Three times (vv. 29, 30, 35) this unit uses the verb qāran for Moses’s face “radiating light” or “glowing.” All three of these occurrences are in the Qal stem. The only other occurrence of this verb is once in the Hiphil, Ps. 69:31 [32]: NIV, “This will please the LORD more than an ox, more than a bull with its horns [maqrin, Hiphil participle, and so better “developing its horns”] and hoofs.” The uncommon verb qāran provides the common related noun qeren which means “a horn.” It occurs about a hundred times in the Bible, and refers to: (1) a projection on an altar, the altar's horns; (2) the horn of an animal; (3) as a metaphor for pride and vanity or for strength. It is this cognate connection between the verb qāran and the noun qeren that has led to the idea that Moses's face developed horns, or hornlike phenomena that emanated from his face. Thus, among the ancient versions, LXX translates the verb nonliterally, Moses's face “shone” (dedoxastai), while Vulgate translates more literally, Moses's face “was horned,” that is, v. 29, “he knew not that his face was horned [ignorabat quad cornuta esset facies sua].” I shall have more to say on this in the commentary section. See Kasher (1997), who documents instances in postbiblical literature of a “horned” Moses, and Propp (1987), who debates whether the biblical text suggests Moses’s face was “transfigured” or “disfigured,” and who opts for the latter.
Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary. Published by Baker Academic.
See what Rashi writes here: https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Exodus.34.29.2?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
ReplyDeleteHamilton also thinks the language in Exodus 34 is linked with the golden calf episode although he continually refers to the shining face of Moses. But he believes the ambiguous language of Exod 34 is not accidental.
ReplyDeleteFrom Richard Elliot Friedman, Commentary on the Torah:
ReplyDeleteComing out of the fiery top of the mountain, and back from his once-in-human-history encounter with God, Moses is transformed in some way that is unfortunately obscured in a difficult Hebrew passage (34:30,35). It has often been understood to mean that Moses’ face beams light, and it has been erroneously visualized in numerous artistic depictions as a horned Moses, the most famous of which is Michelangelo’s Moses. William Propp has argued persuasively that it more probably means that Moses’ face is in some way disfigured (from the fire? from the experience of encountering the deity?). Whatever it is about Moses’ skin, though, it is a marker, from this point on in the narrative, of Moses’ exceptional position. After having beheld God, he has himself become fearful for other humans to behold. For the rest of the narrative in Exodus (and in the next three books of the Hebrew Bible), he is to be pictured wearing a veil.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=tablet-android-lenovo&biw=1280&bih=800&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=yrweW-rpH6iEgAbytIGgBw&q=kush+headdresss+meroe&oq=kush+headdresss+meroe&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-img.3..30i10.27289.34702..36916...1....325.3549.2-10j3......0....1.........35i39.%2BWRVd8uhFZs%3D#imgrc=1HQGqxxzBETL6M:
ReplyDeleteHorns in then cattle culture.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b5b4vy
If you get chance see episode one of this series. It falls in line with much of my reaserch regarding cattle culture, civilisation and the origins of anthropomorphic climate change.
Bear in mind that at the time Egypt had golden horned headdress for pharaoh which may have shone in the light but it was horns none the less.
Did Rashi have access to the lxx?
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199686476.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199686476-e-28
ReplyDeletehttps://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ajet/18-2_143.pdf
ReplyDeleteHttps://www.britishmuseum.org/PDF/KingdomOfKush_Presentation.pdf
ReplyDeleteSee:-
Source 3: Sun disc headdress
of Isis (found in Kush)
British Museum
Horns and sun disc.
1) Concerning Rashi's sources, see https://books.google.com/books?id=yaAWEzVfL6AC&pg=PA31&dq=bible+text+used+by+rashi&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD2pft7czbAhURvVMKHRMmCYQ4ChDoAQgoMAA#v=onepage&q=bible%20text%20used%20by%20rashi&f=false
ReplyDelete2) I bookmarked the BBC site for later viewing.
