Jeremy Thompson Catholic PhD in Biblical Languages, Programmer, Runner

I was pointed to this link a while back by Chris Brady on his blog Targuman. It is a very different (but fun) version of the 10 Commandments. Timothy McSweeney has put together what the 10 Commandments would have looked like had God texted them. Can you decipher them?

I have been away from blogging on the lectionary readings for a couple of days (busy week at work). I sat down to look at the Old Testament reading for today and bam – The Decalogue. Impossible not to post on that. Then, I started thinking … “The” Decalogue. Is this a proper name for this passage in Exodus 20?

One of the important exercises that I had students do when teaching the Pentateuch was to have them compare versions of the commandments side-by-side. Many beginning readers of the Old Testament do not realize that there are at least three versions of these commandments. The first set is here in Exodus 20 from which we get today’s reading. The second version is in Exodus 34 and the third in Deuteronomy 5. The two sets in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 are very close to one another, but not exactly the same. For instance, the Sabbath has a different motivation in each and the last commandments have a slightly different structure. However, the version in Exodus 34, often referred to as the Cultic Decalogue (or something like that), is very different. Yet there are enough connections to think that this is another version of the Decalogue (see vv. 14, 17, 21).

Why not try this exercise for yourself? Read the passages in Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5, and Exodus 34 and see what you think? What are the similarities? What are the differences? What do these say about the different authors?

Kudos to Rob Kashow at Tolle Lege! (I found it through John Anderson at hesed we’emet) for finding this! It is a full version of the old International Critical Commentary series online. They are publishing new commentaries and the old ones are out of copyright. The uptake for you is that the older ones are all online for free in pdf format. Obviously some of the information in these texts will be outdated, but there is still an abundance of good material in them. This link will definitely be making its way onto my website and to my e-mail list (be sure to join so you can keep up to date on things like this). Thanks again John.

Update – Here’s a link to the Exodus volume.

Did anyone see that movie Signs with Mel Gibson in it? If so, there is not much reason for watching Knowing (unless you really, really liked Signs). The whole time I was watching it I kept thinking, “This is just like that movie Signs.”

At any rate, there is a very loose Old Testament connection in the movie.  I say loose because the movie revolves around prophecies.  There is even a reference to the prophet Ezekiel (and 1 Corinthians 12 for you New Testament folks).  However, that is about where the connections end because the conception of prophecy in the movie is one of precise prediction of future events down to the latitude and longitude at which they will happen.  And, this is nothing like what Old Testament prophecy is like.  With that said, if you are ever interested in a movie to depict what modern popular culture thinks prophecy is, so that you can move into a discussion of what prophecy is not, this might be a good one.

If you feel like you must see this film, rent it.  Do not buy it.

Anyone else seen this film? Would love to hear your comments:

I’ve noticed a bunch of these “Seven Blogs I Read Most” posts lately. It looks like the posts started with number one in the list below. Most of the blogs listed on these pages are related to Biblical Studies, both Old and New Testaments. If you are interested, check out the lists on the links below. I’ve subscribed to a number of RSS Feeds today just from checking out the links within these posts:

1 John Anderson
2 Bryan Bibb
3 G. Brooke Lester
4 Chris Heard

In today’s responsive reading (which comes from Exodus 15 rather than Psalms), the Exodus is presented as a Type of creation. This is suggested by verse 5 of the chapter, which reads “The floods/deeps covered them.” The word “deeps” is the same word from Genesis 1 where darkness is over the “deep.” In both scenarios, something important happens in relation to a watery chaos. WIth this link back to creation, it is beneficial to think of the Exodus as the creation of something new. Scholars have noted that this is the creation of a nation. Whereas Israel goes down into Egypt as a family, they come out as a nation.

This is just one of a number of links between other Old Testament events and creation.  For further examination of these types of links within the Old Testament, check out:

This book can also be read with a subscription to Questia. An annual subscription to this service is actually less expensive than this text. Check out a free trial below:

Last night I stayed up reading and thinking for a little while, and I decided to look ahead at today’s Old Testament readings (Ex 14:21-15:1). I am not sure why exactly I was struck by this again last night, but for whatever reason I was struck by just how matter-of-factly Biblical stories are told sometimes. I am thinking here particularly of verse 23: “The Egyptians followed in pursuit…” No deliberation, no anything, just followed in pursuit. There is no Egyptian perspective whatsoever. So, I tried to think of some funny things that some of the Egyptians could have thought or said to one another if some Hollywood style comic relief were added to the story. And, here is what I came up with for some dialogue between one Egyptian soldier and another as they looked on at the sea that had been parted (please forgive my brutally terrible sense of humor):

