textual Criticism below. The significance of the peshat is demonstrated in the
examples below.
2.1.2 Examples of Peshat

1. Working with the Hebrew text, establish a peshat of Jer.1:11-12 for a contemporary English
audience.
Jeremiah 1:11-12
‫ וַיהִ י דבַ ר־יהוָה אֵ ילַי לֵאמֹר מָ ה־אַ תָ ה רֹ אֶ ה יִ רמיָ הּו וָאֹ מַ ר מַ קֵ ל שָ קֵ ד ַאנִ י רֹ ֶ ֶֽאה‬11
‫ַׂשתֹו‬
ֶֽ ‫ וַיֹ מאמֶ ר יהוָה אֵ לַי הֵ יטַ בתָ לִ ראֹות כִ י שֹ קֵ ד אַנִ י עַל־דבָ ִרי לַע‬11
The Peshat would read as follow:
11 And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Jeremiah, what do you see?" And I
said, "I see a staff, from an almond (i.e. watchful) tree”.
12 Then the LORD said to me, "You have seen well, for I am watching over my word
to perform it."
Notes:
(i) The Hebrew ‫ שָ קֵ ד‬in verse 11 means almond tree, but it is synonymous with the Hebrew ‫ שֹ קֵ ד‬in
verse 12 which literally means “watchful” or “vigilant”.
A good peshat should be accompanied with explanatory notes, explaining the terms and words that
are susceptible to misinterpretation, or are prone to be misunderstood by the target audience.
Exercise 2.: Establish the peshat of Ps.11:1-2 for a contemporary Yoruba audience:
Psalm 11:1-2
‫ הַ רכֶם צִ ּפֹו‬3‫נּודי‬
ִ ‫יתי אֵ יְך ת ֹאמרּו לנַפ ִשי‬ ִ ‫ ּביהוָה חָ ִס‬1
‫ כִ י הִ נֵה הָ רשָ עִ ים יִ דרכּון קֶ שֶ ת כֹוננּו חִ צָ ם עַל יֶתֶ ר לִ ירֹות ּבמוִ ־אֹ פֶל ליִ ש ֵרי־לֵב‬1
The Peshat would read thus:

In the LORD I put my trust: how do you say to my soul, Flee as a bird to your mountain?
For, Alas! the wicked string their bow, they set the arrow upon the string, that they may
shoot in darkness at the upright in heart.
Note the reading of the highlighted words in verse two:

1. Olúwa ni mo gb‟ó ̣kàn mi lé, ẹ ó ha ti ṣe wípé “sá bí ẹiyẹ lọ sí òke yín”?
2. Kíyèsii àwọn ènìyàn búburú ti so ọrún wọn le, Wó ̣n ti gbé ọfà lé ojú ọṣán, láti taá ní
òkùnkùn sí ọló ̣kàn dídúró sinsin
Notes:
(i) The Ketibh reading of the third to the last word in verse one is ‫נּודו‬
ִ but the Qere reading ‫נּודי‬
ִ is
preferred because it agrees in gender and number with the last word, which is the object of the
comparative clause in the sentence.
(ii) Ọrún means “bow” while “ọfà” is the arrow.
(iii) Ọ n is the traditional Yoruba word for bowstring, elastic leather straps for making animal and
bird traps, and sometimes utilised in beating local drums like à .
The Yoruba Bible renders verse two as

“Kíyèsii àwọn ènìyàn búburú ti fa ọrún wọn le, Wó ̣n ti fi ọfà sùn ni ojú ọṣán, kí wọn kí
o le taá ní òkùnkùn sí ọló ̣kàn dídúró ṣinṣin”
Because of alternative mental pictures suggested by the immediate context, certain words,
particularly in verse two, are often misread as follows:
“ọrún,” which carries an acute accent and means “bow” is often misread as ọrùn which carries a
grave accent, and means “neck”; while ọṣán which has a dotted “ṣ”, carries only one acute accent,
and literally means “that which makes something to fly off‟ i.e. propellant, which, in this context
means “bow-string”, is often misread as o án in which the “s” is not dotted, carries one grave and
one acute accent, and means “day-time” -thereby giving a faulty reading as follows:
They wicked have stiffened their neck, they have rested (“made to sleep”) their
bow in the mid-day, that they may shoot in the night at the upright in heart.
The notes in this case explain the meaning of ọrún and ọṣán, thereby pre-empting mis-
interpretation or misunderstanding of the text.
2.1.3 REVISION QUESTIONS

