Heb Exeg I_Course Syllabus_Fall 13_revised.pdf

O T 6 0 3 H E B R E W E X E G E S I S I

C O U R S E S Y L L A B U S

Prepared by William D. Barrick, Th.D.

The Master’s Seminary

Sun Valley, California

Fall 2013

1.0 Course Description

This two-semester course (OT603 and OT604) prepares the student for independent

exegesis of the Hebrew text. It emphasizes techniques involved in the use of language

tools, procedures in lexical word studies, and examination of grammatical and syntactical

phenomena. Prerequisites: OT503 and OT504.

Course materials and assignments related to select Hebrew Bible texts include the

study of the following subject areas relating to Hebrew exegesis:

OT603 OT604

principles of translation

syntactical analysis—Hebrew grammar

and syntax

diagrammatical analysis

textual analysis—OT textual criticism

lexical analysis—Hebrew philology,

semantics, and lexicography

literary analysis—OT literary devices,

structure, and forms

ancient near eastern (hereafter, ANE)

backgrounds (historical/political,

social/cultural, geographical)

exposition

2.0 Curriculum Statements

2.1 TMS Curriculum Statement

TMS exists to equip godly men to be pastors and/or trainers of pastors for service to

Christ in strategic fields of Christian ministry through an educational program and an

Barrick, Hebrew Exegesis I: Course Syllabus OT603 2

TMS—Fall 2013

environment of spiritual fellowship and relationships which emphasize unreserved

commitment to the worship of God, submission to the authority of the Scriptures, a life

of personal holiness, the priority of the local church, and the mission of penetrating the

world with the Truth.

2.2 Master of Divinity Program

The Master of Divinity Program is designed to provide a broad biblical theological understanding, personal growth, and professional preparation for church or mission vocations requiring ordination.

In order to accomplish the M.Div. curriculum statement, the faculty has identified the following Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs):

PLO #1: As a future elder, pastor, missionary or educator, comprehend the significant areas of Biblical Interpretation, Biblical Languages, Christian Theology and Pastoral ministry.

PLO #2: As a future elder/pastor, construct a personal philosophy of ministry with application to the desired vocational goals.

PLO #3: As a future teacher of the Scripture, synthesize the input of Biblical languages, Bible backgrounds and theological constructs to preach and teach the Bible to varied age levels and abilities within any ministry context.

PLO #4: As a future spiritual leader, exhibit the disciplines of holiness, prayer, and compassion required for ministry.

2.3 Division of OT Studies

The Division of OT Studies is designed to advance critical thinking skills in linguistic, exegetical and apologetical aspects of Old Testament study and to promote growth in disciplined habits for ongoing independent study of the Old Testament.

In order to accomplish the Division of OT Studies curriculum statement, the OT faculty has identified the following Division Learning Outcomes (DLOs):

DLO #1: As a translator, demonstrate competency with vocabulary, basic grammar, and standard tools to translate simple biblical Hebrew texts.

DLO #2: As a scholar, implement a sound research methodology to interpret the Hebrew Bible.

DLO #3: As an exegete, produce an exegetical project reflecting accuracy in critical thinking and writing.

DLO #4: As an expositor, write a sermon combining accurate translation and exegesis of the Hebrew text with reliable practical and theological implications.

Required courses in Hebrew Grammar, Hebrew Exegesis, and OT Introduction are

designed to accomplish these purposes.

Hebrew Grammar I & II (OT503/504):

Demonstrate mastery of basic Hebrew vocabulary.

Understand key grammatical and syntactical features.

Translate from major literary types with use of basic aids.


TMS—Fall 2013

Hebrew Exegesis I & II (OT603/604):

Syntactically analyze Hebrew phrases and sentences.

Identify key witnesses involved in OT textual criticism.

Exegete a Hebrew text within its context according to the methodology presented in the course.

OT Introduction (OT796):

Defend OT inspiration, inerrancy, and canonicity.

Understand key aspects of biblical geography.

Introduce Ancient Near Eastern and Israelite history.

Define role of archaeology in OT studies.

Describe types of OT criticism, their problems, and contributions to OT studies.

Outline past and present trends in OT studies.

3.0 Course Rationale

Exegesis is the primary task of the student of biblical literature. It is best learned by

being exercised. Classroom reading, homework assignments, and discussion of selected

texts will provide an atmosphere for learning the specific principles involved in exegeting

the Hebrew Scriptures.

4.0 Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)

This research course will engage the student with the text of the Hebrew Bible. The

learning outcomes for this course are as follows:

SLO #1: The student will be able to demonstrate a mastery of basic Hebrew

vocabulary and grammar through translation of the major literary genres of the

Hebrew Bible. (See DLO #1.)

SLO #2: The student will be able to begin outlining the principles of Hebrew

exegesis in the exegesis of a Hebrew text within its context (completed spring

semester). (See DLO ##2 and 3.)

SLO #3: The student will be able to produce a logical (block) diagram of a text

based upon its syntactical analysis. (See DLO ##1, 2, and 3.)

SLO #4: The student will be able to perform adequate lexical analysis of key

words in the Hebrew text. (See DLO ##1, 2, and 3.)

5.0 Course Alignment Grid

SLO #1 SLO #2 SLO #3 SLO #4

Translation Assignments X

Textbook Reading X X X

Exegetical Paper #1 – Syntactical X X

Exegetical Paper #2 – Diagrammatical X X

Exegetical Paper #3 – Text Critical X X

Exegetical Paper #4 – Lexical X X X


TMS—Fall 2013

6.0 Portfolio Assignments in the Division of OT Studies

Students in the Division of OT Studies must submit a total of five (5) portfolio

assignments that will provide objective evidence that each student has satisfactorily

fulfilled the Student Learning Outcomes. These portfolio assignments provide the means

of assessment and become a permanent part of the student’s academic records. Courses

require more than just portfolio assignments in order to accomplish their objectives. The

following list of OT assignments must be in a student’s portfolio prior to graduation,

which is dependent upon their satisfactory completion:

DLOs Assessment Indicators Courses 1. As a translator, demonstrate

competency with vocabulary, basic grammar, and standard tools to translate simple biblical Hebrew texts.

OT Narrative Translation

OT Poetry/Prophetic Translation

OT504

OT603

2. As a scholar, implement a sound research methodology to interpret the Hebrew Bible.

OT Introduction Project OT796

3. As an exegete, produce an exegetical project reflecting accuracy in critical thinking and writing.

Syntactical Analysis Paper OT603

4. As an expositor, write a sermon combining accurate translation and exegesis of the Hebrew text with reliable practical and theological implications.

Hebrew Exegesis Project OT604

7.0 Rubrics

A rubric provides an explicit set of criteria to be applied in assessing a particular type

of work or assignment. The following sets of rubrics indicate the levels of achievement

and the kind of work that typifies each level for translation and research writing

assignments. The exegetical papers rubrics cover both the writing itself and the content of

the papers (identifying all the various elements involved in the series of papers).

The following pages display the various grading rubrics to be applied to assignments

for OT 603 Hebrew Exegesis I.

7.1 Rubric for Translation Assignments

Criteria Unacceptable

Lacking basics.

Basic

Adequate, but more

is expected at this

level.

Proficient

Well-informed and

skillfully executed.

Exemplary

Worthy to be

imitated.

Vocabulary

Comprehension

Major errors in recognition. Poor

glosses. Substantial confusion of similar

terms.

Minor errors in recognition.

Acceptable glosses. Some confusion of

similar terms.

Occasional errors in recognition. Accu-rate glosses. Virtu-

ally no confusion of similar terms.

Excellent recogni-tion. Superb glosses.

No confusion of similar terms.


TMS—Fall 2013

Translation Cannot discern

proper relationships between words and phrases. Inaccuracy

in parsing. Skips several words in each

sentence.

Discerns most relationships between words and phrases.

Most parsing is accurate. Skips only an occasional word.

Accurate discernment of rela-tionships between

words and phrases. Accurate parsing. No skipping of words.

But, translation lacks smoothness and is

overly literal.

Accurate discernment of rela-tionships between

words and phrases. Accurate parsing. No skipped words. Full, smooth, idiomatic,

and accurate translation.

7.2 Rubric for Exegetical Paper Assignments—Writing


Lacking basics.

Basic

Adequate, but more

is expected at this

level.

Proficient

Well-informed and


Exemplary

Worthy to be

imitated.

Writing Style

and Format

Regular and widespread violations

of the Style Guide. Poor sentence and

paragraph construction.

Largely adheres to the Style Guide, a few

minor errors. Writing is essentially correct grammatically with good construction.

Well executed in terms of style. Grammar and syntax commensurate

with graduate level work. Varied vocabu-

lary and use of technical terms.

Well executed in terms of style. Excellent grammar, superior

vocabulary and use of technical terminology.

Evidence of

Graduate or

Post-

Graduate

Research

Uses only the most basic resources, evidencing only

rudimentary research.

Good use of basic research tools, but

largely nothing beyond basics. Little evidence of a probing research

ethic.

Clear evidence of probing research. Excellent use of

periodical literature and other front line

materials.

Obviously thorough and detailed research.

Excellent use of materials from all genres which are

pertinent to the paper.

Organiza-

tion of

Material and

Argumen-

tation

Poorly organized, structure lacks clarity.

Generally a clear structure. Not detailed, but material and argu-ments are reasonably

organized.

Clear and detailed structure, follows a logical flow; cogent

arguments are well laid out and reasonably

supported.

Excellent and detailed structure of material.

Argumentation is presented in a solid, logical manner, well

documented and insightful.

Scholarly

Interaction

with

Opposing or

Differing

View(s)

Little or no interaction; does not represent

opposing view fairly or with evidence of

nuance of position.

Acknowledges & grasps opposing

view(s) & arguments and makes an attempt

at interaction.

Clearly understands opposing views and

arguments. Clear interaction with

material.

Firm grasp of all views on the topic. Clear,

insightful, and detailed interaction with all

views while defending the paper.

Coherence

and Logic of

Conclu-

sion(s)

Conclusions presented are self-evident or

lacking evidence of thought or conviction.

Logical fallacies are evident in the conclusion.

Generally a clearly presented but unremarkable

conclusion. Minimal problems of logic or

coherence.

A clear and coherent presentation. A

thoroughly thought-out and logically presented

conclusion.

Demonstrates compelling grasp of material makes an

excellent presentation. Makes a clear and

compelling conclusion.

