Original Language and/or Historical Commentaries

[Michael Miles]

I should probably preface this by making it known that I much prefer original language studies over listening to men.  That being said, I was wondering if any commentaries, specifically Old Testament commentaries, exist that would serve to allow someone to glean nuances of grammar and/or historical background?  I currently refer to zero commentaries in my studies, but once in a great while it might be nice to be able to see what someone else sees in the original languages or to have some accurate historical background to work with.

 

I'm not much interested in any commentaries penned by dreamers just making up religious sounding stuff and calling it a commentary.

 

Thank you,

Michael

Edited November 19, 2015 by Michael Miles

[theblackbluejay]

Hi Michael, 

 

Sometimes the best commentary depends on which book that you are studying, and, of course, what your aims of studying are.  Given your interest in Hebrew Bible and in technical details, I would recommend the Anchor (Yale) Bible Commentary series.  Each commentary gives the author's original translation of the text, together with copious textual notes, followed by historical and exegetical comments, all of which take the historical and linguistic (and sometimes, literary, but this is not the emphasis) contexts into account.  

And the bibliographies in this series are usually extensive.     

 

After Anchor Bible, I would suggest Hermeniea (the commentary on Ezekiel, for example, is superb) but this series is far from complete.  After Hermeneia, I would go with NICOT.  NICOT tries to combine rigorous literary and and text-critical data with application to life of faith, if that is something that you would be interested in. 

 

I hope this helps...

 

David

[Λύχνις Δαν]

David, what do you think of the Baylor Handbooks ? Have you looked at those for Hebrew ?

 

Thx

D

[PhilT]

Zondervan are releasing an OT commentary soon, same format as the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the NT.  Block is writen a couple of volumes.  These are due for release Dec I think from amazon.  Accordance will probably release thes down the road.  

My pick commentary is NICOT, sometimes Word and NIV app for preaching.

[Daniel R]

With all commentaries, this is will a case-by-case issue. As mentioned, The Anchor Bible commentary series is excellent for its linguistic and historical explanations. But not all are equal. I do think that Milgrom's Anchor commentary on Leviticus is the best around. I also really appreciate most of the Word Biblical Commentary OT series. In particular Wenham's Genesis and Watt's Isaiah are gems. 

[R. Mansfield]

Although dated in some spots, I still find Keil & Delitzsch to be very helpful for the kind of work you describe, Michael.

[theblackbluejay]

David, what do you think of the Baylor Handbooks ? Have you looked at those for Hebrew ?

 

Thx

D

 

Hi Daniel, 

 

I have not spent a huge amount of time with them, though I am planning to buy a couple.  From what I have gathered thus far, the series is rather uneven. (I was not impressed with the volume on Gen 1-11, for example.  Compare his discussion of the opening phrase of Genesis with that of, say Speiser, or Juon-Muraoka [§129p]).  Holmstedt has written a couple of volumes; I have perused his volume on Ruth, and like it much better.  

 

As a whole, I would still prefer Anchor to the Baylor series, as the former takes greater account of historical Hebrew grammar and comparative semitics, and also provides historical context.  But I am certainly not above getting the Baylor volumes that I find to be good, and putting them to good use.  

 

D 

Edited November 19, 2015 by David Harris

[Michael Miles]

Thank you all for pointing me to some resources to consider.  I believe that I'd probably be of the mind to experiment with either a commentary series that individual volumes are available for or the Keil & Delitzsch, as I just want to get my feet wet in these types of resources.  I have been studying for over 20 years and I have not spent much time in commentaries at all.  I do not know if they fit my mind-set or not.

 

Thanks again,

Michael

[Daniel Francis]

A bit on the brief side but I think Expositors Bible Commentary Revised might be a good fit. It has some historical notes but focuses mostly on textual issues bringing things out from the hebrew and greek.

 

Here is a sample Genesis 1.1:

 

1. The God of Creation (1:1)

 

 

 

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

 

 

 

COMMENTARY

 

1 The account opens with a clear, concise statement about the Creator and the creation. Its simplicity belies the depth of its content. These seven Hebrew words are the foundation of all that is to follow in the Bible. The purpose of the statement is threefold: to identify the Creator, to explain the origin of the world, and to tie the work of God in the past to the work of God in the future.

The Creator is identified in 1:1 as “God,” that is, “Elohim” (ʾᵉlōhı̂m). Although God is not further identified in v. 1 (cf. 15:7; Ex 20:2), the author appears confident that there will be no mistaking God with any other than the God of the patriarchs and the God of the covenant at Sinai. The proper context for understanding this verse, in other words, is the whole of the book of Genesis and the Pentateuch. Already in Genesis 2:4b, God (Elohim) is identified with the Lord (Yahweh), the God who called Abraham (12:1) and delivered Israel from Egypt (Ex 3:15).

From the perspective of the Pentateuch as a whole, the God in Genesis 1:1 is the God who has promised the patriarchs a good “earth” (ʾereṣ) and has redeemed them from Egypt. He is the “shepherd … deliverer” of Jacob’s blessing in 48:15–16. The purpose of 1:1 is not to identify God as such, but to identify him as the Creator of both the universe and the “earth,” which is the place of divine blessing.