1. With adequate practical examples, demonstrate the importance of the “peshat” in biblical
exegesis.
2. Define “peshat”, and discuss the various resources that could assist the exegete in doing a
responsible peshat.
3. From your copy of the BHS transcribe and run the peshat for Psalm 100, with proper
consideration of the alternative readings reflected in MP
3
See the MP, and the Critical apparatus of the BHS for the alternative reading.
2.2 THE LITERARY CRITICAL METHODS
The literary critical methods, as I use the term here, is distinct from the earlier usage of the
term among German Scholars. In the earlier days of biblical criticism, “literary criticism” was used
to render the German word Literarkritik which is also called higher criticism. Today, what used to
be called literary criticism is more properly called “source criticism”. In contemporary times,
among modern scholars, literary criticism or the literary critical methods denote interpretative
methods and approaches which presuppose that the text has a complete life of its own and is
sufficient to fully convey a message, without necessarily looking for resources outside the text to
illuminate it. These approaches differ greatly from the historical critical methods in that “they are
all concerned to read texts holistically and synchronically and to dissent from the idea of a “correct”
interpretation.”4It works with the canonical text as it now lies before us, and deliberately avoids
entanglement with the endeavours and results of source critical analysis which investigates the
earlier stages underlying the present text. Modern literary criticism is synchronic in approach,
contrary to the earlier higher criticism (i.e. source criticism) and the historical critical methods that
are more diachronic in approach. Under this category I classified methodologies and approaches
like Rhetorical Criticism / Rhetorics; Narrative Criticism; Reader-Response Criticism; e.tc.
2.2.1 Rhetorical Criticism

Rhetorical Criticism is the study of the methods they employed by authors of biblical
narratives to persuade their audience. It is an approach that attempts to discover the author's intent
and how this is transmitted to an audience by means of a text."
Rhetorical criticism of the Bible becomes imperative because the authors of the Biblical
narratives wrote with the intention that their audience would believe what they were writing,
therefore, they used various methods in pursuit of that goal. This implies that they attempted to
persuade their audience. The inclusion of a study of persuasion is what distinguishes Rhetorical
Criticism from literary criticism. In Rhetorical Criticism Bible, the interest in persuasion necessarily
involves a conscious attempt to identify the primary purpose and meaning of the text, which is
usually a Biblical passage. The bible can also be considered as a "rhetorical" work because it
attempts to change or modify human behaviour, and to convince people of spiritual truth. Judging
from this perspective, the whole bible can be seen as rhetorical, and can be subjected to rhetorical
analysis through the study of the arguments of any biblical author, aimed at to discerning the means
of persuasion employed.
In practice, it is observable that some rhetorical critics place more emphasis on style, or
literary structure, or composition while others pay more attention to persuasion, argumentation of a
passage, author‟s purpose or communicative impact on the immediate audience.
Rhetorical criticism is a form of literary criticism which makes use of the knowledge of
basic conventions of literary composition practiced in ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East to
discover and analyse the particular literary compositional techniques found in specific units of the
scripture. This analysis then serves as a launching pad for discussing the message of the text and its
impact on its first recipients.
Rhetorical criticism involves two basic steps: (i) literary analysis, in which the literary
structure of the text is critically analysed to as deeply as possible, taking care to discern the literary
style which the text has in common with other works of ancient Israelite writers. (ii) Articulating the
communicative impact of the literary unit on its immediate audience.
4
Method matters pg.535 (METHODS MATTERS 6
Rhetorical Criticism differs from Reader-Response Criticism based on the fact that Reader
Response Criticism is primarily concerned with the response of the modern reader whereas
rhetorical criticism is more concerned the effect of the communication on first recipients, which
were contemporaries with the author. Rhetorical Criticism therefore requires proper consideration of
the historical setting and the genre, hence in the words of Tull, Rhetorical Criticism “draws
attention to the contexts in which texts arose and were read" . According to Michael Fox, Rhetorical
Criticism should not be carried out independent of the Historical Critical Methods . Rhetorical
Criticism makes an attempt to understand how a text would be perceived by an audience of near
contemporaries with the author. According to Watson, it is a discipline that mediates between
“ahistorical literary criticism and historical criticism.”
2.2.2 Narrative Criticism

Narrative criticism focuses on whole passages. It requires the exegete to read through whole
narrative passages in order to grasp the narrator‟s flow of thought as the storyline progresses. It
require a mental capture of how the various characters fit together and interact with one another in
harmony with the plot and scheme of the narrative. Various techniques have been developed by
literary critics in order to enhance a “close reading” of the text, and to recognise the basic features
such as plot versus character tension, narrator‟s point of view, character dialogue, as well as
narrative time and settings. A knowledge these features will enable the reader to identify the flow of
the text thereby discovering the biblical author was moved by God to develop his story.
Narrative Criticism rests on the premise that the passage is a homogenous unity which must
be “studied by itself as a single whole in order to understand its inspired message.” The biblical
text possesses three important dimensions which cannot be under-played. These are:
(i) The literary aspects, which can be symbolised as a “picture” guiding the reader to the text. It
provides the reader with a mental perception of the “narrative world” which the text presents
(ii) The historical dimension. This can be symbolised by a “window”. It gives a reader a peep into
the real life events that underlie the text.
(iii) The contemporary relevance. This is explained by the analogy of a “mirror”. Since the biblical
text has encrypted meaning, which enables readers of every generation to appropriate its message to
themselves.
Narrative criticism involves both the study of the artistic dimension of the text, as well as its
meaning. It studies the way the author constructs the text, while at the same time attempts to
reproduce the authors message.
2.2.3 Reader-Response Criticism