Contribu-

tion to the

Topic or

Field

Fails to fully summarize or

contribute insights to the topic or field of

study.

Provides a good summary of views

within topic or field. Minimally advances the

discussion.

Has points of contribution, with

refinement could have chapters worthy of

publishing.

Significant, insightful contribution to the discussion; a paper

worthy of publication in all or part.


TMS—Fall 2013

7.3 Rubric for Exegetical Paper Assignments—Content


Lacking basics.

Basic

Adequate, but more

is expected at this

level.

Proficient

Well-informed and


Exemplary

Worthy to be

imitated.

Translation Cannot discern proper relationships between words and phrases. Inaccuracy

in parsing. Skips several words in each

sentence.

Discerns most relationships between words and phrases.

Most parsing is accurate. Skips only an occasional word.

Accurate discern-ment of relationships between words and phrases. Accurate

parsing. No skipped words. But, transla-tion lacks smooth-ness and is overly

literal.

Accurate discern-ment of relationships between words and phrases. Accurate

parsing. No skipped words. Full, smooth, idiomatic, and accu-

rate translation.

Syntactical Analysis Cannot identify the most basic elements of Hebrew grammar.

Very little under-standing of gram-

matical relationships.

Grasps only the most basic elements of Hebrew grammar.

Some understanding of grammatical relationships.

Grasps basic elements of Hebrew grammar. Discerns most grammatical

relationships.

Full knowledge of all elements of Hebrew grammar. Excellent under-standing of

grammatical relationships.

Diagrammatical

Analysis

Fails to preserve Hebrew word order.

Does not indicate proper diagramming

of dependent and independent clauses

or phrases. Improper treatment of dialog.

Usually preserves Hebrew word order. Occasional correct diagramming of de-pendent and inde-pendent clauses or phrases. Some re-

cognition of dialog.

Preserves Hebrew word order. Mostly correct diagramming

of dependent and independent clauses

or phrases. Clear recognition of dialog.

Never violates Hebrew word order.

Always correctly diagrams dependent

and independent clauses or phrases.

Always includes boxes around dialog

and dialog within dialog.

Exegesis Exhibits a very lim-ited understanding of

exegetical signifi-cance of grammatical

elements.

Displays some understanding of the

exegetical signifi-cance of the most basic grammatical

elements.

Demonstrates an accurate under-standing of the

exegetical signifi-cance of most gram-

matical elements.

Always demonstrates an accurate under-standing of every grammatical ele-ment’s exegetical

significance.

Textual Analysis

[TCA = Text-critical

apparatus;

Mp = Masorah

parva]

Inaccurately tran-scribes TCA and

Mp. Fails to properly identify text-critical symbols and abbre-

viations. Fails to understand textual

problem.

Mostly accurate in transcribing TCA and Mp. Properly identifies 70+% of

text-critical symbols, abbreviations, and Mp. Shows some understanding of textual problems.

Rarely inaccurate in transcribing TCA and Mp. Properly identifies 90+% of

text-critical symbols, abbreviations, and Mp. Usually under-

stands textual problems.

Total accuracy in transcribing TCA and Mp. Properly identifies all text-critical symbols,

abbreviations, and Mp. Demonstrates understanding of textual problems.

Lexical Analysis Makes poor choices of words for lexical analysis. Inadequate

identification of contextual factors.

Fails to use adequate resources accurately.

Chooses words for lexical analysis with reasonable expecta-tion of being a key

word. Some identifi-cation of contextual factors. Normally uses adequate re-

sources accurately.

Chooses only key words for lexical analysis. Rarely

misses the identifi-cation of contextual factors. Always uses adequate resources

accurately.

Chooses the most significant of the key

words for lexical analysis. Properly

and accurately iden-tifies contextual fac-

tors. Always uses the best resources with complete accuracy.


TMS—Fall 2013

8.0 Textbooks [Not yet conformed to Turabian’s 8th edition.]

8.1 Required Textbooks (*marks required reading)

*Brotzman, Ellis R. Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction.

Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994.

*Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to

Using Biblical Hebrew. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of

the Old Testament. 2 volumes. Revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann

Jakob Stamm. Translated and edited by M. E. J. Richardson. New York: Brill,

1994–2000.

Elliger, Karl, and W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5th edition.

New York: American Bible Society, 1997.

8.2 Recommended Textbooks

Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Holladay, William L. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old

Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1988.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for

Preaching and Teaching. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Kelley, Page H., Daniel S. Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford. The Masorah of

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998.

Long, Gary A. Grammatical Concepts 101 for Biblical Hebrew: Learning

Biblical Hebrew Grammatical Concepts through English Grammar.

Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002.

Putnam, Frederic Clarke. Hebrew Bible Insert: A Student’s Guide. 2nd edition.

Quakertown, PA: Stylus Publishing, 2002.

Scott, William R. A Simplified Guide to BHS: Critical Apparatus, Masora,

Accents, Unusual Letters & Other Markings. 4th edition. N. Richland Hills,

TX: BIBAL Press, 2007.

Silzer, Peter James, and Thomas John Finley. How Biblical Languages Work: A

Student’s Guide to Learning Hebrew and Greek. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004.


TMS—Fall 2013

9.0 COURSE SCHEDULE

WEEK TOPIC ASSIGNMENTS*

1 Aug 27

Introduction: “Course Syllabus” (all) and “Study Notes,” 41–45

Translation Principles and Practices: “Study Notes,” 46–77

Read Chisholm, 7–18

2 Sept 3

Translation Principles and Practices (continued)

Read Chisholm, 19–29 Written Translation: Gen 3:1–7

Choice of Text Due

3 Sept 10

Translation Principles and Practices (continued)

Syntactical Analysis: “Study Notes,” 78–102

Read Chisholm, 57–75 Written Translation: Gen 3:8–16

4 Sept 17

Syntactical Analysis (continued) Read Chisholm, 75–94

Written Translation: Gen 3:17–24

5 Sept 24

Syntactical Analysis (continued) Read Chisholm, 94–117

6 Oct 1

Syntactical Analysis (continued) Read Chisholm, 119–42 Written Translation: 1 Kgs 13:1–10

[PORTFOLIO]

7 Oct 8

Syntactical Analysis (continued) Diagrammatical Analysis: “Study

Notes,” 103–10

Read Chisholm, 142–86 Paper #1: Syntactical Analysis [PORTFOLIO]

8 Oct 15

Diagrammatical Analysis (continued) Read Chisholm, 187–220

9 Oct 22

Diagrammatical Analysis (continued) Text Critical Analysis: “Study Notes,”

111–17

Read Chisholm, 221–78 Read Brotzman, 17–62 Written Translation: Jer 23:15–22

10 Oct 29

Text Critical Analysis (continued) Read Brotzman, 63–106 Paper #2: Diagrammatical Analysis

11 Nov 5

Text Critical Analysis (continued) Read Brotzman, 107–32

12 Nov 12

Text Critical Analysis (continued) Lexical Analysis: “Study Notes,” 118–

27

Read Brotzman, 133–70 Paper #3: Text Critical Analysis

13 Nov 19

No Class

National ETS Meetings, Nov 19–21

Written Translation: Pss 87:1–88:1 [PORTFOLIO]

Nov 22–Dec 2 Thanksgiving Break

14 Dec 3

Lexical Analysis (continued) Paper #4: Lexical Analysis

15 Dec 10

Final Exam Week Final Exam

* Syllabus reading assignments are recorded in the “Topic” column of this schedule.

NOTE: All reading assignments are quizzable without warning.


TMS—Fall 2013

10.0 Exegetical Papers

10.1 General

An exposition of a selected text of the HB will be produced by stages throughout the

two semesters of this course. The student will be required to choose a text for this

exposition and submit a written abstract (typed and single-spaced, but without footnotes

or bibliography) in the second week of OT603. The abstract must:

(1) identify the text,

(2) specify at least one exegetical problem within the text,

(3) indicate the theological or interpretative significance of the text, and

(4) describe the expositional value of the text.

The student must choose one of the following texts for all papers in Hebrew Exegesis

I and II:

Joshua 1:6–9

Psalm 46:1–4

Zechariah 5:8–11

10.2 Paper Requirements

All papers (not including the abstract, above) must meet the following

requirements:

Instructions for each paper specify the page maximums.

Thesis format. This includes internal headings, pagination, footnotes,

introduction, conclusion, and bibliography. Please follow Kate L.

Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and

Dissertations. 8th ed., rev. by Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb,

Joseph M. Williams, and University of Chicago Press Editorial Staff

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012).

The bibliography for the fourth paper must be formal. Use bibliography

entries in this syllabus as a guideline to style. The bibliography must

contain the sources for all four papers.

Papers ##1 and 4 must begin with a working (i.e., tentative or provisional)

translation of the chosen text.

All papers must be submitted electronically and uploaded to the

Course Home Page on Joule.

All papers must be submitted on the date due. No late papers will be

accepted unless there has been a severe personal or family emergency. It is

imperative that each student discipline himself to be organized and to work

ahead rather than waiting till the week before a paper is due.

The professor reserves the right to refuse any paper that has not been

written in accord with the principles of sound Christian scholarship:

(1) Graduate level research.

(2) Honest use of sources.


TMS—Fall 2013

(3) Original thought and expression.

(4) Consistent logic.

(5) Scriptural methods of interpretation.

10.3 Specifics about Each Paper

10.3.1 Paper #1: Syntactical Analysis (see “Study Notes,” 78–102 [esp.,

89–98] and grading sheet and abbreviations for grading comments

in “Course Syllabus,” 17–19)

20 pages maximum—including separate pages as follows:

translation page and syntactical analysis page(s).

Write a brief introduction (cp. “Study Notes,” 89).

Identify (includes parsing of verbs, gender and number of nouns,

and classification of all Hebrew words) and discuss the exegetical

significance of the syntactical elements within the chosen text.

What are the interpretative implications of the syntactical elements?

Answer the question, “So what?” (See sample in “Study Notes,”

89–98.) Be certain to cover all of the syntactical issues discussed in

the Syllabus. Instead of repeating information for identical forms or

words, refer back to your first treatment.

Write a brief summary or conclusion (cp. “Study Notes,” 98).

10.3.2 Paper #2: Diagrammatical Analysis (see “Study Notes,” 103–10

and grading sheet in “Course Syllabus,” 20)

2 pages maximum—diagram only. If necessary, arrange the

diagram in landscape mode instead of portrait mode, but keep rest

of the paper in portrait mode. To do this, insert section breaks

before and after the diagram.

