2018, Vol.24, No.2

The Sabbath in Third Isaiah: An Exegetical Study of Isa 56:1-8 and 58:13-14

DONG-HYUK KIM | 2018, 24(2) | pp.12~36 | number of Cited : 5

PDF

The Sabbath theology in Third Isaiah (Isaiah 56-66), to which we must pay attention for our understanding of the development of the Sabbath institution during the biblical period, has not received much attention from scholars. After surveying some important pieces that treat the Sabbath in the Old Testament, this paper attempts to do an exegetical examination of the two passages in Third Isaiah that address the Sabbath, that is, 56:1-8 and 58:13-14, and deals with some theological problems arising from the exegesis. The passage of 56:1-8 mentions foreigners and eunuchs, and it speaks how to be a member of the true Israel. The passage takes an inclusive stance, and thus it is contrasted with the stances that we may see from Deuteronomy 23:2-9, Ezekiel 44:6-9, Ezra 9, and Nehemiah 13:1-3, 23-31. While implicitly debating with the teachings and rulings of the Torah, it also inherits and develops the Torah’s spirit in emphasizing the Sabbath observance as the qualification for belonging to the true Israel. The sayings in Isaiah 58:13-14, if compared with the preceding pericope (58:1-12), may appear to underscore rituals rather than love and mercy, but in fact they are not so. The Sabbath is a day of delight, and thus the spirit is more important than the appearance. Like Isaiah 56:1-8, this passage highlights the Sabbath observance and speaks about the membership of the true Israel. In conclusion, the Sabbath theology of Third Isaiah is rooted in the previous biblical traditions, and it inherits them and debates with them. Over against other biblical traditions, Third Isaiah’s understanding of the Sabbath is innovative, and thus it should be understood to have been an important signpost in the development of the concept. I hope this paper paves the way to a deeper understanding of the Sabbath theology of Third Isaiah, the book of Isaiah as a whole, and the prophetic literature in general.

Nehemiah 13 Investigated anew in Light of Three Questions

Kyung-jin Min | 2018, 24(2) | pp.37~61 | number of Cited : 5

PDF

This work deals with three questions raised when reading Nehemiah 13. Firstly, this chapter seems auxiliary. It looks better for the book of Nehemiah to cease at Nehemiah 12 where it conveys the moving story of the wall dedication. Secondly, the so-called "remember formula" is rarely used in the Old Testament, but quite frequently occurs in Nehemiah 13. Awkwardly, however, it is used in relation to the unexpected narratives rather than that of the wall-rebuilding. Lastly, Nehemiah 13 reports Nehemiah's second visit to Jerusalem. It is hard to understand, though, the purpose of the visit when considering his achievements that the chapter conveys. They were not urgent enough for Nehemiah to come back without his taking a rest in Persia. Several proposals have been advanced to answer these questions. For instance, there has been a proposal to see the chapter as significant and theologically intended by the author. Another was on the "remember formula" put forward by Williamson who understood on the context of the Nehemiah's memoir. The last was a historical study of Sanballat and Tobiah, which helps us to comprehend the political context of the Nehemiah 13. These proposals, however, offer, at most, limited answers to our questions. Nehemiah stayed 12 years for his first visit to Jerusalem. But the book hardly mention what Nehemiah did for such a long time after finishing the wall rebuilding. Nehemiah 13 gives us a clue to suppose what he performed during the period, and for what he aimed and reformed during the second visit. From our study of the chapter it is disclosed that Nehemiah's mission was to keep the priests in check and to support the Levites who were their opponents. This view is confirmed by the remember formula which appears in the last verse of each section. From the discussion above we may conclude that Nehemiah 13 is not an appendix but plays an important role to shed a light on the political context of Nehemiah 13.

