2015, Vol.21, No.4

A Descriptive Analysis of the Use of Divine Names in Genesis

Koog-Pyoung Hong | 2015, 21(4) | pp.10~39 | number of Cited : 1

PDF

A Study on the Korean Translation of Gen 5:1-3 and its Function

KyeSang Ha | 2015, 21(4) | pp.40~73 | number of Cited : 3

PDF

Genesis 5:1-3 is, for the most part, essentially an echo of Genesis 1:26-28. As if never percieving it, however, the Korean versions of the Bible undesirably render Genesis 5:1-3, and there is no consistency in the translations. So this paper first aims to correct the undesirable renderings in the Korean versions, to give consistency to the translations, and also to correct the renderings of Genesis 1:26a, 27 in the process of this research. In light of the Hebrew text in the BHS (Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia), I proceeded with this study specifically by paying attention to the translation of ~l,c,. (“image”) and tWmדְּ (“likeness”), בְּ (“in”) and כְּ (“after, according to”), and hf'[' (“make”) and ar'B' (“create”), and also to the consistency of their respective translations. The second goal of this study is to perceive the function of Genesis 5:1-3 in consideration of its continuity and discontinuity with Genesis 1:26a, 27. I proceeded with this research from a synchronic/literary perspective, with Genesis 1:26a, 27 and 5:1-3 as the texts in their final form, and a detailed exegesis of the texts was excluded. As the result of this research, I pointed out up to eight kinds of unsatisfactory renderings in Genesis 1:26a, 27 and 5:1-3 occurring in six Korean versions of the Bible, which are related to the translation of ~l,c,. and tWmדְּ, בְּ and כְּ, and hf'[' and ar'B', to the consistency in translations, and to the literary aspects of parallelism and chiasm. As for the understanding of the function of Genesis 5:1-3, both perceiving its close relationship with Genesis 1:26a, 27 and understanding the nature of the relationship are needed, as is clearly shown in the exquisite structures made by ~l,c,. and tWmדְּ, by בְּ and כְּ coupled with ~l,c,. and tWmדְּ, and by hf'[' and ar'B'. The chiastic structure that ~l,c,. and tWmדְּ in Genesis 1:26a, 27 and 5:1, 3 make, however, hints at the latter’s continuity and discontinuity with the former. The discontinuity is that the image of God is almost lost through the Fall, and the continuity is that the trace of the image still remains in humans, and the basis for the discontinuity lies in Genesis 5:3 and the following verses of Genesis 5. Not only God’s creating mankind male and female, but also His blessing them, points to the basic theme of Genesis 5 as procreation, because the calling of Adam as “their name” (5:2) connotes the role of Adam to beget “in his likeness, according to his image” and to call “his name Seth” (5:3). Adam’s activities of procreation and naming are in the same vein with God’s activities of making mankind “in the likeness of God” when He created them (5:1b-2). In spite of this continuity, discontinuity also appears in Genesis 5:3, which is already hinted at in that Genesis 5:1b-2 seems to delimit itself as an independent pericope by the chiastic correspondence of its beginning to its end. As the name “Seth” itself in Genesis 5:3 hints at death because of his being named in relation to Abel’s death by Cain, the discontinuity is the ‘death of mankind created in the image of God’ as the consequence of Adam’s Fall. The discontinuity begins to be made clear in the record of Genesis 5 that “Adam ... died” (5:4-5) and is made very clear in the death of his son Seth (5:8) and of all his succeeding descendants. Last but not least is the significance of Genesis 5, which is revealed in the following broader context of Genesis—more specifically in the structural and thematic correspondence of the Genesis record of Noah with that of Abraham, and the similarity of Genesis 5:32 to 11:26. Just as Noah is the remnant (7:23b) who opens the history of the ‘New World,’ having come from the corrupt ‘Old World,’ so Abraham is the remnant who opens the history of the new people Israel (cf. 12:1-5), having come from the rebellious nations. Especially Genesis 5:32 which is connected through Shem with the chronogenealogy of Genesis 11:10-26, links the antediluvian history to the postdiluvian history, and ultimately to Abraham (cf. 11:26-12:5), and thus provides the basis on which the history of the new people Israel can be unfolded. Therefore, the chronogenealogy of Genesis 5 is a foundation for the conclusion that the theme of Genesis is the genesis of Israel, an instrument of God in His economy of redemption, to restore the imago Dei to mankind.