You may use colors and shapes in producing the diagram—in

order to highlight emphases, parallels, or repetitions.

10.3.3 Paper #3: Text Critical Analysis (see “Study Notes,” 111–17 and

grading sheet in “Course Syllabus,” 21).

4 pages maximum.

In chart form (see sample in “Study Notes,” 116–17), identify and

translated all masora parva and all text critical apparatus entries for

the verses assigned by the professor upon receiving your

synopsis for choice of text.

Write a brief set of preliminary observations regarding the

exegetical significance of the textual variants for your approved

text.

10.3.4 Paper #4: Lexical Analysis (see “Study Notes,” 118–27 and

grading sheet in “Course Syllabus,” 22)


TMS—Fall 2013

12 pages maximum—including separate pages as follows: title

page, revised translation page (from Paper #1), diagram page(s),

and bibliography page(s).

Select only two of the most significant key words utilized in your

approved passage and perform context, lexicon, concordance, and

theological dictionary research for each.

Write a brief set of preliminary observations regarding the

exegetical significance of each of the two word studies.

You may have only 4 pages of writing for each of the two words—

for a total 8 pages. The remaining pages of the paper are those

listed in the first bullet point above.

11.0 Translations

11.1 General Instructions

All translations must be typed, single-spaced. They must be submitted

electronically and uploaded to the Course Home Page on Joule.

Do not employ an English translation as a “pony” to aid in translating the

passage. Work only with the Hebrew text and a lexicon (like Holladay, BDB,

or HALOT).

Avoid utilizing computer programs providing parsings.

Do not include any footnotes or alternate translations!

Excellence in translation involves the following factors:

Accuracy—consistently reflective of the underlying Hebrew text and its

grammar.

Clarity—lack of ambiguity, redundancy, inconsistent tenses, and

unidentifiable antecedents.

Understandability—simple, proper English without torturous grammar or

vocabulary.

Readability—easily read aloud in public without creating any ambiguities,

misunderstandings, or cultural faux pas.

Contemporaneity—avoid literal translations of Hebrew idioms, overly

technical vocabulary, and slang expressions.

Appeal—attractive format reflecting paragraphing and literary genre

(perhaps even literary devices).

11.2 Examples for Formatting (see pp. 12 and 13)

Note that the first paragraph would normally be indented. The example on the

following page is not indented only because that particular portion of the

translation is actually a kind of heading in the text of Genesis 37.

The translation must be arranged in paragraphs in English style. Failure to

employ paragraphing will result in an automatic deduction of 10%.


TMS—Fall 2013

Poetic texts must be formatted as poetry in poetic lines. Failure to employ

poetic format for poetic texts will result in an automatic deduction of 10%.

Example (using the NAU of Ps 16):

1 A Mikhtam of David.

Preserve me, O God, for I take refuge in You.

2 I said to Yahweh, “You are my Lord;

I have no good besides You.”

3 As for the saints who are in the earth,

They are the majestic ones in whom is all my delight.

Failure to provide verse numbers as exhibited in the sample translation will

result in an automatic deduction of 10%.

Failure to submit a single-spaced copy will result in an automatic deduction

of 10%.

Employ one of the following as the translation for יהוה: Yahweh or YHWH.

The use of “Lord” will always be assumed to represent ַיֲאדֹנ . “LORD” will

not suffice, since the hearer cannot distinguish between “Lord” and “LORD.”

Violation of this distinction will result in deduction of 1% for every single

mistranslation within an assignment.

Use italics to show words added to the English translation to make sense that

are not in the Hebrew text nor indicated by Hebrew grammar. For example,

AD+b;l. ~d"ßa'h'( tAyðh/ bAj±-al{ ~yhiêl{a/ hw"åhy> ‘rm,aYo“w:, So YHWH God said,

“The man being alone is not good.” The copula (“is”) is not in the Hebrew

text, but is demanded by the grammar, so it is not italicized. Never use

parentheses for supplying added words.


TMS—Fall 2013

Genesis 37:1–11 Hezekiah

Barebones

[1] Jacob eventually settled in the land of his father’s sojournings, in the land of

Canaan. [2] This is the history of Jacob:

Joseph was 17 years old. He was tending the flock with his brothers – he was a

young man together with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives.

One day Joseph brought a bad report about them to their father.

[3] Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons because he was a son of his old age

so Israel had made a long-sleeved tunic for him. [4] Thus his brothers saw that their father

loved him more than all his brothers, so they hated him and were not able to speak

peaceably with him. [5] Then Joseph had a dream and revealed it to his brothers. As a

result, they hated him all the more. [6] So he said to them, “Listen to this dream I had! [7]

We were about to bind sheaves in the midst of the field when my sheaf arose and even

stood upright. Then your sheaves gathered around and proceeded to bow down to my

sheaf.”

[8] So his brothers asked him, “Will you really be king over us – if, indeed, you

could rule us?” Thus they hated him all the more because of his dreams and his words.

[9] Then he had yet another dream and related it to his brothers. He said, “Look

here, I have had a dream again. The sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to

me.”

[10] Then he related it to his father and his brothers. But his father rebuked him

and asked him, “What is this dream which you have had? Will I, your mother, and your

brothers really come to bow down to you on the ground?” [11] Therefore, his brothers

were jealous of him, but his father kept the matter in mind.


TMS—Fall 2013

11.3 TRANSLATION CORRECTIONS

The following letters will be employed by the professor in marking student translations.

Be certain to review graded translations so that mistakes are not repeated.

A. Unclear—ambiguous English meaning.

B. Misleading.

C. Culturally objectionable in modern American setting.

D. Unnatural English.

E. Requires refinement in English style.

F. Fails to maintain the historical, geographical or cultural facts of the

original event in its setting.

G. Incorrect English punctuation.

H. Hard to understand—language too antiquated, theological, technical, etc.

I. Inaccurate.

I–1 Inaccurate lexically.

I–2 Inaccurate grammatically.

I–2a Definiteness.

I–2b Number (singular, dual, plural).

I–2c Genitives (construct state).

I–2d Disjunctive clauses (waw + non-verb).

I–2e Perfect/Imperfect statives.

I–2f Modals (imperatives, jussives, cohortatives).

I–2g Wayyiqtol (sequence).

I–2h Voice (active, passive, middle, reflexive).

I–2i Infinitive absolute (CIAs).

I–2j Participles (continuous or characteristic).

I–2k Stems (Qal, Nifal, Hifil, Hofal, Piel, Pual, Hithpael).

J. Inconsistent with the immediate context.

M. Idiom mistranslated.

P. Plagiarized from a published translation.

Q. Interrogative not properly translated as a question.

R. Redundant—same word or phrase repeated too often in close proximity.

S. Hebrew accents misunderstood or not considered.

T. Followed textual critical error.

W. Word order misconstrued.

Underlined translation in the professor’s markings means that the student’s translation

was better than acceptable, it was well done.

Circled translation in the professor’s markings means that the student’s translation is

problematic.

A question mark (?) in the professor’s markings means that the student’s translation is

debatable.


TMS—Fall 2013

11.4 Translation Grading

See the Translation Rubric on p. 4.

Genesis 3

1 Kings 13:1–10

Jeremiah 23:15–22

Psalms 87:1–88:1

I I, J, B

Minus Grade Minus Grade

0 A+ 100 0 A+

1–3 A 99-96 1–7 A

4–9 A- 95-94 8–13 A-

10–17 B+ 93-92 14–21 B+

18–25 B 91-88 22–29 B

26–31 B- 87-86 30–38 B-

32–37 C+ 85-84 39–45 C+

38–41 C 83-80 46–52 C

42–51 C- 79-78 53–60 C-

52–57 D+ 77-76 61–69 D+

58–62 D 75-72 70–75 D

63–69 D- 71-70 76–85 D-

70+ F 69-0 86+ F

11.5 Translation Muffs and Laughs

“This foot is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23).

“The man answered, “The women you gave me” (Gen 3:12).

“and he wrapped his waste in sackcloth” (Gen 37:34).

“Then the nose of the LORD became hot” (2 Sam 6:7).

“and they offered a sacrifice and made vowels” (Jon 1:16).

“who rejoices like a hero to run a way” (Ps 19:6).

“Begin to sin exultantly all you who are upright in heart!” (Ps 32:11).

“and they had not reached the bottom of the pit before the lions

overpowered them and their bottoms were shattered” (Dan 6:25, Aramaic).


TMS—Fall 2013

12.0 Course Grading System

The following system will be employed in figuring your final grade in the course.

12.1 Letter Grade and Percentage Equivalents

For all assignments a letter grade will be awarded.

Letter Percent

A+ 100

A 96

A- 94

B+ 92

B 90

B- 86

C+ 84

C 81

C- 78

D+ 75

D 72

D- 70

F 0

12.2 Grading Percentage by Assignments

The percentages listed below represent the portions of the final course grade.

Translations 30%

Papers ##1–4 40%

Final Exam 15%

Required Reading* 15%

100%

*Required Reading

The following must be read during this semester or the preceding summer

break regardless of any prior reading for any other course. Even if you read

it before, it must be read again. All required reading is quizzable without

warning.

All of Chisholm as scheduled in the Course Schedule.

All of Brotzman.

All of the “Study Notes.”

12.3 Grading of Exegetical Papers

The following (pp. 17–22) are the forms used for grading each paper.


TMS—Fall 2013

Grading Paper #1: Syntactical Analysis

Hezekiah Barebones Box #123

Area Explanation Out of

(Points)

Grade

Research (12) Accurate use of resources. (3)

Pertinent appeal to resources. (3)

Honest use (no plagiarism or purposeful

distortion) of resources.

(2)

Adequate use of resources (minimum:

OT503/504 grammar, Putnam, Chisholm,

Holladay).

(4)

Format & Style (6) Pagination (page number on each page of the

paper), Times Roman size 12 font, and

double-spaced as described in TMS

Guidelines, course syllabus, and Turabian.

(3)

Footnote style per above. (3)

Preliminary

Translation (8)

Single page, double-spaced, paragraphing,

verse numbers, no footnotes.

(3)

Translation accuracy. (5)

Syntactical Introduction (must be present). (2)

Analysis (74) Exhaustive treatment of every word, phrase,

and clause.

(10)

Accurate grammatical identifications for

individual elements.

(20)

Accurate identification of relationships

between grammatical elements.

(20)

Accurate identification of exegetical

significance.

(20)

Conclusion or summary—present, accurate,

and pointing to future research.