Reader-Response Criticism, unlike rhetorical criticism, focuses has the response of modern
readers as its primary concern. It presupposes that the meaning of the biblical passage neither
resides in the text nor its author, but only in the interplay between text and reader. Though the
author provides the words, yet it is the reader that supplies the interpretation.
2.2.4 REVISION QUESTIONS

1. Compare and contrast the literary critical method as practiced in the earlier days of Biblical
criticism and today.
2. What are the merits and demerits of reader-response criticism?
3. Differentiate between rhetorical criticism and reader-response criticism
4. Write short notes on the following: (i) Narrative criticism (ii) Rhetorical criticism
(iii) Reader-response criticism.
2.3 THE HISTORICAL CRITICAL METHODS (A SUMMARY)
The historical-critical method is the earlier approach in biblical criticism. I was considered
an indispensable method for the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts, which can also be
applied to the bible since it is God's Word in human language. This approach presupposes that the
scriptures originated within a “knowable historical context” and it is assumed that the knowledge of
this historical context would aid the proper understanding of the text. These methods generally
attempt to re-construct the text's origin, historical context, and original meaning. Significant
importance is attached to the fact that the Bible originated within a knowable historical context
which had contributed significantly to the 'expression of its contents'. Under this category are:
Textual Criticism; Source Criticism; Form Criticism; Redaction Criticism; and Traditio-Historical
Criticism.
2.3.1 TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Textual criticism was initially referred to as “lower criticism”. It seeks to retrieve and
establish the original text. It attempts to correct scribal errors such as:
i. Spelling mistakes. Spelling mistakes are of a variety of type, which is referred to by various
technical terms. One of such is “Haplography”. This is said to occur when two similar or identical
letters or group of letters occur twice in the original text but was copied only once by the scribe.
ii. Miss - reading of difficult words and passages. This category of scribal error include
“Parablesis”. Parablesis is an oversight or faulty reading which results when a scribe overlooks
some of his text.
iii. Expansion of sentences: These may be in the form of Qualification of generalisations.

Scribes believed that certain general statements are open to misunderstanding, and qualified
them with 'glosses', (explanatory remarks).
iv. Inaccurate corrections.
2.3.1.1 Methods of Textual Criticism

Scribal errors in a text are discovered and corrected by examining other manuscripts of the
same text from different periods of time. That is, by comparing various versions of the same texts.
The earlier manuscripts are considered more authoritative.
2.3.1.2 The Text – Critical Apparatus