Historical Writing based on the Wisdom: David’s succession of throne (2 Samuel 9 - 2 Kings 2＊)

Minsu Oh | 2015, 21(4) | pp.74~104 | number of Cited : 3

PDF

The Calls to Repentance in the Book of Ezekiel: An Exegetical Study on Ezek 3:16b-21; 14:1-11; 18:21-32; 33:10-20

DONG-HYUK KIM | 2015, 21(4) | pp.105~133 | number of Cited : 3

PDF

The Book of Ezekiel may be defined by its deterministic understanding of history. God’s redemption of history, as presented by the book, may be outlined: (1) Israel is sinful and incorrigible from the beginning; (2) since the people are incorrigible, they do not listen to God or the prophet; (3) God punishes them; (4) not because of the people’s penitence but for the sake of his name, God restores Israel graciously and forcefully; (5) then, only then, the people will repent and know that YHWH is their God. A remarkable aspect of such an understanding of history is, of course, that repentance cannot be chosen by humans but it is imposed by God as a “by-product” of his history. Given this understanding of determinism and repentance, however, passages such as Ezekiel 3:16b-21, 14:1-11, 18:21-32, and 33:10-20, in which repentance occurs significantly, present a prominent theological contradiction, since they seem to imply that repentance is available to the people of Israel and, if so, there is room for human participation. Several solutions have been presented, and Baruch J. Schwartz’s as one of the recent ones seems the most creative. In his “Repentance and Determinism in Ezekiel,” Schwartz argues on the basis of a close reading of Ezekiel 20 that “Ezekiel’s doctrine of determinism . . . is the result of, not the opposite of, his belief in the absolute efficacy of repentance.” His conclusion, however, sounds diametrically opposed to what we intuitively feel about repentance. The present study argues that the apparent contradiction may be solved by asking two related but distinct questions about the four repentance passages. Is repentance efficacious in God’s dealing with his people in principle? Were Ezekiel’s audience able to repent when they heard God’s/the prophet’s call to repentance? Through the exegesis of the four passages in which repentance significantly appears (3:16b-21; 14:1-11; 18:21-32; 33:10-20), the study argues that, although all passages answer the first question in the affirmative, all passages are not relevant with regard to the second question. Accordingly, on the basis of the passages that potentially answer our second question, the study concludes that Ezekiel’s contemporaries were not able to respond to God’s call to repentance. In other words, God did not call Israel to repentance in order to emphasize their sinfulness only. God called Israel to repentance sincerely, but Ezekiel’s contemporaries were simply unable to answer His sincere call. This situation ultimately led God to restore Israel forcefully. If successfully argued, the present study would contribute to a more holistic understanding of God and theology of the book of Ezekiel.

Josiah’s Death and 2 Chronicles 36

Mi-Sook Lee | 2015, 21(4) | pp.134~166 | number of Cited : 2

PDF

The Israelite people expected Josiah as Judah’s reformer to be the king who could revive their dying nation and save it from it's doom. However, he was suddenly killed because he had been involved in an international dispute. As a result of his death the kingdom of Judah declined rapidly and ceased to exist after about 20 years. The Chronicler broke the silence found in Kings (2 Kings 23:29) and explained that Josiah was killed because he did not listen to God's words that were spoken by Necho. Since 19th century, the Chronicler's report of Josiah’s death has primarily been studied by using retribution theology or a historical approach, but some questions still remain. This study provides another explanation for the Chronicler's report. As such, it uses a synchronic reading to examine the story, which gives a new perspective to the interpretation. What new theological meaning can be ascribed to the Chronicler’s depiction of Josiah's death? An answer to this controversial question can be found when the Chronicler's report is read not as an appendix of Josiah's story or as an isolate report, but as an interpretation of the passage presented in 2 Chronicles 36. After examining the macro-structure and rhetorical elements of the Chronicler’s report of Josiah’s death, that story can be seen to be closely related to the last chapter of 2 Chronicles and it functions as its opening. If so, what new theological meaning can this provide? First, the Chronicler saw Josiah’s death as a turning point, launching a new future for the exile and post-exilic generations after the kingdom of Judah had ended. Second, the Chronicler supported the Levites as the new leadership and suggested that the exiled and post-exilic people should root their hopes in the Temple and its cult. Third, the report of Josiah’s death was a signal announcing God’s judgement against Judah and an ultimate restoration of it. Josiah’s death which had caused a sensation in Judah, demanded that a new historical, religious, and theological paradigm be implemented by the exile and post-exilic generations, and thus the Chronicler properly recognized its significance.

A Proposal for a New Direction for the Study of Old Testament Rhetorical Criticism