(2)

Grade: (100)

Paper Order:

p. 1 = Translation Page

pp. 2–20 = Body

See instructions for Paper #1 on p. 10 and exegetical paper rubrics on pp. 5–6.


TMS—Fall 2013

SYNTACTICAL ANALYSIS

KEY TO GRADING COMMENTS

OT603

ABBREV COMMENT

>way Where is the leading verb of the wayyiqtol chain?

>we Where is the leading verb of the weqatal chain?

ACC Accent—note which accent is employed (cf. Putnam §4).

ADJ What is the grammatical construction with the adjective here? (cf. Putnam

§1.7)

AGREE? What do the principles of grammatical agreement indicate in this situation?

(cf. Putnam §1.3)

ALL? What is the grammar of כל involved here?

AN? Why is this noun anarthrous? (cf. Putnam §1.4.1)

ANT? What is the antecedent?

APO? Where is the apodosis?

APP? Which usage of apposition is involved here? (cf. Putnam §§1.8.2, 3.4)

ART? What usage of the article is involved here? (cf. Putnam §1.4.3)

CON? What is the force of the conditional clause here?

CONSTR? Which usage of the construct state is involved here? (cf. Putnam §1.8.1)

D? Which usage of the Piel/Pual is involved here? (cf. Putnam §§2.1.4, 2.1.5)

DisjCl What is the function and significance of the disjunctive clause here? (cf.

Putnam §3.2.2)

DOM? Why is the direct object marker (ֵאת) used here? See Gibson’s excursus.

E2E See Chisholm, From Exegesis to Exposition

EMPH? What are the evidences for some form of emphasis being involved here?

ERR Erroneous grammatical identification.

ES?? What is the exegetical significance?

ESimpf What is the exegetical significance of the Imperfect here? (cf. Putnam

§2.2.2)

ESinf What is the use and significance of the infinitive here? (cf. Putnam §§2.2.6,

2.2.7)

ESmod What is the use and significance of the modal verb here? (cf. Putnam §2.2.4)

ESpart What is the exegetical significance of the particle used here? (cf. Putnam

§3.3)

ESperf What is the exegetical significance of the Perfect here? (cf. Putnam §2.2.1)

EVID? What evidence or proof can you offer to prove this point?

EXTRA? What is the function and exegetical significance of the extraposition (casus

pendens or nominative absolute) here?

FN? Where is the footnote?

FUNCT? What is the function of this particular word?

G? Which usage of the Qal is involved here? (cf. Putnam §§2.1.1, 1.1.2)

GIBS See Gibson, Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar—Syntax


TMS—Fall 2013

ABBREV COMMENT

GKC See Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar

H? Which usage of the Hifil/Hofal is involved here? (cf. Putnam §§2.1.7, 2.1.8)

HBI See Putnam, Hebrew Bible Insert

HEN What are the evidences for hendiadys here? (cf. Putnam §§1.8.3, 2.3)

Ht? Which usage of the Hithpael is involved here? (cf. Putnam §2.1.6)

IBHS See Waltke & O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

INC Incomplete sentence.

INT What is the function of the interrogative here? (cf. Putnam §1.5.3)

ITAL Italicize.

L? Which use of the ל is involved here in this construction?

LEX Consult the lexicons on this word.

MAC? Is this being used as a macrosyntactical marker in this context? (cf. Putnam

§§2.2.3b, 3.2.1e)

MNG? What is the resultant meaning (translation)?

MOD? What word or phrase does this phrase modify?

N? Which usage of the Nifal is involved here? (cf. Putnam §2.1.3)

NEG? What is the force of the negative particle here?

NUM? Why the change in grammatical number (e.g., singular to plural)?

NUMB What is the grammar of the Hebrew numeral(s) here? (cf. Putnam §1.6)

OSIMP Oversimplification.

OT? Are there other examples in the OT?

P/R? What is the evidence pro/con purpose or result here?

PRO? Where is the protasis?

PRON? What is the function of the pronoun or pronominal suffix here? (cf. Putnam

§§1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.5)

PTCP? Why is the participle used here? (cf. Putnam §2.2.5)

REL What is the function of the relative here? (cf. Putnam §1.5.4)

SEEC See my prior comment(s).

SEQ Sequence—especially regarding the sequential nature of wayyiqtol.

SOL? What is the solution to the problem? Which view will you take? Why?

SRCS? What are your sources for this information?

TIME? What is the time element involved here?

UNCL Unclear writing or description.

WAW? What is the function and meaning of waw here?

WO? Is the word order normal here?

X? How often does this word/construction occur?


TMS—Fall 2013

Grading Paper #2: Diagrammatical Analysis



(Points)

Grade

Macrosyntactic

structure (20)

Accurate understanding of the larger structure

of the text.

(20)

Grammatical

relationships (20)

Accurate subordination of dependent clauses

and phrases.

(20)

Retention of word

order (20)

No alteration in word order. (20)

Internal

relationships (20)

Observance of repetitions, parallelisms,

emphases, etc.

(20)

Visual effect (20) Appealing to the eye, simple to understand. (20)

Grade: (100)

Paper Order:

pp. 1–2 = Body—Diagram



TMS—Fall 2013

Grading Paper #3: Text Critical Analysis



(Points)

Grade

Masorah parva All required Mp fully and accurately copied. (20)

(40) Accurate translation of Mp. (20)

Textual critical All required TCA fully and accurately copied. (20)

apparatus (40) Accurate translation of TCA. (20)

Preliminary

Observations

(20)

Thesis style. Pertinent resources. (20)

Grade: (100)

Paper Order:

pp. 1–2 = Body—Masorah parva analysis chart

pp. 3–4 = Body—Text critical apparatus analysis chart

See instructions for Paper #3 on pp. 10–11 and exegetical paper rubrics on pp. 5–6.


TMS—Fall 2013

Grading Paper #4: Lexical Analysis



(Points)

Grade

Preliminary

Translation (10)

Single page, double-spaced, paragraphing,

verse numbers, no footnotes, proper

formatting (esp., poetry).

(5)

Translation accuracy and appropriate revisions

from Paper #1.

(5)

Choice of Words

(10)

1st: Key term in context best contributing to

the exegesis of the text.

(5)

2nd: Key term in context contributing

significantly to the exegesis of the text.

(5)

Contextual

sensitivity (15)

Pay attention to how the immediate context

affects the meanings of each word.

(15)

Lexicon research

(10)

At least 2 lexicons for each word and

demonstrating full reading of the entries.

(10)

Concordance

research (15)

At least 1 concordance and inclusion of

statistics for usages.

(15)

Theological

dictionary

research (20)

At least 2 theological dictionaries and

demonstrating full reading of the entries.

(20)

Bibliography &

footnotes (20)

Thesis style bibliography. Pertinent resources

(for Papers ##1–4).

(10)

Thesis style footnotes. (10)

Grade: (100)

Paper Order:

p. 1 = Title Page

p. 2 = Translation Page

pp. 3–10 = Body

pp. 11–12 = Bibliography


Note how to cite theological dictionary entries as a footnote and bibliography entry:

2 A. S. Van der Woude, “x;Ko,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 3 vols.,

ed. by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, trans. by Mark E. Biddle, 2:610–11 (Peabody,

MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 610.

Van der Woude, A. S. “x;Ko.” In Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament . 3 volumes.

Edited by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann. Translated by Mark E. Biddle, 2:610–

11. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.


TMS—Fall 2013

13.0 Bibliography [Not yet conformed to Turabian’s 8th edition.]

A P R E L I M I N A R Y B I B L I O G R A P H Y

F O R H E B R E W E X E G E S I S

13.1 Books1

Aharoni, Yohanan. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Survey. Revised edition.

Translated by A. F. Rainey. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979.

———, and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Revised edition. New York:

Macmillan Co., 1977. The best Bible atlas for studying the individual biblical events involving movement. Especially helpful for biblical battles and travels.—WDB

Alexander, T. Desmond, and David W. Baker, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament:

Pentateuch. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Andersen, Francis I. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. 1974. Reprint, The Hague: Mouton

Publishers, 1980.

Archer, Gleason L. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan

Publishing, 1982.

———, and Gregory Chirichigno. Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament .

Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press, 2003.

———, and H. G. M. Williamson, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical

Books. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005. See the review in MSJ 19, no. 1 (Spring 2008): 107–9.—WDB

Babut, Jean-Marc. Les Expressions Idiomatiques de l’Hébreu Biblique: Signification et

Traduction—Un essai d’analyse componentielle. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 33.

Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie Éditeurs, 1995.

———. Idiomatic Expressions of the Hebrew Bible: Their Meaning and Translation

through Componential Analysis. Translated by Sarah E. Lind. North Richland Hills,

TX: BIBAL Press, 1999.

Bailey, Kenneth E. Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural

Approach to the Parables of Luke. Combined edition. 2 volumes in 1. 1983. Reprint,

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1992. An analysis of selected parables in the Gospel of Luke emphasizing literary structure and cultural setting. Each study concludes with a listing of the theological motifs of the parable. Although this book is about the NT, it provides valuable insight into the role of ANE studies in exegesis.—WDB

Baker, David W., and Bill T. Arnold, eds. The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey

of Contemporary Approaches. Grand Rapids: Apollos/Baker Books, 1999. See the review in MSJ 11, no. 2 (Fall 2000): 239–42.—WDB

Baly, Denis. The Geography of the Bible: A Study in Historical Geography. Revised

edition. New York: Harper & Row, 1974.

1 Do not divide your paper bibliographies into these categories. Use one unified listing.


TMS—Fall 2013

Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament . Winona Lake,

IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987.

———. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.

———. The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations. Mitteilungen des

Septuaginta-Unternehmens 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979.

Barrick, William D. “Leviticus 26: Its Relationship to Covenant Contexts and Concepts.”

Unpublished Th.D. Dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1981. In this study of Leviticus 26, Chapter 2 is an example of text-critical analysis and chapter 3 is an example of exegetical analysis. The structural analysis of Lev 26:43 (153) and the syntactical analysis of Lev 26:14–45 (161) present alternatives to the more conventional method of diagrammatical analysis.—WDB

Barthélemy, Dominique, et al. Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old

Testament Text Project. 5 volumes. New York: United Bible Societies, 1979–1980. UBS hopes to eventually employ a reduced selection from this material to produce the equivalent of Bruce M. Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London/New York: United Bible Societies, 1971) for the OT.—WDB

Barthes, R., et al. Structural Analysis and Biblical Exegesis: Interpretational Essays.

Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 3. Edited by Dikran Y. Hadidian.

Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1974.

Beale, G. K., and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old

Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Beekman, John, and John Callow. Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan Publishing, 1974.

Bergen, Robert D., ed. Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Dallas: Summer

Institute of Linguistics, 1994.

Biguenet, John, and Rainer Schulte, eds. The Craft of Translation. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1989.

Block, Daniel I. The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National

Theology. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000.

Bodine, Walter R., ed. Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,

1992.

Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament. 15 volumes. Translated by John T. Willis et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans

Publishing, 1974–.

Brenner, Athalya. Colour Terms in the Old Testament. Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament Supplement Series 21. Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield, 1982.

Brooke, Alan England, and Norman McLean, eds. The Old Testament in Greek

According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented from Other Uncial

Manuscripts. Cambridge, UK: University Press, 1909–.

Brotzman, Ellis R. Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction. Grand

Rapids: Baker Books, 1994. Brotzman produced the most helpful basic introduction to OT textual criticism. It is especially informative because he includes an examination of all of the major textual problems in the Book of Ruth —WDB

Broyles, Craig C., ed. Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis. Grand

Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Brueggemann, Walter. The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical

Faith. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.


TMS—Fall 2013

Callow, Kathleen. Discourse Considerations in Translating the Word of God. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1984. Carson’s volume should be required reading for every seminary student before he is allowed to begin any classes.—WDB

———. The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids: Baker

Books, 1998.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. A Workbook for Intermediate Hebrew. Grand Rapids: Kregel

Publications, 2006.

Cleave, Richard. The Holy Land Satellite Atlas. 2 volumes. Nicosia, Cyprus: Rohr

Productions, 1999. Not only are these volumes beautifully illustrated with full-color photos (both satellite and non-satellite), they are accompanied by a very useful CD-ROM with a 3-D user-controlled projection of Palestine.—WDB

Cohen, David. Dictionnaire des Racines Sémitiques ou attestées dans les langues

sémitiques. Comprenant un fichier comparatif de Jean Cantineau. Paris: Mouton,

1971–.

Collins, C. John. Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary.

Philippsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2006. See the review in MSJ 19, no. 1 (Spring 2008): 111–14.—WDB

Committee on Translations of the United Bible Socieities. Fauna and Flora of the Bible.

Helps for Translators 11. London: United Bible Societies, 1972.

Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove,

IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989.

Danker, Frederick W. Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study. Revised and expanded edition.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Dearman, J. Andrew. Religion & Culture in Ancient Israel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson

Publishers, 1992.

Dockery, David S., Kenneth A. Mathews, and Robert B. Sloan, eds. Foundations for

Biblical Interpretation: A Complete Library of Tools and Resources. Nashville:

Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999.

Dorsey, David A. The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on

Genesis-Malachi. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999. Although chiastic structures are legitimate literary devices in the Hebrew bible, Dorsey sometimes identifies their presence in much too subjective a fashion.—WDB

Driver, S. R. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical

Questions. 3rd edition, revised. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.

Even-Shoshan, Abraham, ed. A New Concordance of the Bible: Thesaurus of the

Language of the Bible: Hebrew and Aramaic Roots, Words, Proper Names, Phrases

and Synonyms. Jerusalem: “Kiryat Sepher,” 1983. Even-Shoshan’s concordance is the best Hebrew concordance available.—WDB

Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to

Understanding the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982. See the review in MSJ 8, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 116–17.—WDB

Field, Fridericus, ed. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive Veterum Interpretum

Graecorum in Totum Vetus Testamentum. 2 volumes. 1875. Reprint, Hildesheim,

Germany: Georg Olms, 1964.


TMS—Fall 2013

Fischer, Bonifatio, Johanne Gribomont, and H. F. D. Sparks, eds. Biblia Sacra Iuxta

Vulgatam Versionem. 2 volumes. Revised by Robertus Weber. Stuttgart:

Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969.

France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages

to Himself and His Mission. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1971.

Furuli, Rolf. The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation. Huntington Beach, CA:

Elihu Books, 1999.

Futato, Mark D. Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook. Handbooks for Old

Testament Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2007. See the review in MSJ 19, no. 1 (Spring 2008): 118–21.—WDB

Gage, Warren Austin. The Gospel of Genesis: Studies in Protology and Eschatology.

Winona Lake, IN: Carpenter Books, 1984.

Gall, August Freiherrn von. Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. Reprint, Berlin:

Alfred Töpelmann, 1966.

Gibson, J. C. L. Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar—Syntax. 4th edition.

Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. See the review in MSJ 8, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 120–21.—WDB

Gordis, Robert. The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere.

Augmented edition. N.p.: Ktav Publishing House, 1971.

Gorman, Michael J. Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and

Ministers. Revised and expanded edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers,

2009.

Greenspoon, Leonard. “Hebrew Into Greek: Interpretation In, By, and Of the Septuagint.”

In A History of Biblical Interpretation: Volume 1, The Ancient Period. Edited by

Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson, 80–113. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,

2003.

Greenstein, Edward L. Essays on Biblical Method and Translation. Brown Judaic

Studies 92. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.

Greidanus, Sidney. Preaching Christ from the Old Testament: A Contemporary

Hermeneutical Method. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1999.

Hallo, William W., and K. L. Younger, Jr., eds. The Context of Scripture: Canonical

Compositions from the Biblical World. Volume 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997.

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of

the Old Testament. 2 volumes. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980.

Harrison, R. K. Old Testament Times. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1970.

Hatch, Edwin, and Harry A. Redpath, eds. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the

Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (including the Apocryphal books). 3

volumes in 2. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1975.

Heller, Roy L. Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations: An Analysis of Clause

Function in Biblical Hebrew Prose. Harvard Semitic Studies 55. Winona Lake, IN:

Eisenbrauns, 2004.

Hillers, Delbert R. Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press, 1974.

Hindson, Edward E. The Philistines and the Old Testament . Baker Studies in Biblical

Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1971.

Hoerth, Alfred J. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.


TMS—Fall 2013

———, Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. Yamauchi, eds. Peoples of the Old

Testament World. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994.

Horbury, William, ed. Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1999. See the review in MSJ 11, no. 2 (Fall 2000): 252–54.—WDB

Jacques, Xavier. List of Septuagint Words Sharing Common Elements. Rome: Biblical

Institute Press, 1972.

Jellicoe, Sidney. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Reprint, Ann Arbor, MI:

Eisenbrauns, 1978.

Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament . 3

volumes. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.

———. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament . 2 volumes. München:

Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971, 1976.

Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic, 2000.

Joüon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 volumes. Translated and revised by T.

Muraoka. Subsidia Biblica 14/I–II. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1996.

Kaiser, Otto, and Werner G. Kümmel. Exegetical Method: A Student Handbook. Revised

edition. Translated by E. V. N. Goetschius and M. J. O’Connell. New York: Seabury

Press, 1981.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. Hard Sayings of the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 1988.

———. A History of Israel From the Bronze Age Through the Jewish Wars. Nashville:

Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

———. More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity

Press, 1992.

———. Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching .

Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1981. Kaiser presents logical/block Hebrew diagramming with parallel English homiletic outline as a valuable means of viewing and understanding the text.—WDB

———, and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for

Meaning. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1994.

Kantenwein, Lee L. Diagrammatical Analysis. Revised edition. Winona Lake, IN: BMH,

1991.

Kautzsch, E., ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 2nd English edition. Translated and

revised by A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910. GKC is still the only exhaustive research grammar of classical Hebrew in the English language. It is out of date in many areas and is a translation and revision of the German edition edited by Emil Kautzsch.—WDB

Keel, Othmar. The Symbolism of The Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography

and the Book of Psalms. Translated by Timothy J. Hallett. New York: Seabury Press,

1978. This limited study demonstrates the significance of archaeological evidence in OT exegesis. By using the epigraphical evidence, Keel is able to provide the reader with visible illustrations.—WDB


TMS—Fall 2013

Kelley, Page H., Daniel S. Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford. The Masorah of Biblia

Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans Publishing, 1998. No handier volume is available for the interpretation of the minor masorah in BHS. It is held on reserve in the library for Paper #3.—WDB

“Although Page Kelley (1924–1997) died shortly before the completion of this book, his collaborators—Daniel Mynatt (Anderson College) and Timothy Crawford (Bluefield College) —were able to “complete the volume without his guiding hand” (p. xiv), since the bulk of the work, which represents the fruit of more than a decade of study in a graduate seminar, was done.”—Frederic Clarke Putnam, JETS 44, no. 1 (March 2001): 135.

King, Philip J., and Lawrence E. Stager. Life in Biblical Israel. Library of Ancient Israel.

Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Klein, Ralph W. Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress,

1979.

———. Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran . Guides

to Biblical Scholarship (Old Testament Series). Edited by Gene M. Tucker.

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.

Knight, Douglas A., and Gene M. Tucker, eds. The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern

Interpreters. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985.

Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner, eds. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon

zum Alten Testament. 3rd edition. Revised by Walter Baumgartner et al. Edited by B.

Hartmann et al. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967–.

———. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament . 5 volumes. Revised by

Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm. Translated and edited by M. E. J.

Richardson. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994–2000. Now available on CD-ROM from E. J. Brill with search capabilities in Hebrew, Greek, English, and transliterations. Hyperlinked with references and biblical texts.—WDB

Kogut, Simcha. ¹tlaXl tytrwsmh arqmh twnXrp lX tXrwpmh htwsxyyth wz twbyywxml [qrhw Ãarqmh ym[jl twbyywxmh¹ [“The Authority of Masoretic

Accents in Traditional Biblical Exegesis”]. In “Sha‘arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible,

Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by

Michael Fishbane and Emmanuel Tov, 153*–65*. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,

1992.

Kuhn, Karl Georg, ed. Konkordanz zu den Qumrantexten. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1960.

Lambdin, Thomas O. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York: Charles Scriber’s

Sons, 1971.

Larson, Mildred. A Manual for Problem Solving in Bible Translation. Grand Rapids:


Lewis, Jack P. Historical Backgrounds of Bible History. Grand Rapids: Baker Book,

1971.

Lisowsky, Gerhard. Konkordanz zum hebräischen alten Testament . 2nd edition.

Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1958.

Lohse, Eduard, ed. Die Texte aus Qumran. 2nd edition, revised. München: Kösel-Verlag,

1971.

Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans Publishing, 1975.


TMS—Fall 2013

Longman, Tremper, III. Old Testament Commentary Survey. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids:

Baker Book, 1995.

Mandelkern, Solomon. Veteris Testamenti concordantiae hebraicae atque chaldaicae.

Jerusalem: Schocken Press, 1967.

Matthews, Victor H. Manners and Customs in the Bible. Revised edition. Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

———, and Don C. Benjamin, Jr. Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the

Ancient Near East. New York: Paulist Press, 1991.

———. Social World of Ancient Israel, 1250–587 BCE. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson

Publishers, 1993.

McCarter, P. Kyle. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible.

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

McConville, J. Gordon. Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1993.

McNamara, Martin. “Interpretation of Scripture in the Targumim.” In A History of

Biblical Interpretation: Volume 1, The Ancient Period. Edited by Alan J. Hauser and

Duane F. Watson, 167–97. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2003.

Merrill, Eugene H. Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament . Nashville:

B&H Publishing, 2006.

Miller, J. Maxwell. The Old Testament and the Historian. Guides to Biblical Scholarship

(Old Testament Series). Edited by Gene M. Tucker. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Mitchel, Larry A. A Student’s Vocabulary for Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Grand


Moor, Johannes C. de, ed. Synchronic or Diachronic?: A Debate on Method in Old

Testament Exegesis. Vol. 34 of Oudtestamentische Studiën. Edited by Johannes C.

de Moor. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995.

Mulder, Martin Jan. Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading & Interpretation of the Hebrew

Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson

Publishers, 2004. See the review in MSJ 16, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 346–47.—WDB

———. “The Transmission of the Biblical Text.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading &

Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity. Edited

by Martin Jan Mulder, 87–135. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004

Muraoka, T. Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes

Press, 1985.

Nida, Eugene A. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles

and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964.

———, and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Helps for

Translators 8. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974.

Orlinsky, Harry M., and Robert G. Bratcher. A History of Bible Translation and the

North American Contribution. Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Publications.

Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

Parker, T. H. L. Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries. 2nd edition. Louisville:

Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993. Of special interest is chapter 8, “Prolegomena to Exegesis.”—WDB


TMS—Fall 2013

Peshitta Institute of the University of Leiden, eds. The Old Testament in Syriac

According to the Peshitta Version. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966–.

Porter, Stanley E., and Richard S. Hess, eds. Translating the Bible: Problems and

Prospects. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 173.

Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Don’t allow the JSNTSS title to mislead you. The majority of essays have direct application to the OT.—WDB

Price, James D. The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible. Studies in the

Bible and Early Christianity 27. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990.

Pritchard, James B., ed. The Ancient Near East. Volume I: An Anthology of Texts and

Pictures. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973. See, also, the works by William W. Hallo and K. L. Younger, Jr., as well as Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Jr., above, and John H. Walton, below.—WDB

———. The Ancient Near East. Volume II: A New Anthology of Texts and Pictures.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975.

———. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement .

3rd edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Puckett, David L. John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament . Columbia Series in

Reformed Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995.

Putnam, Frederic Clarke, comp. A Cumulative Index to the Grammar and Syntax of

Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996.

Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes.

2 volumes. 9th edition. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1971.

Raitt, Thomas. A Theology of Exile: Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.

Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 1992.

Reider, Joseph. An Index to Aquila. Revised by Nigel Turner. Vetus Testamentum

Supplement 12. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966.

Roberts, Bleddyn J. The Old Testament Text and Versions: The Hebrew Test in

Transmission and the History of the Ancient Versions. Cardiff: University of Wales

Press, 1951.

Rooker, Mark F. Studies in Hebrew Language, Intertextuality, and Theology. Texts and

Studies in Religion 98. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2003. See the review in MSJ 17, no. 1 (Spring 2006): 126–28. —WDB

Rosscup, Jim. Commentaries for Biblical Expositors: An Annotated Bibliography of

Selected Works. Revised edition. Sun Valley, CA: Grace Book Shack, 1993. This annotated bibliography of commentaries is of greater value to the student of exegesis than the bibliography produced by Longman.—WDB

Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Translated by John Elwolde.

Cambridge, UK: University Press, 1996.

Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1992.

Sandy, D. Brent, and Ronald L. Giese, Jr., eds. Cracking Old Testament Codes: A Guide

to Interpreting the Literary Genres of the Old Testament . Nashville: Broadman &

Holman Publishers, 1995.


TMS—Fall 2013

Sasson, Jack M., ed. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East . 4 volumes in 2. Peabody,

MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.

Sawyer, John F. A. A Modern Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. Stocksfield,

Northumberland, UK: Oriel Press, 1976.

Scanlin, Harold. The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament .

Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1993.

Schaefer, Konrad. Psalms. Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry.

Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001.

Seow, C. L. A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995.

Shaw, R. Daniel. Transculturation: The Cultural Factor in Translation and Other

Communication Tasks. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1988.

Sherwood, Stephen K. Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew

Narrative & Poetry. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002.

Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical

Semantics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1983.

———. God, Language, and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General

Linguistics. Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 4. Grand Rapids:


Silzer, Peter James, and Thomas John Finley. How Biblical Languages Work: A

Student’s Guide to Learning Hebrew and Greek. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004.

Smith, George Adam. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. 3rd edition. London:

Hodder and Stoughton, 1895. In 1998 I saw paperback reprints of this volume in Jerusalem. It is the best firsthand descriptive historical geography available in the English language. Smith has a way of making the reader visualize exactly what the setting looks like that is only conveyed in modern geographies and atlases by means of color photographs.—WDB

Smith, J. Payne, ed. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Reprint, Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1967.

Soulen, Richard N. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. 3rd edition. Atlanta: Westminster

John Knox Press, 2001. A resource for ready reference to define terms in the field of biblical interpretation. There is no other reference which would make this information available under one cover.—James Mays

Sparks, Kenton L. Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the

Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005. See the review in MSJ 18, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 136–37.—WDB

Sperber, Alexander, ed. The Bible in Aramaic. 5 volumes. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959–73.

Stuart, Douglas. Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors. 4th

edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2009.

Swete, Henry B. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press, 1900.

Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. 3rd edition. Grand

Rapids: Kregel Academic & Professional, 1994.

Thomas, D. Winton, ed. Documents from Old Testament Times. New York: Harper &

Row, 1961.

Thomas, Robert L. How to Choose a Bible Version: An Introductory Guide to English

Translations. Ross-shire, UK: Mentor/Christian Focus Publications, 2000.


TMS—Fall 2013

Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Jerusalem:

Simor Ltd., 1981.

———. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd revised edition. Minneapolis:

Fortress Press, 2001. This is the premier volume on its subject. It is the required textbook for TMS’s ThM course in OT textual criticism.—WDB

Tucker, Gene M. Form Criticism of the Old Testament. Guides to Biblical Scholarship

(Old Testament Series). Edited by J. Coert Rylaarsdam. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1971.

VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology

& Exegesis. 5 volumes. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1997. See the review in MSJ 9, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 120–23.—WDB

Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel. 2 volumes. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965.

Waldman, Nahum M. The Recent Study of Hebrew: A Survey of the Literature with

Selected Bibliography. Bibliographica Judaica 10. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,

1989.

Waltke, Bruce K. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic

Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.

Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Walton, John H. Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context: A Survey of

Parallels Between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Grand Rapids: Regency

Reference Library, 1989.

———, ed. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. 5

volumes. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

———, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas. The IVP Bible Background

Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques. 2nd edition,

revised. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 26. Sheffield,

UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Watts, J. Wash. A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament . Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans Publishing, 1964.

Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Developments

of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

———. A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: IVP

Academic, 2006. See the review in MSJ 18, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 140–42.—WDB

———. Using Old Testament Hebrew in Preaching. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic,

2009.

Weil, Gérard E., ed. Massorah Gedolah Manuscrit B. 19a de Léningrad. 3 volumes.

Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971.

Weingreen, J. An Introduction to the Critical Study of the Text of the Hebrew Bible.

New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.

———. A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939.

Wendland, Ernst R. Analyzing the Psalms: With Exercises for Bible Students and

Translators. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1998.


TMS—Fall 2013

Williams, Ronald J. Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. 2nd edition. Toronto: University of

Toronto Press, 1976.

Wiseman, D. J., ed. Peoples of Old Testament Times. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.

Wolde, Ellen van, ed. Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible. Leiden: Brill Academic,

1997.

Würthwein, Ernst. Der Text des alten Testaments: Eine Einführung in die Biblia

Hebraica. 4th edition. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1973.

———. The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica. 2nd

edition. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1995.

Yamauchi, Edwin. Greece and Babylon: Early Contacts Between the Aegean and the

Near East. Baker Studies in Biblical Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1967.

———. Persia and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996.

———. The Stones and the Scriptures. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1972. Yamauchi puts into proper perspective the nature and value of archaeological evidence to the interpretation of the Bible. Reading Chapter 4 (“Fragments and Circles: The Nature of the Evidence”) is a necessity for serious Bible students.—WDB

Zuck, Roy B., ed. A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press,

1991.

———. Vital Old Testament Issues. Grand Rapids: Kregel Resources, 1996. Reprinted articles from Bibliotheca Sacra on major issues in OT studies.—WDB

13.2 Periodical Articles & Essays

Ackroyd, Peter R. “Meaning and Exegesis.” In Words and Meaning: Essays Presented to

David Winton Thomas. Edited by Peter R. Ackroyd and Barnabas Lindars, 1–14.

Cambridge, UK: University Press, 1968.

Andrews, Stephen J. “Some Knowledge of Hebrew Possible to All: Old Testament

Exposition and the Hebraica Veritas.” Faith & Mission 13, no. 1 (Fall 1995): 98–114.

Arichea, Daniel C., Jr. “Taking Theology Seriously in the Translation Task.” Bible

Translator 33, no. 3 (July 1982): 309–16.

Baker, David L. “Which Hebrew Bible? Review of Biblia Hebraica Quinta, Hebrew

University Bible, Oxford Hebrew Bible, and Other Modern Editions.” Tyndale

Bulletin 61, no. 2 (2010): 209–36.

Baker, David W. “Reading the Old Testament: Tools and Techniques.” Ashland

Theological Journal 28 (1996): 87–111.

Barr, J. “Etymology and the Old Testament.” In Language and Meaning: Studies in

Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis. Edited by J. Barr et al., 1–28. Volume 19 of

Oudtestamentische Studiën. Edited by A. S. van der Woude. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974.