3) With Moses, as Friedman and others have noted, his face "shone" or "was transformed" because of an encounter with YHWH. The phenomenon could not be explained by ordinary means.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43717470?read-now=1&loggedin=true&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
ReplyDeletehttp://etzion.org.il/en/lecture-7a-rashi-part-iv-rashi-and-christianity
ReplyDeletePresumably the Jstor article comes from, or is expanded here:-
ReplyDeletehttps://www.amazon.com/Exodus-1-18-Anchor-Bible-Commentaries/dp/0300139381
More specifically, here:-
ReplyDeletehttps://www.amazon.com/Exodus-19-40-Anchor-Bible-Commentaries/dp/030013939X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1528799114&sr=1-3
Thanks for the Propp link. I have not read his commentary directly yet, but have used the Anchor Bible series. I'm not teaching this summer. However, our university library does have the AB series, which keeps me from having to purchase it. I may take a ride one day to check it out. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteDiscovered that the TV series I mentioned is not originally BBC but rather PBS. It has already been shown in the US.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.pbs.org/weta/africas-great-civilizations/home/
One other source:
ReplyDeletethe skin of his face shone. Hebrew Baran, "shone;' is a denominative verb from qeren, "horn" The noun has prompted translations of the verb as "to sprout horns" This translation is evident in the Vulgate, cornuta essetfacies sua. The Vulgate influenced enced the history of Western art, as is evident in da Vinci's sculpture of Moses in the Church of St. Peter in Chains (Rome). More recent interpretations include an illusion to the horned crown associated with kings, facial scarring from exposure to the divine fire, or a horned mask perhaps representing the bull.40 A related meaning is evident in Ps 69:31 (MT 32): "This will please Yahweh more than an ox, or a bull with horns (maqrin) and with hoofs" The translation "to shine" finds support port in Hab 3:4: "The brightness was like the sun; rays (qarnayim) came forth from his 4' The LXX translates, dedoxastai, "was glorified" (see the commentary).
Thomas B. Dozeman. Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 11028-11031). Kindle Edition.
Thomas B. Dozeman. Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 11026-11028). Kindle Edition.
R. W. L. Moberly even suggests a possible allusion to the golden calf 46 Propp prefers the meaning "disfigurement;' perhaps alluding to leathery skin.47 Childs argues for the translation "ray of light;' which is reflected in the LXX, Philo, and Paul.48 It is also the preferred reading in rabbinic literature.49 The occurrence of the verb garan in Hab 3:4 as "rays of light;' along with comparison to the melammu, the halo surrounding gods in ancient Near Eastern iconography, favors the imagery of light, rather than horns, as the description of Moses.50 Thus the imagery indicates that the divine glory, represented as light, has invaded the face of Moses on the summit of the mountain, and that it continues to dwell in him when he descends the mountain.
ReplyDeleteThomas B. Dozeman. Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 11056-11058). Kindle Edition.
Thomas B. Dozeman. Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 11054-11056). Kindle Edition.
It was interesting about Hab 3:4 & what propp comments about the translation difficulties.
ReplyDelete"the halo surrounding gods in ancient Near Eastern iconography", I do not think this is ancient enough, unless one is working from the documentary hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteThis imagery type has also been associated with Isaiah 60:1-7.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=prZMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA133&dq=mendenhall+melammu+evidence&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWoJrPmtPbAhUpDsAKHdCgDeMQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=mendenhall%20melammu%20evidence&f=false
ReplyDeleteDozeman is relying on Mendenhall according to the footnote in his Exodus commentary. The only thing I have to say for now is that I found more thoughts in J.J.M. Roberts' Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah commentary, pages 134-5.
ReplyDeleteRoberts appeals to ANE iconography of the storm god with lightning bolts issuing from his hands. But he is more specific in terms of the places where such imagery appears. See ANEP 490, 500-501, 531-532, 538.
One last reference I found on my computer is Carol Meyers Exodus commentary. She writes (page 266):
ReplyDelete"As the mediator par excellence between the divine and the human, Moses takes on a unique aura, with his face so radiant that the Israelites were afraid to approach him. Such radiance, in ancient Near Eastern imagery, is the characteristic luminosity of deities. Visible on human rulers, royal effulgence is part of the poetic expression of the king's divine authority. Transferred to Moses when God speaks to him directly, it reflects God's glory and signifies Moses' authority."
