Until recently, iPad-using Hebraists had no good options for typing Hebrew with vowels on the aforementioned iPads. Apple provides a Hebrew keyboard for the iPad, but it does not include the נְקֻדּוֹת. Recently, however, third-party developer Žiga Kranjec released Unicode Maps, an app with an unattractive name but a very attractive function. Unicode Maps allows you to look up and copy any Unicode glyph available on the iPad. Even better, you can create your own customized keyboard and type—but only on a notepad within Unicode Maps—using that keyboard.

 

With “Sacred Techs” we wanted to bring together information focused upon using technology in the real of biblical and ancient studies. It will be periodically updated, on a monthly basis at the least, with articles and interviews on various topics around this general theme. We are very hopeful that others will be willing to contribute to the site, there are many within the world of online ancient studies who are very (and more) adept in these areas, many who are creating the very technology that we will be reviewing, citing, and discussing. This is particularly true if you use something other than Apple products and MacOS, iOS, or Android software. It is not that we are prejudiced against other platforms, but the reality is that Robert and I both tend to use those products and platforms. If you are interested in contributing please drop us a line or leave a comment!

So welcome to Sacred Techs and stay tuned for what we hope will be a great year. First up on the podcast (see below!) is an introductory discussion and then we will follow up with a few interviews from 2011 SBL. Be sure to let us know whom you would like to hear us interview and what products you would like reviewed or compared.

@Targuman @sacredtechs @xkv8r Here’s one. How can Bible software help non-experts evaluate translations as never before? Long term effects?

 

Be sure to pick it up at SBL!

 

needs to know not only Hellenistic Greek, but more than a smattering of Aramaic, Hebrew (including Rabbinic Hebrew), Syriac, Coptic and Latin.

And if you are interested in Hebrew Bible, well let’s just say you better put your linguistic cap on.

A serious student will know Hebrew, Aramaic, Hellenistic Greek, Akkadian including peripheral Akkadian, Ugaritic, Phoenician, Egyptian, and Classical Greek. I think they also need know Hittite.

All of this glossolalia got me thinking about the fact that none of the authors of the NT or the HB knew all or likely even more than three of these languages. Most likely only knew a couple, which is still more than most people today, I will grant you that. But does Duane or any of us really think that the author of Ruth, for example, Akkadian or Ugaritic or Phoenician? Do we really think they knew historical grammar and the development of Northwest Semitic languages? Of course not.

I understand that for us as literary scholars, historians, theologians, archaeologists and the like we need to know a far greater breadth and depth than the author’s whose works we study. Often they are influenced in ways they were unaware of and that is often grist for our scholarly mill. Each scholar takes a different tack based upon our interests and training, some linguistic and others theological, and to investigate those niches we need specialized tools.

But it might just be worthwhile sometimes to remember the original context and the limitations and expectations of the author and his/her audience.

 

Two recent articles from well-respected news agencies have included fallacious details about the relationship between Hebrew and Aramaic. The first described the Aramaic dialect spoken in the first century of the Common Era as “a language which developed from the classical Hebrew of the scriptures, a few hundred years earlier,” and the second claimed that Aramaic is “the linguistic root of modern day Hebrew and Arabic.”

So which one is it? Is Aramaic the root of Hebrew or did Aramaic develop from Hebrew? The answer, of course, is neither. Although they may be related by a shared lineage, there is not a direct genetic relationship between the two. That is to say, one did not derive from the other. Pete Bekins irascibly assimilates these two absurd statements with the tongue-in-check proposal that “Classical Hebrew developed into Aramaic which then morphed back into Modern Hebrew and Arabic.

via DailyHebrew.com » The Genetic Relationship of Aramaic & Hebrew.

 

Ruth 4:13
‏וַיִּקַּח בֹּעַז אֶת־רוּת וַתְּהִי־לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיה
So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. When they came together…

Really? Yes, it was consensual and I firmly read the Book of Ruth as having strong female roles, but they don’t need the help of the translator.

 

This morning I awoke to find my good friend John Hobbins, who is an excellent linguist, writing about Translation. My translation of TgRuth should be done later today. Look for it here!

Turning now to the languages of the Bible: the bulk of the Bible is written in a vernacular: ancient Hebrew. Never mind that standard biblical Hebrew in particular was also, quite probably, a lingua franca relative to spoken dialects of Hebrew, regional or otherwise, in the late First through Second Temple periods, in the land of Israel and (as time went on, very importantly) in the diasporas of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic periods. The point here: at the same time, and of utmost importance relative to the cultural confrontation of which ethnoi then and now are vehicles, standard biblical Hebrew was a vernacular.

Not just the content expressed in “classical” Hebrew, but the written language per se, form part of an anti-colonial project, in opposition to the culture and propaganda of which (the neo-Assyrian version of) “standard Babylonian” was the vehicle – assuming that (some of) the scribes who gave us the Bible were literate in that language and the “course” or curriculum to which it gave expression (the thesis of people like David Wright and Bernard M. Levinson); in opposition to (content expressed in) the more pervasive (and perhaps less insidious, though one should never forget Jeremiah 10:11, to be read in strict conjunction with Ps 82) the more widely used (and still often unknown, or poorly known) lingua franca of the Assyrian empire, Aramaic. These facts form part of the background of a comment like that found in Isaiah 36:11 and the style-switching that Gary Rendsburg has noted.1 On “the invention of Hebrew,” on Hebrew as a vernacular and vehicle for culture expressive of oppositional political theory (a theology), see the volume by Seth Sanders of that title, introduced here.