For an average student of exegesis, the BHS is the standard critical version of the Hebrew
Bible in use at the present moment. It is a Masoretic text based on the Leningrad Codex and it is
equipped with a textual apparatus. It is useful to mention some features of the BHS at this point,
recalling that the student must be physically acquainted with the copy of the BHS.
The symbol of the Masoretic text is "M". The 'Qere-Kethib' is located in the Massorah
Parva (Mp) on the side margins. The critical apparatus is located at the bottom of the page, below
the Massorah Magna (Mm) The Apparatus contained variant readings of the Biblical verses on the
main page, found on the different manuscripts. These are the variant readings that help to discover
and correct the scribal errors.
2.3.1.3 The Masorah Parva (Mp).
The Mp contains commentaries and concordance entries on the words in the text. It is
connected to the text by a symbol of a small circle (o) placed on top of the word. The reference in
the margins follows in order of sequence with the occurrence of the notes in the text and is written
in the same line with the text in the opposite margin. The notations are often affixed with Arabic
numerals which refer to the lists of the Mm at the bottom margin. The more important aspect of the
Mp for our present concern are the Ketibh/Qere notes, often indicated by a subscript ( ‫) ק‬. They are
of various categories including:
(i) Euphemisms. For instance, the word ‫ שָ גַל‬5 meaning to ravish, profane or rape; as found in
the niphal imperfect 3rd person feminine plural form ‫ ִתשָ גַלנַה‬in Isaiah 13:16 is considered profane,
and therefore is consistently replaced with the root ‫ שָ כַב‬6 which therefore replaces in Isaiah 13:16
with ‫ ִתשָ כַבנָה‬. The same obtains in Deu.28:30; Zech.14:2; and Jer.3:2. Another case of euphemism
is noticed in 1Sam.5:9, where a more subtle word was used for haemorrhoids. Along with these,
there are altogether about 16 instances where the Qere substitutes a Euphemism for the Ketibh.7
(ii) Cases of defective writings, where there appears to be an incorrect spelling: A good exam-
ples of this case include Ezek.21:28; Isa.56:10; Jer.19:15; 32:35; 39:16; and Prov.22:14. In this case
the regular spelling are given as Qere in the BHS. In the instance of Prov.22:14, the Critical appa-
ratus also explained further on the Qere reading.
(iii) Obsolete grammar or dialect forms of words: In cases where the spelling does not follow the
normal biblical spelling such as 2King.4:2,16,23 These include 43 cases of quiescent final yod: (e.g.
1King.22:49); and 14 cases of words ended with he instead of waw (e.g. Ps.26:2; 1Sam22:18
(iv) Recognised cases of Scribal errors: These include, according to Yeilvin Israel 8, 62 cases of
metathesis (e.d.2Sam.20:14;) 11 cases of differences in word division;
Qere perpetuum however are not indicated in the Mp. The reader is expected to be familiar
with the tradition since they are often words that occur very frequently, or clearly discernible from
the context. These include the Tetragrammaton, the 3fs personal pronoun ‫ הא‬perpetually read as
‫ ִהיא‬9, the name of Issachar often written as ‫ יִ שָ שכָר‬but perpetually read as ‫ ; יִ שָ כָר‬the same obtains for
Yerusalayim
2.3.1.4 COURSE WORK

(i) Write short notes on the following versions and manuscripts: The Dead Sea Scrolls; Allepo
Codex; Leningrad Codex; Codex Sinaiticus; Cairo Geniza Fragments; Codex Cairensis; The
LXX; Targum; Vulgate; Peshita;
(ii) Using the BHS, Transcribe and write a short text-critical comment on Psalm 100:3; and
Judges.20:13.
5
See Hol.8404 for full grammatical description.
6
See further Hol.8577 for the grammar.
7
See also The Talmud, TB Megilla 25b.
8
Yeilvin Israel p.101
9
See Weingreen, on Ketibh Qere
A SAMPLE PAGE FROM THE BHS
Masora Parva
Masora Finalis
Masora Magna
Text Critical Appartus
2.3.2 SOURCE CRITICISM:
Source Criticism is one of the earlier methods of biblical criticism, and belongs to the
category of Historical critical methods. It rests on the fundamental premise that the biblical text as
we have it, grew from a combination of independent written documents which had previously
existed as independent literary units and had had a history of circulation before they were later
merged together and edited to produce the present form. The primary preoccupation of this method
was to discover these literary sources underlying the text. The primary focus is on with the written
materials underlying the text, and not the pre-literary form. It was initially designated by the
German word Literarkritik, hence it was formerly referred to as literary criticism or higher
criticism, but today, in order to avoid confusion with what obtains in secular literary studies as
literary criticism, it is referred to precisely as „source criticism.
Julius Welhausen is considered the founder of Source Criticism. He is the chief proponent of
the JEDP theory, which he derived from his studies in the Pentateuch. He established the criteria for
the classical theory of Old Testament Source Criticism, making use of five literary identifiers to
distinguish between the sources. These include the (i) Duplication of repetition of materials (ii)
Different names of God (iii) Divergence in author perspectives (iv) Different vocabulary and
literary styles (v) Evidence of editorial activity. Welhausen and his followers enumerated the
characteristic features of each of the four identified source traditions of the Pentateuch. The
identifying features of the J tradition is as follows:
2.3.2.1 The Yahwhist Tradition (J).

The Yahwist tradition is called "J" tradition because Yahweh is spelled with 'J' in German.
(Take note also that there is no J in the Hebrew alphabet.) The following identifying characteristics
had been proposed:
- It prefers to use the name Yahweh to refer to God
- It is dated in the late Davidic period or Solomon's time
- It reflects Southern / Judahite socio-geographical contexts.
- It is preoccupied with Judah as the son of Jacob and the region occupied by the tribe of
Judah
The style peculiar to the J tradition is identified as follows:
- It is predominantly narrative in style and often tells stories
- It frequently makes use of 'puns'
- It prefers to use Sinai as the name for the mountain of God rather than Horeb
- It refers to the indigenous people of the land as 'Canaanites' and
- Employs anthropomorphic language for God
There are also other sources acknowledged by source criticism, and the method had also been
applied to other parts of the Bible, including the New Testament. Source criticism acknowledges
that texts could also be shaped by other literary types from the ANE traditions such as treaties,
genealogies, king's lists, inheritance texts, boundary lists, e.t.c.
2.3.2.2 Course Work / Assignments