Footnote 90 on page 266 says that "horn" is an incorrect translation which led to erroneous depictions like Michelangelo's "famous statue"
Testimony from Targum Jonathan: https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Exodus.34?lang=bi
ReplyDeleteI checked our university library. We don't have Propp's Anchor Bible Commentary, but I was able to check out some other works and I read Robert Alter's remarks about Exodus 34:29ff: he favors the glowing/emitting rays understanding and provides argumentation against the "horns" view. His entire "Five Books" volume is worth reading IMO. Of note is also Umberto Cassuto's Exodus commentary. See the NET note for Exodus 34:29.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.academia.edu/27480041/The_Shining_Face_of_Moses_The_Interpretation_of_Exodus_34_29-35_and_its_Use_in_the_Old_and_New_Testaments
ReplyDeleteUseful survey information contained.
See also pages 3-4 of this journal article by the same author: https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/bbr23a01.pdf
ReplyDeleteHe again critiques the horns suggestion.
Point 1:
ReplyDelete"According to Ps 69:31 (MT 69:32), that which “sprouts horns” (ןִ רְקַמ (is a
bull’s head, not the skin of the face.7"
Does Ps 69:31 state that it is the head in MT or LXX?
Is the language of the psalms period directly equivalent to torah?
Point 2:
"Second, an idolatrous emblem like the horns of an ox is out of place given the indictment of the golden calf in Exod 32–33"
See:-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q1xbAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=oldest+example+of+the+horned+sun+disc&source=bl&ots=cjztup9mIZ&sig=sfKYEb2S7H7ggP2C_MQhc-D1CYA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZt6u48dzbAhVHBMAKHZ7lD4MQ6AEImgEwGA#v=onepage&q=oldest%20example%20of%20the%20horned%20sun%20disc&f=false
The horn and disk imagery described here can be of of a non divine queen. This type of imagery is probably the origins of what we call today, a crown which etymologically comes from the same term.
Point 3:
"Hab 3:4" - I will only refer back to the comments made by Propp, which need to be addressed. Also note text in blue here http://dssenglishbible.com/habakkuk%203.htm
Point 4:
"The LXX has δεδόξασται ἡ τοῦ χρώματος τοῦ προσώπου ἀυτοῦ (“the
appearance of the color of his face was glorified”)" - again see Propp.
Not sure how useful later witnesses can be.
Appeals to Ezekiel in the era of Zoroastrian cultural imagery of flame and light can hardly be conclusive.
So, I cannot say that it was not light but I can see why there is room for so much scholarship and controversy as to 3 or more possible conclusions.
I do not think this author has just solved all the difficulties, except for in his own mind.
Duncan, I've quoted numerous authors/sources in this thread, which cast serious doubt on the horns idea. Not even Propp favors the idea that Moses had horns, but he wants to propose a disfigurement thesis instead. For Ps. 69:31 and the idea of horns, see https://books.google.com/books?id=QBwdDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA400&dq=psalm+69:31+having+horns+on+head&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhpMOyj-DbAhVL0lMKHU6aAMUQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=psalm%2069%3A31%20having%20horns%20on%20head&f=false
ReplyDeleteIn the long run, Ps. 69:31 may have nothing to do with Exodus 34:29ff. We don't know if the operative words in each verse have anything to do with each other. Either way, I don't see why Psalms has to emanate from the Torah period to have any bearing on Exodus. But again, neither text necessarily relates to the other one.
on Hab. 3:4, it's another issue, but I think Propp has been addressed from many corners including some of the works I've posted above. Carol Meyers and Robert Alter have spoken to his remarks and so has Friedman.
It's standard fare to invoke the DSS and LXX in these kinds of discussions. Whether the LXX helps us answer these questions, we cannot ignore its witness.
There will always be exegetical possibilities set forth on texts, but some possibilities are more probable than others. I could turn out to be wrong, but having surveyed the evidence so far, I find the horns notion to be highly unlikely and the "glowing/shining/emitting rays" to be more probable. Admittedly, more information could alter our perspective, but that is how I see the evidence for now.