Still don’t understand why the difference between a lingua franca and a vernacular is a big deal? Try this article on for size, by Tim Parks (HT Charles Halton for the link). The title alone is worth the price of admission: “Your English is Showing.”

via Why biblical literature resists translation – Ancient Hebrew Poetry.

 

The clouds give greater prominence to words that appear more frequently in the source text.

A few limitations for biblical studies is obvious: (1) I am using English translations. In this case NRSV and my own of TgLam. (Wordle will do Hebrew, however, so I should try that too. (2) This is just an approximation. The size of a word is based upon its frequency, but the images are evocative and point to real data.

All of this is reminiscent of my very first paper and article (“Targum Lamentations 1:1-4: A Theological Prologue,”) in which I did a very simple word count to see how many words the targumist had added to the opening four verses of Lamentations relative to the other verses in TgLam. The results were indicative that something was going on there. The article (and later, my book) get at just what that is.

So let’s look at the word clouds and make a few observations.

“The LORD” stands out in both (all) word clouds and with good reason. The term occurs throughout the text. While Lamentations descries the horrible atrocities of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, the poet refuses to not engage God. The cry, lament, and accusation all are directed to the LORD. That does not change in the targum, in fact it gets even more insistent.

Now, notice that “daughter” (בת) is prominent in the biblical text. In the targum we find “congregation” (כנשתא). This is because the targumist has consistently (but not exclusively) translated the Hebrew בת with כנשתא. The effect, as I have written elsewhere is to remove the poetic “daughter Jerusalem” with the more prosaic yet profoundly person “congregation of Israel.”¹ What was an oblique reference to the citizens of the once great city is now an address to those seated in the synagogue, in the congregation, hearing these texts read on Tisha b’Av. Instead of a tedious recitation about something that happened long ago and far away, it is now about you and me, about us and our relationship with God.

Of course these observations came after quite a lot of actual reading of the texts. But it is interesting to see, quite literally, it present in the texts before us. (Be sure to click through to see the English word clouds as well.)

Lamentations - Accordance Module

Targum Lamentations - Accordance Module

Lamentations - NRSV

Targum Lamentations - trans. by CMM Brady

 

1. As with all biblical poetry, Lamentations is rendered as prose. This is something I termed “prosaic expansion,” but was first observed in publication by Moshe Bernstein with regards to TgPss.

You know I like wordle.net so here is the Book of Lamentations and below is Targum Lamentations.

Great Is Thy Faithfulness: Reading Lamentations as Sacred Scripture

Introduction—Robin A. Parry and Heath A. Thomas / xi

1 “Holy Scripture” and Hermeneutics: Lamentations in Critical and Theological Reflection—Heath A. Thomas / 1

2 Outrageous Demonstrations of Grace: The Theology of Lamentations —Paul R. House / 26

Soundings in Jewish Reception History

A Lamentations in Isaiah 40–55—Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer / 55

B The Character and Significance of LXX Lamentations —Kevin J. Youngblood / 64

C Targum Lamentations—Christian M. M. Brady / 70

D Lamentations Rabbati—Jacob Neusner / 77

E Introduction to Rashi’s Commentary on Lamentations —Mayer I. Gruber / 83

F Lamentations in Jewish Liturgy—Elsie R. Stern / 88

G Lamentations in Modern Jewish Thought—Zachary Braiterman / 92

Soundings in Messianic Jewish Reception History

H Holocaust Theology in the Light of Yeshua? Messianic Jewish

Reception of Eikah—Richard Harvey / 101

Soundings in Christian Reception History

I Lamentations in the Patristic Period—Heath A. Thomas / 113

J Christian Interpretation of Lamentations in the Middle Ages —David S. Hogg / 120

K John Calvin’s Interpretation of Lamentations—Pete Wilcox / 125

L Lamentations for the Lord: Great and Holy Friday in the Greek Orthodox Church—Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou / 131

M Lamentations and Christian Worship —Andrew Cameron-Mowat SJ / 139

Soundings in Artistic and Contemporary Reception

N Musical Responses to Lamentations—F. Jane Schopf / 147

O Lamentations in Rembrandt van Rijn: “Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalem”—Heath A. Thomas / 154

P Psychological Approaches to Lamentations—Paul M. Joyce / 161 Q Feminist Interpretation(s) of Lamentations—Heath A. Thomas / 166

3 Wrestling with Lamentations in Christian Worship—Robin A. Parry / 175

4 Confession and Complaint: Christian Pastoral Reflections on Lamentations—Ian Stackhouse / 198

Appendix 1: A Translation of LXX Lamentations—Kevin J. Youngblood / 211

Appendix 2: A Translation of Targum Lamentations —Christian M. M. Brady / 228

Appendix 3: Lamentations Rabbati on Lamentations 3:1–21 —Jacob Neusner / 248

Appendix 4: Rashi on Lamentations 3:1–21 / 264

Appendix 5: Calvin on Lamentations 3:1–23 / 267

 

Targum Ruth 2:4

This has always bothered me…

So tell me, how would you translate הנה (biblical Hebrew) or הא (Aramaic) into “modern” English? Ignoring it, as some are wont to do, seems to be lying to hiding something from the reader and using “just then,” as the NRSV, seems to convey something other than that intended. See Ruth 2:4.