1. Write short notes on each of the source-traditions of the Pentateuch, considering their
peculiarities in terms of the name of God, Origin –Judahite or otherwise, theological perspective,
peculiar vocabulary, literary style)
2.3.3 FORM CRITICISM
Form Criticism is also diachronic in approach, and is classified as one of the Historical
critical methods. Its chief proponent is Herman Gunkel (1852 - 1932). Herman Gunkel focuses on
the Psalms. Initially, this method seeks to go behind the written document and focuses on the oral
traditions underlying them. Furthermore, it shifts attention from entire texts to Smaller units of the
texts called 'pericopies'. It proposes that the pericopies grew out of particular customs associated
with certain events such as marriages, coronations, worship liturgy e.t.c. This implies that each
pericope has certain characteristic patterns connected with the events out of which they emerged.
Each oral unit are seen as words used or repeated as often as these events occur. e.g. burial liturgy.
Form Criticism, as practiced today, however also covers such endeavours that attempt an
analysis of a literary unit to discover the typical formal structures and patterns underlying the
present text. The major task in form criticism is aimed at recovering the original sociological setting
of the literary unit. This is described by the German term 'Sitz im leben'. It refers to the real-life
situation in which the text emerged and was frequently used.
2.3.3.1 Course Work / Practical Exercise

1. Attempt a short form-critical appraisal of the following passages (i) Deuteronomy 26:5-10
(ii) Psalm. 133
2.3.4 TRADITION CRITICISM

Tradition criticism accepts the results of source criticism and form criticism, but attempts to
place emphasis upon the history of a unit of literature (earlier form critics actually combined both
processes in their work). Tradition criticism attempts to trace the process by which a piece of
literature moved from stage to stage until it reached its final form. Tradition criticism thus attempts
to study the long history which lies behind a pericope within our present Bible. In the Pentateuch,
for example, tradition criticism may think in terms of small units of literature being produced within
varying cultures under specific life settings (Sitz im Lebem). As these traditions or units of
literature are passed on from generation to generation they are transformed within new life settings,
and as cultures merge, traditions also merge. Thus the unit of literature as it occurs in our current
Bible resulted from merging traditions which were transformed within each new life setting. If the
preacher is to rightly interpret the Bible as a basis for his sermons (according to the tradition critic)
it is necessary for him to ascertain the tradition history which lies behind the current text in order to
determine the varying life settings within which this tradition was transmitted, and to isolate those
aspects which come from different life settings. It is only on this basis that he can understand the
historical setting of the text, and thus interpret it rightly so that he might understand its appropriate
meaning for our contemporary generation. The Bible must be interpreted historically. "Tradition
criticism assumes that the whole community in all expressions of its existence, participated in
giving shape to the tradition and in handing it on, generation after generation"
2.3.4.1 Course work / Assignment

1. What do you understand by the term “Tradition Criticism”?
2.3.5 REDACTION CRITICISM.
Redaction criticism builds upon the methods of source, form, and tradition criticism;
however, each of these methods assumed that the final redactor (generally thought of as a school of
thought rather than as an individual) who brought the materials together did so on the basis of
subject material but not necessarily with any particular theme, motive, or life setting of his own.
Redaction critic, in contrast, affirms that the final editorial work took place on the basis of an
individual or school of thought working as an author within his or their own right. Thus it attempts
to discover and describe the life setting, theological themes, and motives which determine the basis
upon which the redactor selected, modified, and shaped the materials into their final form.
Hence, redaction criticism assumes that the final collector(s) of the document was himself
an author working within and conditioned by a specific socio-political, economic, and religious life
setting, and these form the basis upon which he modified, restructured, edited, altered, and added to
the materials in order to make them say what was appropriate within the new life setting according
to new theological motives. The goal of the critic, then, is to sort back through the process of
collection, interpretation, and modification, attempting to understand these various aspects within
their particular cultural context, for the purpose of finally arriving at the original message.
2.3.5.1 Course work / Assignment

1. Explain the term and task of Redaction Criticism.
2. Distinguish between tradition criticism and Redaction Criticism.
3.0 GENERAL GUIDELINES IN DOING EXEGESIS
There are mot rigid rules or hard-cast procedure for doing exegesis. The method and tools
deployed depend to a great deal on the exegete‟s expertise, preferences and objectives. The steps
and methods to be followed during the exegesis depend on the nature and length of the passage.
Also the types of exegetical tools employed are influenced by the nature of the text concerned.
However, the five basic steps furnished here must be seen as a general or practical guide, and never
as a rigid rule10. The steps are (1) Translation, and Peshat; (2) literary context (3) historical context
(4) theological interpretation and (5) application
3.1-0 TRANSLATION AND THE PESHAT