I should adjust my statement about Propp and say that he appears to believe the horn thesis is "half-correct." In other words, he posits that Moses was burnt, disfigured or callouses, hence "hornified." But not quite the same as horns growing from Moses' head.
ReplyDeleteNumbers 23:22
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naram-Sin_of_Akkad
ReplyDeletehttp://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docman/rendsburg/118-moses-as-equal-to-pharaoh/file
ReplyDeletehttp://thegemara.com/when-moses-was-born-the-house-was-filled-with-light/
ReplyDeleteNumbers 23:22, as you know, contains a different word. qaran (the word from Exodus 34:29-30, 35 only occurs four times between Exodus and Psalms.
ReplyDeleteOn the Akkadian horned helmet, we have to make solid connections between potential cross examples. Two phenomena existing at the same time or within the same culture aren't necessarily related.
I enjoyed the Rendsburg piece and generally like his work: he is well-respected in Hebrew Bible studies. However, I disagree with his take on Exodus 34:29-30, 35 and Habakkuk 3:4. I will let the pieces I previously cited stand.
I will have to consider the last link at a later time.
Food for thought:
ReplyDeletehttps://muse.jhu.edu/article/381118/summary
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/18712207-12341259
"First, we will demonstrate that James envisioned an anointing of the >>head or face.<< " - which is it?
ReplyDeleteIf it was racism then it appears that some Jews embraced it (re posting my original email link.)
ReplyDeletehttps://www.haaretz.com/jewish/why-even-some-jews-once-believed-moses-had-horns-1.5949749
Different cattle have different type of horn:-
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/not-your-average-cow-10-most-exceptional-cattle-breeds
Ankole-Watusi cow are a recognisable form from north east Africa historically. Also the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs of north Africa.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SovEH9BJeFw/WDKuQl_6XsI/AAAAAAAAC6k/PrYvDQ1iKqEMuPonsUJZI6KoH-cCDRlJACLcB/s600/English%2BLonghorn%2BCattle.jpg
WE have the English long horn (not sure of early origins) & as my earlier post points out we do have ancient Egyptian murals that depict a horn facing downwards by the face of a person. So why would we expect a single term for horns? We need to know how or if they depicted a different status.
The main driving point of all my post is that we are looking at a cattle culture covering a large area that includes our target & also spans pre and post cultures.
I any case would we expect anyone else to be depicted with the same horns as Jehovah.
Posted before but see - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpz8h_MFkWg @ 17 minutes to 21. Cattle culture gravitate around the imagery of horns.
"Two phenomena existing at the same time or within the same culture aren't necessarily related."
ReplyDeleteJust to point out that I am making my case from the period not from later texts and traditions.
1) On the James article and the issue of anointing, I believe the author is saying it could be the head or face. I haven't read his piece, but that seems to be his contention. Maybe we don't know the full answer to the question. But I don't know what he discovered from researching the question.
ReplyDelete2) I'm not saying that the "horns" interpretation of Exodus 34 is/was motivated by antisemitism. However, more plausibly, Michelangelo's painting might have been. Again, it's not my claim, but what someone else is arguing. I'm only providing sources for research.
3) Remember that I don't believe Moses had horns at all, but that his face shone. So all the talk of horns is interesting and informative, but I don't see these examples as pertinent to Exodus 34. Some obviously disagree. So I take Meyers and Alter to be saying that Moses was given a similar glory as Jehovah's in order to be his representative, but not similar horns.
4) What I meant to say earlier about similar cultures and times is that even if two things/phenomena exist at the same time and in the same place, we cannot infer that one necessarily relates to the other.
https://books.openedition.org/cdf/3048?lang=en
ReplyDeleteI spotted some missteps in the lecture. Romer says about qaran:
ReplyDelete"Yet this root, which appears in the Bible in the verbal form only in this account from the Book of Exodus, is apparently linked to a noun that is used more broadly, qèrèn, which in biblical Hebrew does indeed mean 'horn.'"
Qaran and qèrèn possibly are connected: one cannot say that's actually the case. But even assuming there's a connection, we can't then do what Romer proceeds to do. He then concludes that Jerome's handling of Exodus 34 must be right and that the Greek, Syriac versions of the Bible are wrong. Furthermore, traditional Jewish and Christian interpretations must all be wrong based on this slender line of argumentation. Romer fails to mention the Targumic evidence, which also casts doubt on the horns interpretation. In any event, his conclusion does not follow from the evidence he presents.