A Socio-Political Rhetoric Study of Hosea’s Marriage Metaphor

Park Kyung-Sik | 2018, 24(2) | pp.62~92 | number of Cited : 7

PDF

The Equivocality of Psalm 80: From Communal Lament to Royal Psalm

Keun Jo Ahn | 2018, 24(2) | pp.93~117 | number of Cited : 0

PDF

The purpose of this paper is to delve into the equivocality of Psalm 80. It has been discussed that psalm 80 is a communal lament derived from the Northern Tribal cultic settings. However, verses 16 and 18(MT versification) demonstrate evident expressions of Messianic terms such as “the one at your right hand” or “the son of man strengthened by God” which must have been used in Southern Kingdom in relation to the Davidic Covenant. How does a psalm contain both traditions of Northern and Southern Kingdom? Also, what does “the son of man” whom God strengthens signify? Is he the king of Northern or Southern monarchy? Or is he the future Messiah who will rebuild the whole Israelite community? In order to respond these questions the paper first discuss the characteristics of equivocality of psalm 80. Due to the complicated history of literary transmissions of the psalm, the text displays a complexity that any specific methodology of interpretation could dissolve. That is why this paper utilizes a literary-canonical criticism to exegete the text. Because the literary critical perspective regards the text as it is. It considers the contradictions and disparities of a text as a signal for some changes in the literary context resulting in new meanings for each canonical community. Second, the structure of the third Book of Psalm which is composed of 17 psalms has been analyzed. We have found that the 17 psalms form a chiasmus centering psalm 81, which in the only communal praise in the third corpus. Our text psalm 80 includes the central psalm 81 with the other pair of psalm 82. It is surprising that both psalm 80 and 82 emerge as “Royal Psalms.” It demands that the psalm 80 should be read as in the royal psalms instead of communal psalms. Third, the doublet of verses 16 and 18 have been interpreted by a rhetorical critical methods. Even though the two verses seem to be miswritten in repetition, the literary context shows an intentional significant change of the meaning of “the stock” in verse 16. As the word is changed from “son”(!B) in 16 to “son of man”(~d"a'-!B) in 18, the meaning of the vine in is transformed from Israelite community to future messianic king. Finally, it mentions about three messianic points that the psalm 80 signifies. They are its relationships with the Nathan oracle in 2 Samuel 7, with the concept of Saviour in the future and with “the One who is right side of God” in Psalm 110:1. The paper is concluded with two points. One is that the literary-canonical reading is an appropriate interpretative tool to elucidate the equivocal meanings of psalm 80. The other one is that the future study of psalm 80 should be concerned with a deeper level of investigations on the tradition of the “Son of Man” in relation to psalms 8, 89, 110 and other prophetic literature as well as Daniel 7.

The Historiography and the Prayer of Nehemiah 9

WOO Sang-Hyuk | 2018, 24(2) | pp.118~142 | number of Cited : 3

PDF

Power of Biblical Interpretation and Biblical Interpretation of Power: A Critical Reflection on the Reformation Slogan, ‘Sola Scriptura’

Taek Joo Woo | 2018, 24(2) | pp.144~174 | number of Cited : 3

PDF

Revisiting the Canonization of the Old Testament at Yavneh

junghwa Choi | 2018, 24(2) | pp.176~200 | number of Cited : 0

PDF

Archaeological Research on Jerusalem of the Old Testament Period

Hoo-Goo Kang | 2018, 24(2) | pp.202~225 | number of Cited : 5

PDF

Since Donald Trump’s proclamation on December 6, 2017 that Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Israel, it gained again the political focus of the people around the world. His announcement raised a question “Whose city is Jerusalem?” and it usherd in another question “Whose city was Jerusalem?” This paper is aimed at giving an answer to the second question, based on archaeological results from previous and ongoing expeditions to Jerusalem and concluded as following: (1) albeit intensive research, archaeological remains of periods of the Old Testament at Jerusalem is in scarcity. Thus, it is hard to reconstruct the life and culture of the city based only on archaeological source and necessary to take into account on historical as well as biblical sources in critical positions. (2) the fact that the material culture of Jerusalem as well as historical documents indicate the Canaanites settled down in the city of Jerusalem before the Israelites came teaches us that Jerusalem was originally of the Canaanite. The biblical accounts do not negate it. On the contrary to the other cases, the name of Jerusalem is not given to the Israelites from God. Instead, it was renamed as the city of David after he conquered. (3) From the archaeological perspective, it is certain that material culture of Jerusalem was changed from that of the Canaanite to of the Israelite. There is no direct, however, archaeological evidence to display with certainty when the change occurred. If it did somewhere in the 10th century BCE, the Israelites did not reject the material culture of the Canaanites but rather admitted. (4) the size of the city of Jerusalem has been changed throughout history. Such a change is originated from historical events rather than change of social organizations. Even so, the main water source, Gihon spring, has never been excluded in the biblical periods. (5) material culture of Jerusalem yielded the informations that it was not isolated but had broad and wide relations with Egypt, Phoenia, Cyprus as well as the region of the Red Sea. Potteries such as Ashdod Ware found in recent excavations indicates that in spite of hatred relationship, the Israelites had communicated with the Philistine. (6) stepped stone structure in Area G and large stone structure uncovered right above it as well as inscriptions found in Ophel expedition lead us to assume that Jerusalem could be the capital of the nation already in the 10th century BCE. Thus, the minimalist’s approach to material culture of Jerusalem taken by so called “Low Chronology” advocators is not so convincing to reconstruct the history of the Israelite.

KJCKorea
Journal Central

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

2018, Vol.24, No.2