3.1-1 THE TRANSLATION
The peshat should be seen as an integral part of the translation. A responsible scholarly
exegesis must begin with a personal translation of the text from the original language. The purpose
of this is to identify any problems of translation which might affect the communication of the text.
This translation should be accompanied by commentary notes explaining any major textual
problems in the Hebrew text and how they have been tackled. At the level of scholarship, it is very
important to comment on
a. The integrity of the text. This is to recognise any transmission problem associated with the
Hebrew Text itself.
b. Problems of translation. Cases where the sense of the text is not adequately communicated
by a single English word or phrase should also be identified and discussed.
Some passages may require only few comments while others may require many. It is
preferable that the comments be made in form of notes. A paragraph for each comment, and this is
better numbered. The comments should not be added simply for information; they should only be
used where a problem or ambiguity will affect the communication of the text, or where terms need
clarification.
The appropriate scholarly tools to be used here include the textual critical approach. This
had been greatly simplified by the provision of the textual apparatus of the BHS, as we have seen in
the explanation on textual criticism. Also the resources for doing the peshat can be deployed here.
The Peshat, according to J. O. Akao,11 is the establishment of the literal understanding of the
text. That is the plain literal meaning of the sense, conveyed by the composition of the passage. On
completion of the interpretation, comments are expected on the literal understanding of the passage
or text. That is "what the text speaks for itself ". This literal understanding is derived from (i) the
structure and (ii) composition of the text.
(i). THE STRUCTURE OF THE TEXT:

The structural analysis refers to an analysis of the physical organization of the textual unit,
with a focus on the sentence structure. The textual unit assumes a canonical shape for most
passages; that is, that the structure is deliberate and is related to the communication of the passage.
The aim here is to begin hearing the text on its own terms. A scholarly approach to this stage of
10
I am indebted to Dennis Bratcher for the articulation of these basic guidelines. For more information see Dennis
Bratcher, 2006,
11
Akao, J.O, (2000) Biblical Hermeneutics -Principles and Practice,
exegesis may deploy the tools of "literary criticism" The following steps would be a useful guide in
establishing the literal meaning.
a. Establish the limit of the textual unit:

The first step in analysing the structure of the text is to establish the limits of the unit. That
is to determine the beginning and end of the pericopy. The limits of the textual unit can be identified
by the rhetorical devises (e.g. repeated phrases,), narrative breaks (such as time, characters,
location), formulaic constructions (e.g. 'thus says The Lord') or other devices that help define the
unit. Identification of the 'periscope' would be of help, in cases where form critical analysis would
later be used in the course of the exegesis.
b. Examine the sentence outline:

Identify major parts, their components, and any other elements that play a role in the
structural composition of the unit. This outline should clearly delineate the flow of thought of the
passage. Any deliberate structural patterns, such as an acrostic, chiasmus, parallelism, etc., should
be made clear here.
c. Determine the function of the parts in the unit as a whole.

This should (usually) be a short paragraph summarizing how the unit is organized, and how
the various parts of the outline fit together. This will be quite easy in some texts most especially the
narratives, but it may be more difficult in other passages, particularly the poetry sections and
proverbial sayings.
d. Identify the points of emphasis

Identify the points of emphasis in the passage as revealed by the structure. Make a short
summary of what the analysis of structure is telling you about what this text is attempting to
communicate. Ideally, in most cases, the result of the structural analysis should be summarised in a
few sentences, at most a paragraph.
(ii) COMPOSITION
After the structural analysis, the exegete proceeds to identify and highlight the relevance of
those features which begin to pull the reader toward the message of the passage, including:
e. key words and phrases and their significance in the passage.

It is important to identify keywords that directly influence the communication of the
passage, and explain they are considered as key terms. The precise usage of terms within the
passage should be defines where necessary, particularly in the case of words like ַ‫( רּוח‬ruach)‫חֶ סֶ ד‬
(chesed) ‫( ִמ ְׁשפַ ת‬mishphat) and ‫( נֶפֶ ש‬nephesh) which can have a wide range of meanings.
Sometimes, it may be expedient to compare the usage of terms in the passage with their usage
elsewhere.
f. compositional techniques and their relevance: These may be identified through frequent word
repetition, catch phrases, refrains, etc. It is required in scholarly exegesis to show how and why
these techniques are used as a means of communication. This has been discussed under Rhetorical
criticism.
g. literary devices, such as metaphor, imagery, word play, rhetorical questions (e.g.), etc., and their
significance in communication. A good example can be seen in Isaiah 45:11 and Judges 15:16 The
exegete‟s expertise with the Literary critical methods would greatly assist here.
h. the significance of formulaic phrases, such as " ‫ " הֹוי‬or "‫"כֹ אָ מַ ר יהוה‬.
Comments should be made on how these are used in the passage, what effect they have, and
how they help in understanding the communication of the passage.
i. the genre that is most closely associated with these features.