Finally, Romer writes:
"The Ugaritic texts from the end of the second millennium describe Baal with functions and titles that are applied to Yahweh in the Bible. This confirms the idea that, from the point of view of the history of religions, the god of Israel was a god of storm and thunder like Baal-Hadad, the god that caused lightning and thunder."
I believe the Bible writers avidly took steps to ensure that Yahweh (Jehovah) would not be viewed through the lens of Baal. The Jewish God not only causes lightning and thunder, but he creates and controls the phenomena. See Jer. 10:12-13.
If the two terms are not connected then the arguments to justify its meaning as rays of light also fall apart.
ReplyDeleteSome bible writers may have erased baal from there text but the evidence of this has two sides diachronically.
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeleteI don't see how the argument falls apart if one understands qaran to mean shine/emitting rays/glow and qeren to signify horns. The philosophical fact anyway is that we're not sure the words are connected.
My claim about Baal is that the Bible writers did not think Jehovah was simply a storm deity like Baal. Under inspiration, they made a notional chasm between Jehovah and Baal. See 1 Kings 17 and 2 Kings 10.
In other words, Baal is portrayed as an impotent fiction unable to bring fire from heaven in contrast to the living God. I see no good evidence that Baal and YHWH are etymologically related.
ReplyDeleteNames including the element Baal presumably in reference to Yahweh include the judge Gideon (also known as Jerubaal, lit. "The Lord Strives"), Saul's son Eshbaal ("The Lord is Great"), and David's son Beeliada ("The Lord Knows"). The name Bealiah ("The Lord is Jah"; "Yahweh is Baʿal") combined the two.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the emit light based on the theory of horn shaped emission? As opped to normal terms for light.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the earliest textual evidence of the portion of Targumim?
ReplyDeletehttp://cojs.org/the_targumim-_emanuel_tov-_textual_criticism_of_the_hebrew_bible-_fortress_press-_minneapolis_1992/
Targums, and the Peshitta use terms relating to light but you are going to have to deal with my earlier post regarding moses birth before I give them much weight.
The LXX seems more of an interpretation than a translation.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=C0xoBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=exodus+34:29+lxx+glorified&source=bl&ots=bWkecUuyzq&sig=s0k_uk5C0JlsGgOVzD_luTYU7Bg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjc4sGe5eXbAhWIJcAKHc9mA3sQ6AEwCHoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=exodus%2034%3A29%20lxx%20glorified&f=false
Incidentally the part of the verse that is interpreted as "not knowing" could also mean "not concerned".
Almost bedtime, so my answers will be very brief tonight.
ReplyDelete1) I don't think the emit light interpretation hangs on (depends on) horn shaped emission. I will pursue the subject later, but check out Andrei Orlov's article "God's Face in the Enochic Tradition" at the marquette.edu site.
2) On the Baal issue, some have argued that Baal is a general term for "lord," not a definite term. I want to address your examples later like Gideon, but I don't believe they necessarily relate to Jehovah at all. Besides, Jehovah/Yahweh does not mean "Lord."
3) In this case, I don't see LXX as a translation. The Targum date could be as late as the third century CE: we don't know for sure. But Jerome's Vulgate is even later (circa 405 CE).
My case isn't primarily dependent on the Greek or Syriac texts; I believe they simply reflect the Hebrew wording.
Like I say, this subject will be resumed later. I will also have to review what you said about Moses' birth.
The examples you cited for Baal don't subvert my view that Jehovah was not reduced to a storm God in the Tanakh by the prophets nor did faithful spokespersons of Jehovah try to parallel his attributes with Baal. Just the opposite transpired in the canon.
ReplyDeleteTargumim date could be as late as fifth century.
ReplyDeleteWe know some Targumic works are much older than the fifth century CE since Targumim have been found amongst DSS material. And what about the first century Targum on Job? See J. Fitzmyer's "A Wandering Aramean."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.haaretz.com/jewish/MAGAZINE-who-really-wrote-the-book-of-job-1.5434183
DeleteConsidering the span of lxx translation, a period cannot be fixed without evidence. The same problem I currently have with poimandres.