———. “Semitic Philology and the Interpretation of the Old Testament.” In Tradition

and Interpretation: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study.

Edited by G. W. Anderson, 31–64. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.

Barrick, William D. “Ancient Manuscripts and Biblical Exposition.” The Master’s

Seminary Journal 9, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 25–38.

———. “Current Trends and Tensions in Old Testament Textual Criticism.” Bible


———. “The Eschatological Significance of Leviticus 26.” The Master’s Seminary

Journal 16, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 95–126.


TMS—Fall 2013

———. “Exegetical Fallacies: Common Interpretive Mistakes Every Student Must

Avoid.” The Master's Seminary Journal 19, no. 1 (Spring 2008): 15–27

———. “The Integration of OT Theology with Bible Translation.” The Master’s

Seminary Journal 12, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 15–31.

———. “Review of Alfred J. Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament.” The

Master’s Seminary Journal 10, no. 2 (Fall 1999): 299–301.

———. “Review of Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and

Exposition of Genesis.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 11, no. 2 (Fall 2000): 269–

70.

———. “Review of Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth. Vol. 6 of The New American

Commentary.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 12, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 100–1.

———. “Review of Daniel J. Estes, Handbook of the Wisdom Books and Psalms.” The


———. “Review of D. Brent Sandy, Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the

Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic.” The Master’s Seminary Journal

16, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 180–83.

———. “Review of George A. F. Knight, The Song of Moses: A Theological Quarry.”

The Master’s Seminary Journal 11, no. 2 (Fall 2000): 256–57.

———. “Review of Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its

Worth.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 8, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 116–17.

———. “Review of Hermann Gunkel and Joachim Begrich, An Introduction to the

Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel.” The Master’s Seminary


———. “Review of J. C. L. Gibson, Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar—

Syntax.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 8, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 120–21.

———. “Review of Kenneth L. Barker and Waylon Bailey, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk,

Zephaniah. Vol. 20 of The New American Commentary.” The Master’s Seminary


———. “Review of Mark F. Rooker, Studies in Hebrew Language, Intertextuality, and

Theology, Texts and Studies in Religion 98.” The Master's Seminary Journal 17, no.

1 (Spring 2006): 126–28.

———. “Review of Martin Jan Mulder, ed., Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading &

Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity.” The

Master's Seminary Journal 16, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 346–47.

———. “Review of Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Handbook on the Prophets.” The Master's

Seminary Journal 16, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 328–32.

———. “Review of Walter Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and

Homecoming.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 11, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 120–22.

———. “Review of Willem A. VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old

Testament Theology & Exegesis.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 9, no. 1 (Spring

1998): 120–23.

———. “Review of William Horbury, ed., Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda.” The


———. “Samson’s Removal of Gaza’s Gates.” Near East Archaeological Society

Bulletin NS8 (1976): 83–93.


TMS—Fall 2013

Bergey, Ronald. “The Rhetorical Role of Reiteration in the Suffering Servant Poem (Isa

52:13—53:12).” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 2 (June 1997):

177–88.

Boerger, Brenda H. “Extending Translation Principles for Poetry and Biblical Acrostics.”

Notes on Translation 11, no. 2 (1997): 35–56.

Brueggemann, Walter. “Texts That Linger, Words That Explode.” Theology Today 54,

no. 2 (1997): 180–99.

Buchanan, George Wesley. “Integrity in Translating and Editing.” Revue Biblique 115,

no. 1 (Jan 2008): 49–55.

Childs, Brevard S. “Toward Recovering Theological Exegesis.” Pro Ecclesia 6, no. 1

(1997): 16–26.

Combs, William W. “Errors in the King James Version?” Detroit Baptist Seminary

Journal 4 (Fall 1999): 151–64.

Crim, Keith R. “Hebrew Direct Discourse as a Translation Problem.” Bible Translator 24,

no. 3 (July 1973): 311–16.

Deuel, David C. “Malachi 3:16: ‘Book of Remembrance’ or Royal Memorandum? An

Exegetical Note.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 7, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 107–11. Excellent example of the application of ANE backgrounds to the interpretation of the biblical text.—WDB

———. “An Old Testament Pattern for Expository Preaching.” The Master’s Seminary

Journal 2, no. 2 (Fall 1991): 125–38.

Diringer, David, and Brock, S. P. “Words and Meanings in Early Hebrew Inscriptions.” In

Words and Meaning: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas. Edited by Peter R.

Ackroyd and Barnabas Lindars, 39–45. Cambridge, UK: University Press, 1968. A brief survey of some of the archaeological contributions to OT Hebrew philology.—WDB “Despite their small extent, the surviving Early Hebrew inscriptions serve as a constant reminder of how limited a picture the vocabulary of the Old Testament gives us of the range that the spoken language must have had.” (43)

Ellington, John. “Wit and Humor in Bible Translation.” Bible Translator 42, no. 3 (July

1991): 301–13. Too often both translators and exegetes ignore figures of speech and linguistic plays. The exegete must identify and explain these elements of the text if he wishes to understand it fully and if he wishes to convey it accurately to others.—WDB

Ellis, Karl C. “The Nature of Biblical Exegesis.” Bibliotheca Sacra 137, no. 546 (April–

June 1980): 151–55.

Estes, Daniel J. “Audience Analysis and Validity in Application.” Bibliotheca Sacra 150,

no. 598 (April–June 1993): 219–29.

———. “The Hermeneutics of Biblical Lyric Poetry.” Bibliotheca Sacra 152, no. 608

(October–December 1995): 413–30.

Fassberg, Steven E. “The Lengthened Imperative ָקְטָלה in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew

Studies 40 (1999): 7–13.

Finley, Thomas J. “The WAW-Consecutive with ‘Imperfect’ in Biblical Hebrew:

Theoretical Studies and Its Use in Amos.” In Tradition and Testament: Essays in

Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg. Edited by John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg,

241–62. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981. The waw-consecutive/conversive controversy does affect exegesis. No matter what theory one holds on this issue, it is incumbent upon the exegete to give attention to the


TMS—Fall 2013

consecution/relation of tenses throughout a passage. Finley’s study should be considered a serious contender for a solution. See article by Sasson, below.—WDB

Geisler, Norman. “The Concept of Truth in the Contemporary Inerrancy Debate.” In The

Living and Active Word of God: Studies in Honor of Samuel J. Schultz. Edited by

Morris Inch and Ronald Youngblood, 225–36. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Apart from minor editorial differences, this essay is substantially the same as the article in Bibliotheca Sacra 137, no. 548 (October–December 1980): 327–39. Geisler presents one of the key areas of discussion regarding the nature of biblical truth: correspondence vs. intention. Must reading.—WDB

Gibson, J. C. L. “The Massoretes as Linguists.” In Language and Meaning: Studies in

Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis. Edited by J. Barr et al., 86–96. Volume 19

of Oudtestamentische Studiën. Edited by A. S. van der Woude. Leiden: E. J. Brill,

1974.

Glenn, Donald R. “An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Psalm 139.” In Tradition

and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg. Edited by John S.

Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, 161–88. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.

Goerling, Fritz. “Psalm 1: Analysis and Interpretation.” Notes on Translation 14, no. 3

(2000): 51–60. A superb example of a careful analysis of Psalm 1 that pays attention to all the nuances of the Hebrew text. The analysis of verse 1 is especially noteworthy.—WDB

Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. “The Aleppo Codex and the Rise of the Massoretic Bible Text.”

Biblical Archeologist 42 (1979): 145–63.

———. “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their History and Their Place in the HUBP

Edition.” Biblica 48 (1967): 243–90.

Greenspoon, L. “‘It’s All Greek to Me’: Septuagint Studies Since 1968.” Currents in

Research 5 (1997): 147–74.

Grisanti, Michael A. “Review of Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, eds., Theological

Lexicon of the Old Testament.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 10, no. 2 (Fall 1999):

306–7.

———. “Review of John Bright, A History of Israel.” The Master’s Seminary Journal

12, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 101–3.

———. “Review of Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age

through the Jewish Wars.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 10, no. 2 (Fall 1999):

307–9.

Grossberg, Daniel. “Form and Content and Their Correspondence.” Hebrew Studies 41

(2000): 47–52.

Harman, Allan M. “The Syntax and Interpretation of Psalm 45:7.” In The Law and the

Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis .

Edited by John H. Skilton, 337–47. [Nutley, NJ]: Presbyterian and Reformed

Publishing, 1974.

Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor. “A Forgotten Meaning of Nepes in Isaiah lviii 10.” Vetus

Testamentum 47, no. 1 (January 1997): 43–52.

Joosten, Jan. “The Long Form of the Prefixed Conjugation Referring to the Past in

Biblical Hebrew Prose.” Hebrew Studies 40 (1999): 15–26.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. “The Future Role of the Bible in Seminary Education.” Concordia

Theological Quarterly 60, no. 4 (October 1996): 245–58.


TMS—Fall 2013

———. “The Literary Form of Genesis 1–11.” In New Perspectives on the Old

Testament. Edited by J. Barton Payne, 48–65. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1970. “The primary task of the Biblical scholar is to unfold the meaning of the text of Scripture as it was originally intended to be understood by the writer of that text. Those ideas, meanings, and truth-intentions which he had in mind are the first order of business. Further, if the concept of Biblical authority is to be introduced into the discussion, it will only heighten rather than decrease the intensity of the search to get back to that original writer’s thought; for he is the man who claims to have heard the revelation of God.” (48)

Kennedy, Rod. “Idiom Skew.” Notes on Translation 11, no. 1 (1997): 37–39.

Kleven, Terence. “Hebrew Style in 2 Samuel 6.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological

Society 35, no. 3 (September 1992): 299–314.

Lawlor, John. “Theology and Art in the Narrative of the Ammonite War (2 Samuel 10–

12).” Grace Theological Journal 3, no. 2 (Fall 1982): 193–205. Lawlor’s study of the narrative of 2 Samuel 10–12 on the basis of a structural analysis is a fitting companion article to Wendland’s on Habbakkuk.—WDB

Lewis, Jack. “Italics in English Bible Translation.” In The Living and Active Word of

God: Studies in Honor of Samuel J. Schultz. Edited by Morris Inch and Ronald

Youngblood, 255–70. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Lincoln, Lucy. “Translating Hebrew and Greek Terms for Sheep and Goats.” Bible


Locher, Clemens. “The United Bible Societies’ Hebrew Old Testament Text Project.”