This should not only include the identification of the genre, but how it has been altered and
adapted into the present context, as well as its function in the present context. At times, there may
be a specific genre that goes beyond the broad category of "narrative" or "poetry." Nonetheless, if
the identification of genre would not contribute significantly to the understanding the passage, it
may be omitted.
j. sources:
Identify and comment on other sources that can be recognised in the text, such as oral
tradition, other documents or quotations, redacted elements, the use or re-use of other biblical
traditions, etc., and how this identification affects the communication of the passage. This will vary
widely depending on the passage. For example, most Psalms will have few redacted elements.
However, many prophetic books, historical narrative, and some legal traditions may have elements
that need to be identified. Again, these are not to be included “just for information”. They should be
included only if they help in understand the communication of the passage.
Note:
The scholarly tool that may be used for steps 'a' to 'h' above, are the various literary critical
methods. These may include Narrative Criticism, and Rhetorical Criticism while the applicable
tool for step 'j' is Source Criticism. The tool to be used is determined by the nature of the passage.
3.2 THE LITERARY CONTEXT

The literary context of a text or biblical passage refers to the Literary Setting of the Passage.
The literary context throws more light on the literal meaning of the text. This section should include
an analysis of the physical context of the passage within Scripture, most importantly in terms of its
immediate placement as well as it relationship to larger literary contexts; the focus here should be
on significance for interpretation. The following steps would provide a useful guide and not a rigid
rule.
a. the relation of the passage to its immediate literary context.

This stage involves a contemplation of (i) how the passage fit into the flow of thought of the
preceding and following passages. (ii) Whether the passage is integral to a sustained coherent idea,
or whether it stands in isolation from its context and function independently (iii) How the previous
or following passages affect the message of the passage
b. the role of the passage in the larger composition

The exegete must consider the role of the textual unit in relation to the larger composition
from which the textual unit is taken, either a large literary unit or the book as a whole. The
questions to be contemplated include: How does the passage fit into the overall flow of thought of
the larger units of the book? Is there a discernible macro-structure of which this is a part? This
process is typical of the Narrative Critical Method.
c. The place and role of the passage in the entire canon of Scripture.
This is an important step for a full exegesis. This is where the position of the exegete in the
hermeneutic spiral comes to play. Even though this is may be beyond the scope of what can be done
in a limited amount of time, and the lack of experience of most students in doing exegetical work
would also make this xercise a time consuming enterprise. It is however required that a brief
comment be made on the role of the passage in relation to the entire cannon of scripture.
3.3 THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

This section should include an analysis of the historical setting of the text, where it bears
significance on the understanding of the text. An important part of this step is to decide the relative
importance of historical issues for interpretation. The focus here should be on significance for
interpretation. It is at this level that the tools of the Historical Critical Method are usually
engaged.
d. Identify and discuss any pertinent data that can be deduced from the passage about the religious,
cultural or sociological setting of the passage and its importance for interpretation. This is called
the sitz im leben, which is determined by the use of form criticism. It is not necessary to include a
lot of descriptive historical material. In most cases it is sufficient simply to reference a period of
time, but some passages will require more specific data than others. A good example is seen in the
case of Ezekiel. 36:25-27
e. comparison of this data with the posited setting of the genre of the passage, as identified above.
In most cases, this will not play a large role in the exegesis since most scholars have become
pessimistic about their ability accurately to connect genre with a Sitz im Leben. However, if there is
some consensus concerning your passage, it may be important to include. Be careful to show the
relevance of this information to the text‟s message.
f. any specific historical facts about the writing which bear directly on communication,
This include facts such as author, the purpose of the book (or passage), the audience to
which it was addressed, etc. Only solid historical data may be used here, and only if it is crucial for
understanding the passage. Various commentaries would often provide this data. For example, the
fact that Ezekiel was a priest, and that his audience had been a liturgical community greatly affects
the interpretation of his usage of the liturgical term 'water of purification' in Ezek.36:25.
g. the world situation and political setting (if known) at the time of the passage and its
significance for interpretation.
Caution should be taken to use only well documented data and not speculative
reconstructions of history. Again, some texts will require more of this larger context than others.
3.4 THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION

At this level the exegete begins to move toward synthesis, a drawing together of the various
parts already identified to see how they function to communicate a message. It must be ensured that
the conclusions in this section are drawn directly from the analysis in the previous sections. There
should be very little new material here. This is the place to pull together the various aspects of the
previous analyses. The following steps would be a useful guide.
a. identification of the major concerns or issues being addressed in the passage. This should be done
through a combination of several elements of the analysis described above.
b. The „effect‟ or impact of the combination of genre (or lack or adaptation of it), literary devices,
and structure.
c. Identification and summary of motifs highlighted by these features.
d. The relationship between the motifs and the concerns of the passage; that is, how the ideas
highlighted by composition, literary devices and structure address the major concerns.
e. The relation of these motifs and concerns to the historical setting of the book; how can the
historical setting further clarify the communication of the passage? This should also concern the
effect of the passage in that particular historical setting; what did it speak to the audience then?
f. Formulation of the communication of the passage into theological affirmations; what the passage
says about God, what the passage says about us as human beings, and what the passage says
about humanity’ relation to God. These should be short, concise statements of the theological
dimensions of the text.
g. The relation between the theological affirmation of the passage and the theological perspectives
of other books or traditions within the canon. This is also important for a full understanding of the
passage, but it may lye beyond the expertise of an average student hence it is expected to be done
very briefly.
3.5 APPLICATION
This should be a carefully thought out judgment of the theological importance, implications,
and claim of the message of the passage as an authoritative part of the canon of Scripture for the
reader or hearer. This will, of necessity, be filtered through the exegetes own theological views, but
should not be of a doctrinal or dogmatic nature. It should be one usage to which the particular
passage can be applied in the life and ministry of the church. This should be the central idea around
which an expository treatise on the passage would be constructed, although it should not be
"sermonic." In scholarly circles, the relevance to the society in general is of great importance.
4.0 PRACTICAL EXERCISES FROM THE POETRY SECTION OF THE BIBLIA
HEBRAICA.
4.1 General consideration with regards to the textual structure of the poetry sections
4.2 Psalm. 1
4.3 Psalm. 133
4.4 Psalm. 100
5.0 PRACTICAL EXERCISES FROM THE PROSE SECTION OF THE BIBLIA

HEBRAICA.
5.1 General consideration with regards to the textual structure of the Prose section of the Biblia
Hebraica.
5.2 Deuteronomy 26:5-10; 13-15; 29:l9
5.3 Ezek.36:25-27
5.4 Isaiah.45:9-12
5.5 Jer.1:11-12
5.6 Judges 15:16
6.0 REVISION QUESTIONS

1. Identify the points of theological importance in the following Scripture verses and give full
commentary on their significance to the contemporary Christian Church (i) Ezek.36:25-27 (ii)
Isaiah 45:9-11

RCS 421 Heb Exegesis STD Matl 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RCS 421 Heb Exegesis STD Matl 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LECTURE NOTES IN OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

COURSE CODE: RCS 421

2.0 Scholarly Tools of Exegesis

3.0 Practical Guide in Doing Exegesis

5.0 General Revision

1.1. REVISION QUESTIONS

2.1 THE PESHAT

2.1.1 Resources for Peshat

2.1.2 Examples of Peshat

The Peshat would read thus:

Note the reading of the highlighted words in verse two:

The Yoruba Bible renders verse two as

2.1.3 REVISION QUESTIONS

2.2.1 Rhetorical Criticism

2.2.2 Narrative Criticism

2.2.3 Reader-Response Criticism

2.2.4 REVISION QUESTIONS

2.3.1 TEXTUAL CRITICISM

iii. Expansion of sentences: These may be in the form of Qualification of generalisations.

iv. Inaccurate corrections.

2.3.1.1 Methods of Textual Criticism

2.3.1.2 The Text – Critical Apparatus

2.3.1.4 COURSE WORK

Text Critical Appartus

2.3.2.1 The Yahwhist Tradition (J).

2.3.2.2 Course Work / Assignments

2.3.3.1 Course Work / Practical Exercise

2.3.4 TRADITION CRITICISM

2.3.4.1 Course work / Assignment

2.3.5.1 Course work / Assignment

3.1-0 TRANSLATION AND THE PESHAT

(i). THE STRUCTURE OF THE TEXT:

a. Establish the limit of the textual unit:

b. Examine the sentence outline:

c. Determine the function of the parts in the unit as a whole.

d. Identify the points of emphasis

e. key words and phrases and their significance in the passage.

i. the genre that is most closely associated with these features.

3.2 THE LITERARY CONTEXT

a. the relation of the passage to its immediate literary context.

b. the role of the passage in the larger composition

3.3 THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

3.4 THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION

c. Identification and summary of motifs highlighted by these features.

5.0 PRACTICAL EXERCISES FROM THE PROSE SECTION OF THE BIBLIA

6.0 REVISION QUESTIONS

You might also like