ReplyDeleteWe have job and Leviticus. Any others?
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeleteThe link you supplied gives this info:
"There is no question that the book was already written by the second century BCE, since an Aramaic translation of the Book of Job was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls."
You seem to agree that the Job Targum existed prior to the first century CE, especially since it's part of DSS material.
We're not always going to have manuscript evidence for certain books, but other testimonia might exist. Besides Job and Leviticus, what about the Targum of the Prophets, which some date to the first-second century CE? Targum Chronicles is possible fourth century CE.
See also khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/jud/targ_h_c.pdf
For scholarly material that deals with the Job Targum, see
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.com/books?id=-wLWRz22vzUC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=fitzmyer+first+century+targum+of+job&source=bl&ots=6ywLf4p7Aa&sig=G4G20LxYdp1kH48NhZwW3oh0pUU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhmMqg0PDbAhWlpFkKHV5tAVsQ6AEIQjAI#v=onepage&q=fitzmyer%20first%20century%20targum%20of%20job&f=false
https://www.academia.edu/26606061/Hebrew_Aramaic_and_the_Differing_Phenomena_of_Targum_and_Translation_in_the_Second_Temple_Period_and_Post-Second_Temple_Period
https://biblicalarchaeology.org.uk/pdf/ajba/01-2_019.pdf
https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/presidentialaddresses/JBL99_1_1Fitzmyer1979.pdf
For https://biblicalarchaeology.org.uk/pdf/ajba/01-2_019.pdf Note PG 27.
ReplyDelete"When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy
The Targum paraphrases:
And all the angels of God shouted for joy.
When the morning stars shone."
Important on two fronts.
For may post under the section "Strange Hebrew":-
The most popular theory now is that Job was written by someone whose first language was Aramaic but whose literary language was Hebrew, and that the use of archaic language was deliberate. This would indicate that we are talking about an author or more likely authors living in the early Second Temple period.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3268070.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
ReplyDeleteThe Language of Job and Its Poetic Function - note the level of Aramaic.
http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/search?author=&excludeText=&facetDate=0500s%20C.E.&fileID=&fullText=&keyword=targum%20exodus&location=&page=1&recallScale=0.0&shelfLocator=&subject=&tagging=1&textJoin=and&title=
ReplyDeleteSome interesting poiunts above, especially concerning the strange Hebrew. However, let's not forget that we're discussing when the Targums were possibly written. There is certainly good evidence for early Targumim like Job, but the dates for some of the Targumim are all over the place.
ReplyDeleteThere is also some discussion as to the status of the Leviticus fragment of DSS.
ReplyDeleteIs it a fragment from a complete Targum of Leviticus or just a paraphrase from something else?
Either way, there's evidence that the Targumic tradition is early, even if some of the works were complete later. Some books were written in early form, then edited/redacted.
ReplyDeleteOn the horns issue, I also checked Micheal Coogan's introduction to the OT. Was surprised to see he does not agree with the horns interpretation, but calls it "a misinterpretation of Exodus 34:29." See page 188 of his second edition.
From A Glossary of Targum Onkelos (volume 6, page xi) by Edward M. Cook:
ReplyDelete"The hypothesis most favored today is that Targum Onkelos originated in the West, in Palestine, in the second or third century CE, but bears certain textual traces of long use and transmission in the Babylonian academies of Eastern Jewry.13 Still, this hypothesis does not answer all the questions and different theories continue to be advanced from time to time."
I am making a more fundamental point. WE have reference to Job in Hebrew at Genesis (just the name) & then the next reference to Job as far as I can tell is in Ezekiel. Where was Ezekiel?
ReplyDeleteAre we to assume that the Targum Job is a translation of a fully Hebrew original?
Or are we looking at an Aramaic tradition going much further back than the DSS which therefor stands apart from later translations (much later).