1 “Dude, … I don’t know if this is such a good idea.” (serious)
2 “Who is this pharaoh guy anyway?” (might only work for modern Biblical scholars)
3 “Wouldn’t it be funny if all that water just fell down on top of those slaves?” (ironic)
4 “No, you go ahead I’ll be right behind you.” (Scooby-Dooish)
5 Not really dialogue, but one soldier could have pushed another into the wall of water just to see what would happen. Would it be more like a waterfall? Or, would the soldier be sucked up like some kind of vortex?

Of course, we do not get any of this type of stuff, just that they went in, every last one of them (vs. 28) without question or deliberation. I maybe should not make light of a story where a whole army dies, but I guess it helps that I am not a fundamentalist with regard to historical details. Anyway, what do you think? What could have made for some good hollywood type one liners here?

In today’s reading (Ex. 14.5-18) we find a potential example of what is referred to as redaction, which is basically another word for editing. It looks like there may have been two sources for this particular story that were combined together by an editor. This can be seen in an abrupt shift that takes place. I will briefly trace out the story line:

Pharaoh decides that he has made a mistake by letting the Israelites go and chooses to pursue them. The Israelites are afraid and cry out to God and against Moses. Moses answers the people with this reply

Do not be afraid, stand firm, and see the deliverance that the Lord will accomplish for you today; for the Egyptians whom you see today you shall never see again. The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to keep still.

Next, is where it looks like redaction has taken place. The Lord says to Moses “Why do you cry out to me?” Where did that come from? Moses is not crying out to the Lord. In fact, Moses seems pretty confident in the previous verses that the Lord will deliver the people, so much so, that he tells them not to be afraid and to stand firm. Another option might be that Moses is feigning confidence in the preceding verses, but still where does Moses crying out to the Lord come from. It is nowhere in the text. It seems more natural to say that here we may have two sources that are combined to make one story.

For other examples of redaction in the Pentateuch, you might check the text below which has a significant amount of material devoted to the topic:

Form critical scholars who have studied the prophetic books have identified a number of common forms of prophetic speech. Today’s reading from Jeremiah 23.1-6 is an example of a prophetic “Woe Oracle.” These oracles begin with the Hebrew word that is translated “woe,” and there are strings of these types of oracles in places like Isaiah 5 (or in the NT Matthew 23). However, this is not the most interesting aspect of the woe oracle.

What is most interesting about these oracles is that scholars propose that they originated in the context of funerals.  The added meaning gained from this fact should be readily apparent.  When the prophet pronounces a woe oracle it is as if he is pronouncing the death of those who are the aim of his speech.  In the case of Jeremiah 23.1-6, this adds to the meaning of the phrase “I will attend to you for your evil doings” (NRSV 23.2).  So, pronouncing “Woe to the shepherds” is far more than saying “shame on you.”  It is pronouncing a judgment of death over them.

For more on the forms of prophetic speech check out:

I wanted to post this earlier but was unable. I hope that it will still prove useful for some. This is an excerpt from Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI’s Introduction to Christianity in which he deals with today’s Old Testament lectionary reading from Exodus 3. It is one of my favorite passages in the book:

Since YHWH, as we have seen, is explained as the “God of our fathers”, the YHWH-faith automatically absorbs the whole context of the faith of Israel’s fathers, though this context at the same time acquires a new coherence and a new look. But what is the specifically new element expressed by the name “YHWH”? The answers to this question are numerous; the precise meanings of the formulas in Exodus 3 can no longer be ascertained with certainty. Nevertheless, two aspects emerge clearly. We have already established that to our way of thinking the mere fact that God bears a name, and thereby appears as a kind of individual is a scandal. But if we look more closely at the text we are considering the question arises: Is it, properly speaking, really a name? … God replied: “I am who I am”. The words could also be translated, “I am what I am”. This looks like a rebuff; it seems much more like a refusal to give a name than the announcement of a name. In the whole scene there is a sense of displeasure at such importunity: I am just who I am ….

I think the present pope captures here something very important about the divine name in Exodus 3. On the one hand, by giving Moses his name, YHWH appears somewhat like an individual and a personal God. On the other hand, by having the name come in the form of rebuff, it displays that, though YHWH is a personal God, he is still transcendent.