Jinkyu Kim | 2015, 21(4) | pp.167~208 | number of Cited : 2

PDF

Muilenburg pioneered a rhetorical study of the Old Testament in the second half of the twentieth century. The rhetorical criticism of the Old Testament has since been advanced by the studies of the Muilenburg School, the classical rhetorics, and the new rhetoric. Because of the limitations in these disciplines, however, we need to come up with a breakthrough in the study of the OT rhetorical criticism to overcome its shortcomings. The goal of this study, while adopting the contributions of the rhetorical studies of the Old Testament up to the present, is to propose a new direction for the rhetorical study which reflects the dominant rhetorical characteristics of the Old Testament itself. Muilenburg and the Muilenburg School have contributed to the rhetorical studies of the Old Testament by giving us the insights into the close reading strategies of the Bible, and thereby we are able to know how to set the limit of the text, how to analyze its structure, and how to study its stylistic features. Their observations on literary devices including imageries and the diverse types of parallelisms have contributed to our goal of this study. However, their contributions focus on the stylistic aspects and miss the classical definition of rhetorics as the art of persuasion. Additionally, their biased interpretation, centered on the author or the text itself for the understanding of the meaning, doesn’t allow for a holistic understanding. Aristotle, who significantly contributed to the development of the classical rhetorics, gives us a few great insights into our rhetorical studies of the Old Testament. His observations include diverse studies on the effects of the literary devices such as imageries and parallelisms. He also provides some insights into the ‘plot’ which can be used in the analysis of the OT narratives. Kennedy and Gitay have adopted the strengths of the classical rhetorics in the study of the OT rhetorical criticism. By their efforts the OT rhetorical criticism comes to accommodate the art of persuasion which is the generic concept of the rhetorics. The idea of the ‘rhetorical situation’ proposed by Bitzer has enlivened the study of the socio-historical background of the text which was put aside by the Muilenburg School. However, the approaches adopted by Kennedy and Gitay were not able to overcome the limitations of the classical concept of the three genres which had been inherited from the classical rhetorics. The new rhetoric initiated by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca has changed the focus of the rhetoric(s) from the orator/the author to the audience/the reader. They regard the rhetoric(s) as the technique of argumentation. The audience-based perspective is critical, because argumentation needs to be supported by the audience. Going beyond the idea of persuasion, Burke focuses on the orator’s personal and social identification and transformation. Hence the audience turns out to be the critic and the judge. With the appearance of Booth’s work, the rhetoric is interested in its effects, and thereby it has progressed as a practical discipline. Since then, many diverse and conflicting theories have appeared in the studies of rhetorics and brought about the loss of direction in the studies of the OT rhetorical criticism. The last part of this paper suggests a new direction for the study of the OT rhetorical criticism which, while adopting the contributions of the studies of the rhetorical criticism up to the present, reflects the unique literary characteristics of the Hebrew Bible. Fox has already argued that there are peculiar rhetorical characteristics of the Hebrew Bible in itself. The writer’s two suggestions are as follows. First, the analysis of the narrative, especially the plot, should be the primary study of the OT rhetorical criticism, since the narrative occupies about 1/3 of the Old Testament. It is due to the limitations of the three classical genres the classical rhetorics has inherited to us in that they cannot explain the persuasive power of the narrative plot in the Hebrew Bible. Second, the poetic literary devices such as imagery, parallelism, and ellipsis should be another main focus of the study of the OT rhetorical criticism, because the OT poetry and prophets are mainly composed in a poetic style. The rhetorical studies of these literary devices will contribute to our understanding of the dynamics of persuasion and transformation between the author and the reader.

An Investigation of the Possibility of Old Testament Studies in Korea

Myung Soo Suh | 2015, 21(4) | pp.209~231 | number of Cited : 5

PDF

A Reconsideration of the Habiru in the El Amarna Letters

기동연 | 2015, 21(4) | pp.232~262 | number of Cited : 0

PDF

The purpose of this article is to study the identity of the Habiru in the El Amarna letters in its context. When the El Amarna letters were discovered in 1877, the theory of the conquest of Joshua and the Israelites was significantly affected. In the early stage of the study of the El Amarna letters, scholars identified the Habiru/Sa.Gaz of El Amarna as Biblical Hebrews and regarded them as a support for Joshua’s conquest of Canaan. However, ever since Benno Landsberger suggested that Habirus were fugitives, many scholars have regarded the Habiru of El Amarna as an outcast group formed by the lower social class. They then have used this new interpretation to explain a completely different theory of the origin of the Israelites from the Canaan conquest. They have defined the Habiru as people who escaped from the control of the ruling class and lived as social outcasts in the form of robbers or killers who threatened the ruling class. However, the Habiru in the El Amarna letters do not give any information about the origin of Israel in Canaan. Whether the scholars use the Habiru for the theory of the Canaan conquest or for an explanation of a social phenomenon, their arguments are founded on their lack of consideration of the specific text and also on the misunderstanding of the context in the El Amarna letters regarding the Habiru. Even though scholars regard Habiru with Sa.Gaz, the El Amarna letters mostly use Sa.Gaz, whereas they use Habiru only 9 times. The word ‘Sa.Gaz’ in the El Amarna letters may have been used, in some cases, to refer to alienated social groups, but it was used, in most cases, as a derogatory expression against the political enemies of the kings of the city states. The word ‘Habiru’ was used only by Abdi-Heba, king of Jerusalem, and it was also a disparaging expression against his political enemies. It cannot be understood through the content of the El Amarna letters why Abdi-Heba used the expression ‘Habiru,’ whereas none of the other kings of the city states did not. Even if there is a chance that the ‘Habiru’ in the El Amarna letters indicates the Biblical Hebrews, Abdi-Heba used it only to belittle the hostile kings of the city states and their people who were his political enemies. Therefore, the expressions ‘Sa.Gaz’ and ‘Habiru’ in the El Amarna letters are unrelated to the Canaan conquest theory, and they do not indicate the socially oppressed lower class who sought independence from the ruling class. The expressions were only used by the kings of the city states to disparage each other as they waged endless wars out of greed to expand their power and land.

A History of Researches on the Book of Job since 2000’s

Kyung-Taek Ha | 2015, 21(4) | pp.264~301 | number of Cited : 7

PDF

KJCKorea
Journal Central

Korean Journal of Old Testament Studies 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.67

2015, Vol.21, No.4