As for Coogan:-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y2KGVuym5OUC&pg=PA531&lpg=PA531&dq=Michael+Coogan+horns+of+moses&source=bl&ots=ogjIOp93sc&sig=Ex2Br1T12nobSBsbXFPMuY7Asw4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiC5cOmtPPbAhWJDcAKHcq6DP4Q6AEIfjAS#v=onepage&q=Michael%20Coogan%20horns%20of%20moses&f=false
See John H Hayes who makes no such judgment - and one needs to ask upon which evidence exactly does Coogan base his statement becuse the wording used in many such statments seep to be parroting a single source.
Also going back to the Targum and the LXX. The book you posted earlier I think stated that the LXX was a few steps away from being under stood as rays of light & being bolstered by Targumim. This is not any form of solid evidence & it would seem that Persians like the terms shine and light.
BTW - all visible objects either emit or reflect light so to say that something could be seen as a glory does not = emitting rays just that something of note could be seen.
I wonder what Coogan has to say in this 3rd edition with Cynthia R. Chapman?
ReplyDeletehttps://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-brief-introduction-to-the-old-testament-9780190238599?cc=gb&lang=en
As an aside, I came across this article by Chapman which IMO is well worth reading.
http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_169.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowns_of_Egypt
ReplyDeleteThe atef is typically worn >>atop a pair of ram or bull horns<< as a circlet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemhem_crown
I can't answer the question about Aramaic texts that were possibly written before the DSS, and I'm not sure that anyone else can provide a definitive answer to the question either.
ReplyDeleteIt would be good if Coogan expanded on his reasons for considering the horns view to be a misinterpretation. Maybe he does give those reasons elsewhere. I'm not saying his remarks close the case on the issue, but I just wanted to add his view to the mix of commentators/scholars that have been submitted in this thread.
Haynes indicates that one view of Exodus 34:29ff is not necessarily dependent on the other. They are alternative interpretations.
The emitting rays understanding of the text is not based on English uses of "glory," but rather lexical semantics and context of usage. LXX and Targum Exodus explicitly indicate something beyond what everyday objects do. Not all objects emit light like the sun does. The glory of YHWH is often depicted as emission of a different order than how other things might emit or reflect light. Besides, just how much did the Hebrew know about light emission?
I only have Coogan's 2nd edition and that one was sent to me by Oxford UP. So unless they send the 3rd one, I will not have access to it. :) Not planning on buying that edition.
Concerning the glory of YHWH:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3259217.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309089212466471
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1010-99192015000200006
https://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/word_studies/greek/doxa.pdf
ReplyDeleteLXX definition 25.
Not sure when I sent you the details in this discussion (may have been on Habakkuk) but the comparable phenomenon in the surrounding cultures that was seen as a background glow in the icon images is now seen as a cloud. This difference was highlighted of the two traditions, but i am not convinced that they are different in this respect.
From the Sage article.
ReplyDelete"It goes without saying that parallels between Ezekiel’s conditions and the pre-Tabernacle
Exodus conditions are the fruits of theological construction. In a situation such as the exiles experienced, revisiting the national foundation story held potent opportunities to find answers to—and inspiration in—their current dislocation, as well as opportunities to connect their dislocating experience to something within the national story that arguably bore equal
significance for them."
Recognized in a Persian framework.
I don't believe the glory of YHWH according to Exodus can be adequately explained by appealing to Persian thought/customs. I just read something the other day about scholars trying to explain Israelite "dualism" by invoking Zoroastrianism. Too facile and flimsy.
ReplyDeleteThis work could have some bearing on the Persian issue:
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.com/books?id=T-Vi9eK_vS0C&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=persian+thought+influenced+the+pentateuch?&source=bl&ots=YIes_VTjPF&sig=t5jNxUf332Uui-rKMiyNzFheCwM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihi-zhrvTbAhUJUa0KHWxlCBs4ChDoAQhbMAk#v=onepage&q=persian%20thought%20influenced%20the%20pentateuch%3F&f=false
I have no reason to suspect zoastrian influence on the 5 books of Moses. But if you use Ezekiel to interpret exodus or genesis, that is a different matter.
ReplyDeleteI am not using Ezekiel to interpret Exodus or Genesis per se, but it seems that the glory of YHWH in Exodus (only briefly mentioned) is the same glory portrayed in Ezekiel. That does not mean one work is dependent on the other or that Ezekiel usage is being read back into Exodus.