Bible Translator 26, no. 3 (July 1975): 346–52.

Loewe, Raphael. “Divine Frustration Exegetically Frustrated—Numbers 14:34 תנואתי.” In

Words and Meaning: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas. Edited by Peter R.

Ackroyd and Barnabas Lindars, 137–58. Cambridge, UK: University Press, 1968. An excellent example of versional and rabbinic study.—WDB

Lust, Johan. “Translation Greek and the Lexicography of the Septuagint.” Journal for the

Study of the Old Testament 59 (September 93): 109–20.

MacKenzie, Cameron A. “Theology and the Great Tradition of English Bibles.”

Concordia Theological Quarterly 63, no. 4 (October 1999): 281–300.

Margot, Jean-Claude. “Should a Translation of the Bible Be Ambiguous?” Bible

Translator 32, no. 4 (October 1981): 406–13.

Martin, W. J. “‘Zero’ Processes in Biblical Hebrew.” In The Law and the Prophets: Old

Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis. Edited by John H.

Skilton, 87–93. [Nutley, NJ]: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1974.

Mathewson, Steven D. “From B.C. to 11 A.M.: How to preach an Old Testament

narrative with accuracy and power.” Leadership 18, no. 4 (Fall 1997): 52–56.

———. “Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming Old Testament Narratives.”

Bibliotheca Sacra 154, no. 616 (October–December 1997): 410–35.

Mayhue, Richard L. “For What Did Christ Atone in Isa 53:4–5?” The Master’s Seminary

Journal 6, no. 2 (Fall 1995): 121–41. When exegeting Isaiah 53, do not neglect this article.—WDB

Merwe, C. H. J. van der. “The Elusive Biblical Hebrew Term ויהי: A Perspective in Terms

of its Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics in 1 Samuel.” Hebrew Studies 40 (1999):

83–114.

Metzger, Bruce M. “English Translations of the Bible, Today and Tomorrow.”

Bibliotheca Sacra 150, no. 600 (October–December 1993): 397–414.


TMS—Fall 2013

———. “Important Early Translations of the Bible.” Bibliotheca Sacra 150, no. 597

(January–March 1993): 35–49.

———. “Persistent Problems Confronting Bible Translators.” Bibliotheca Sacra 150, no.

599 (July–September 1993): 273–84.

———. “Theories of the Translation Process.” Bibliotheca Sacra 150, no. 598 (April–

June 1993): 140–50.

Minkoff, Harvey. “As Simple as ABC: What Acrostics in the Bible Can Demonstrate.”

Bible Review 13, no. 2 (April 1997): 27–31, 46. Minkoff’s article will make you look at biblical acrostics in a fresh new way. This is a pleasurable read that is also quite informative.—WDB

Moberly, R. W. L. “‘YHWH is One’: The Translation of the Shema.” In From Eden to

Golgotha: Essays in Biblical Theology, 75–81. South Florida Studies in the History

of Judaism 52. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.

Muilenburg, James. “The Intercession of the Covenant Mediator (Exodus 33:1a,12–17.”

In Words and Meaning: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas. Edited by Peter

R. Ackroyd and Barnabas Lindars, 159–81. Cambridge, UK: University Press, 1968. Fine attention paid to style and syntax but overly critical in source analysis. Gives a summary presentation of the textual evidence. Good attention to the theme/concept of covenant.—WDB

Nida, Eugene A. “The Paradoxes of Translation.” Bible Translator 42, no. 2A (April

1991): 5–27.

Overstreet, R. Larry. “Israel Responds to Grace: A Study of Zechariah 12:10.” Calvary

Baptist Theological Journal 13, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 1–30.

Patterson, Richard D. “A Multiplex Approach to Psalm 45.” Grace Theological Journal

6, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 29–48. Patterson claims that this article is a “balanced use of grammar, literary analysis, history, and theology” (29).

———. “The Song of Deborah.” In Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of

Charles Lee Feinberg. Edited by John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, 123–60.

Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.

Paul, Maarten J. “Genesis 4:17–24: A Case-Study in Eisegesis.” Tyndale Bulletin 47, no. 1

(May 1996): 143–62.

Payne, J. Barton. “Right Questions About Isaiah 7:14.” In The Living and Active Word of

God: Studies in Honor of Samuel J. Schultz. Edited by Morris Inch and Ronald

Youngblood, 75–84. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Determining what is relevant and what is irrelevant to the interpretation of a passage in the Scriptures should be one of the interpreter’s first concerns. This posthumous publication of one of Payne’s best articles is a perfect illustration. The student should also consult Hobart Freeman’s concise study of Isaiah 7:14 (An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophets [Chicago: Moody Press, 1971], 203–9).—WDB

Penkower, Jordan S. “Verse Divisions in the Hebrew Bible.” Vetus Testamentum 50, no.

3 (2000): 379–93.

Péter-Contesse, René. “Note on the Semantic Domains of Two Hebrew Words: פר and

.Bible Translator 27, no. 1 (January 1976): 119–21 ”.ׁשור

Rabin, C. “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint.” Textus 6 (1968):

1–26.

Rebera, Basil A. “Yahweh or Boaz? Ruth 2.20 Reconsidered.” Bible Translator 36, no. 3

(July 1985): 317–27.


TMS—Fall 2013

Rebera’s detailed study of this particular problem in the book of Ruth is a model of exegesis preparatory to translation.—WDB

Revell, E. J. “The Repetition of Introductions to Speech as a Feature of Biblical Hebrew.”

Vetus Testamentum 47, no. 1 (1997): 91–110.

Richard, P. Ramesh. “Methodological Proposals for Scripture Relevance, Part 4:

Application Theory in Relation to the Old Testament.” Bibliotheca Sacra 143, no. 572

(October–December 1986): 302–11.

Roberts, B. J. “The Textual Transmission of the Old Testament.” In Tradition and

Interpretation: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study. Edited

by G. W. Anderson, 1–30. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1979.

Rooker, Mark F. “Dating Isaiah 40—66: What Does the Linguistic Evidence Say?”

Westminster Theological Journal 58 (1996): 303–12.

Rudman, Dominic. “A Contextual Reading of Ecclesiastes 4:13–16.” Journal of Biblical

Literature 116, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 57–73. This article illustrates a methodology of exegesis claiming to place emphasis upon the contextual analysis.—WDB

Sailhamer, John H. “Exegesis of the Old Testament as a Text.” In A Tribute to Gleason

Archer. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., and Ronald F. Youngblood, 279–96. Chicago:

Moody Press, 1986.

———. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Library of

Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1992.

Sasson, Victor. “Some Observations on the Use and Original Purpose of the Waw

Consecutive in Old Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew.” Vetus Testamentum 47, no. 1

(1997): 111–27.

Saydon, P. P. “Assonance in Hebrew as a Means of Expressing Emphasis.” Biblica 36

(1955): 36–50.

Scherer, Andreas. “Is the Selfish Man Wise?: Considerations of Context in Proverbs

10:1–22:16 with Special Regard to Surety, Bribery and Friendship.” Journal for the

Study of the Old Testament 76 (1997): 59–70.

Shealy, Brian A. “Redrawing the Line Between Hermeneutics and Application.” The

Master’s Seminary Journal 8, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 83–105.

Shulman, Ahouva. “The Particle ָנא in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” Hebrew Studies 40 (1999):

57–82.

Steiner, Richard C. “Does the Biblical Hebrew Conjunction - Have Many Meanings, One

Meaning, or No Meaning at All?” Journal of Biblical Literature 119, no. 2 (Summer

2000): 249–67.

Steinmann, Andrew E. “אחד as an Ordinal Number and the Meaning of Genesis 1:5.”

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45, no. 4 (December 2002): 577–84.

Sterk, Jan P. “Notes: An Attempt at Translating a Psalm.” Bible Translator 42, no. 4

(October 1991): 437–42. A concise study of Psalm 110.—WDB

Thomas, Robert L. “Dynamic Equivalence: A Method of Translation or a System of

Hermeneutics?” The Master’s Seminary Journal 1, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 149–75. Bible translations are reflective of the translator’s hermeneutics and theology. See Arichea’s article, also.—WDB


TMS—Fall 2013

———. “The Relationship between Exegesis and Expository Preaching.” The Master’s

Seminary Journal 2, no. 2 (Fall 1991): 181–98.

Toorn, Karel van der, and Cees Houtman. “David and the Ark.” Journal of Biblical

Literature 113, no. 2 (Summer 1994): 209–31.

Vall, Gregory. “Psalm 22:17b: ‘The Old Guess.’” Journal of Biblical Literature 116, no.

1 (Spring 1997): 45–56. A good example of the detail involved in textual criticism. An excellent chart giving a hypothetical reconstruction of the corruption and preservation of Ps 22:17b is included in the article.—WDB

Waltke, Bruce K. “Old Testament Textual Criticism.” In Foundations for Biblical

Interpretation: A Complete Library of Tools and Resources. Edited by David S.

Dockery, Kenneth A. Mathews, and Robert B. Sloan, 156–86. Nashville: Broadman &

Holman Publishers, 1994.

———. “The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testament.” In New

Perspectives on the Old Testament. Edited by J. Barton Payne, 212–39. Waco, TX:

Word Books, 1970.

———. “The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament.” In The Expositor’s Bible

Commentary. 12 volumes. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein et al., 1:211–28. Grand


———. “Textual Criticism of the Old Testament and Its Relation to Exegesis and

Theology.” In The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and

Exegesis. 5 volumes. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren, 1:51–67. Grand Rapids:


Wendland, Ernst. “Recursion and Variation in the ‘Prophecy’ of Jonah: On the

Rhetorical Impact of Stylistic Technique in Hebrew Narrative Discourse, with Special

Reference to Irony and Enigma.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 35, no. 1

(Spring 1997): 67–98.

———. “‘The Righteous Live by Their Faith’ in a Holy God: Complementary

Compositional Forces and Habakkuk’s Dialogue with the Lord.” Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society 42, no. 4 (December 1999): 591–628. Wendland’s structural analysis of Habakkuk is an excellent model for the analysis of the Hebrew text preparatory to preaching. Such contextual/structural analysis is a vital part of the exegetical procedure.—WDB

Wolters, Al. “The Text of the Old Testament.” In The Face of Old Testament Studies: A

Survey of Contemporary Approaches. Edited by David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold,

19–37. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

Heb Exeg I_Course Syllabus_Fall 13_revised.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Heb Exeg I_Course Syllabus_Fall 13_revised.pdf