ReplyDeleteCan't remember if you've read this link yet:
ReplyDeletehttps://blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com/holy-land-studies/1419-2/
"Today, modern readers of the Bible understand that the Hebrew phrase karan ‘or panav should be read metaphorically to mean: 'his face shone' or 'his face projected rays of light'. But the damage has already been done. The Vulgate was a tremendously influential book, out of which countless translations into modern languages were produced. Unfortunately, the mistranslation of the verb karan by Jerome had tragic consequences."
There are so man things wrong with this article I am not sure where to start but focus on just two..
ReplyDelete" Why is Moses unaware that his face has undergone a change after having descended from Mt Sinai? " - two possible meanings, worth investigating the language.
"we read: “my heart exults in the LORD, my horn (קַרְנִי) is exalted in the LORD.” No one imagines that Hannah has a physical horn sticking out of her head. Rather, she is using the word keren to mean “my strength that projects outwards.” - This has nothing to do with Greek concepts of form, the Horn indicates strength and power. Its shape is entirely consequential.
This is another on I have seen parroted on several sites without reference.
https://www.thejc.com/judaism/jewish-words/keren-1.8114
ReplyDelete"Keren is sometimes used to refer to the shofar, the rams horn we blow on Rosh Hashanah, and also to the legal category of damage inflicted by an animals horn.
Secondarily, keren >>came to mean ray, or something projected from a point.<< The words for X-rays, cathode rays and light rays in modern Hebrew all come from keren. "
I believe the writer is aware there's two possible meanings, but he simply rejects the horn undersdtanding. Firstly, he claims that qaran is derived from keren, meaning "horn." Secondly, after contending that we should construe qaran metaphorically, he writes: "However, in medieval Christian Europe a totally literal translation of this verse – 'his face was horned' – became the norm."
ReplyDeleteSo I think he's well aware of two possible interpretations for the verse.
Just for the record, you know we cannot impose later meanings of words on the biblical text. From a philological standpoint, it is not certain that qaran and keren are related. Nevertheless, the writer of the article worked with that supposition.
From https://www.thejc.com/judaism/jewish-words/keren-1.8114
ReplyDeleteThese diverse but related meanings of the word keren led to the Christian misconception, once widely held, that Jews have horns. After Moses collects the second version of the two tablets, the Torah describes how Moses was unaware that his face radiated light, karan or (Exodus 34:29).
Rashbam, Rashis grandson, cautions in his commentary that anyone who thinks, based on this verse, that Moses had horns, is simply a fool. However, the Vulgate mistranslated karan or as horns of light, leading to the widespread depiction of Moses with horns in Christian art, most famously in Michelangelos sculpture, Moses, at the church of San Pietro Invincula in Rome.
Just for fun: http://www.balashon.com/2016/09/
ReplyDeleteUnless I come across something radically new pertaining to the subject, I won't be posting anything else to this thread.
Genesis 22:13 Is clear, rams horns as opposed to cow or is this not the same term?
ReplyDeleteRashbam and Exod 34:29: https://www.sefaria.org/Rashbam_on_Exodus.34.29.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
ReplyDeleteDoes not answer the question. If it is the same word then it/can does mean horn. So why would one deny it is of the same root.
ReplyDeleteGen 22:13 has keren/qeren as the writer pointed out. However, he's saying that the Genesis reference is literal while 1 Samuel 2 is metaphorical.
ReplyDeleteqaran and qeren/keren are two different words and different cases of speech. The question is whether qaran is a denominative verb derived from keren/qeren. A number of works make that claim, but we don't know for sure.
Let's go with the idea that qaran just means rays of light and not a relationship to horns.
ReplyDeleteSee:-
https://members.bib-arch.org/biblical-archaeology-review/41/4/5
This is the only imagery of the period that even comes close to conveying the idea. Also note how the rays that meet the faces are different to the rest in a number of carvings.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=akhenaten+rays&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi204fqnPnbAhXBY8AKHcukBusQ_AUIESgB&biw=1280&bih=800
Archaeology is one way of establishing historical links; another way is by comparing texts.
ReplyDelete