It is not difficult to detect a polemic against idolatry behind the words of 1:1. By identifying God as the Creator, a crucial distinction is introduced between the God of the patriarchs and the gods of the nations — gods that to the biblical authors were mere idols. God alone created the heavens and the earth. The sense of 1:1 is similar to the message relayed to Jeremiah: “Tell them this,” Jeremiah said: “ ‘These gods, who did not make the heavens and the earth, will perish from the earth and from under the heavens’ ” (Jer 10:11). Also Psalm 96:5 shows that the full impact of Genesis 1:1 was appreciated by later biblical writers: “For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD [Yahweh] made the heavens.”

The statement in 1:1 not only identifies the Creator, it also explains the origin of the world. According to the sense of 1:1 (see Notes), the narrative states that God created all that exists. As it stands, the statement is an affirmation that God alone is eternal and that everything else owes its origin and existence to him. The influence of this verse is reflected in the thoughts found throughout the work of later biblical writers (e.g., Ps 33:6; Jn 1:3; Heb 11:3).

 

Equally important in 1:1 is the meaning of the phrase “in the beginning” (bᵉrēʾšı̂t), especially within the framework of the creation account and the book of Genesis. The term “beginning” (rēʾšı̂t; GK 8040) in biblical Hebrew marks the starting period of a measured frame of time, as in “the beginning of the year” (rēʾšı̂t haššānâ; Dt 11:12). The conclusion of that period is called “the end” (ʾaḥᵃrı̂t; GK 344), as in Deuteronomy 11:12: “the end of the year” (ʾaḥᵃrı̂t šānâ, lit. trans.; H.-P. Muller, THAT, 709). The “beginning” denoted by rēʾšı̂t is not a momentary point of time but a time period. The length or duration of the period is not specified by the term.

In biblical texts that speak of a king’s reign, the first part of the reign is usually not counted as part of the length of his reign. Hence, in calculating the duration of a king’s reign, only the years of his reign after an initial period of time, a “beginning” (rēʾšı̂t), were counted. The duration of this period was sometimes only a few months but sometimes as long as several years. In either case, the reckoning of a king’s reign was preceded by a notation of an initial duration of time called “the beginning of his reign” (cf. Jer 28:1).

If we take into consideration the author’s choice of words for “the beginning,” the text appears to be telling us in 1:1 that God created the universe “during an unspecified length of time.” That indefinite period of time was followed by a single seven–day week. By placing the creation of the universe (“heavens and earth”) within the rēʾšı̂t of Genesis 1:1, the writer refuses to identify the length of creation with the seven–day week that followed.

By commencing his history with a “beginning” (rēʾšı̂t), a word often paired with “the end” (ʾaḥᵃrı̂t), the author also prepares the way for the consummation of that history at “the end of time,” ʾaḥᵃrı̂t. “Already in Genesis 1:1 the concept of ‘the last days’ fills the mind of the reader” (Procksch, 425).

The growing focus within the biblical canon on the “last days” (ʾaḥᵃrı̂t hayyāmı̂m) is an appropriate extension of the “end” (ʾaḥᵃrı̂t) already anticipated in the “beginning” (rēʾšı̂t) of Genesis 1:1. The fundamental principle reflected in 1:1 and the prophetic vision of the future times of the “end” in the rest of Scripture is that the “last things will be like the first things” (Ernst Boklen, Die Verwandtschât der jüdisch–christlichen mit der Parsischen Eschatologie [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902], 136): “Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth” (Isa 65:17); “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev 21:1). The allusions to Genesis 1 and 2 in Revelation 22 illustrate the role these early chapters of Genesis played in shaping the form and content of the scriptural vision of the future (ʾaḥᵃrı̂t hayyāmı̂m).

 

 

NOTE

 

1 As noted above, the Hebrew word רֵאשִׁית (rēʾšı̂t, GK 8040), “beginning,” refers to an extended but unspecified duration of time. It is a period of time that precedes an extended series of time periods. It is a “time before time.” In Job 8:7, for example, Job’s rēʾšı̂t is the early part of his life, before his misfortunes overtook him. During that time Job grew into full manhood, raised his family, and gained renown for his wisdom and prosperity. Job’s rēʾšı̂t was an unspecified but lengthy period in his life.

Within Genesis, the author uses the term rēʾšı̂t for the early part of Nimrod’s kingdom, “the beginning [rēʾšı̂t] of his kingdom was Babel …” (Ge 10:10 NASB). The NIV translates rēʾšı̂t in that verse as “the first centers [rēʾšı̂t] of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh…”

 

No one knows for certain the origin of this system of reckoning, but we know it was practiced throughout the ancient Near East. The writer of Genesis uses the same system of reckoning a seven–day week and precedes it by an indefinite period of time he calls the “beginning” (rēʾšı̂t). The general chronological framework of the first chapter is illustrated in the following chart:

 

“THE BEGINNING OF CREATION” + “ONE WEEK”

“THE BEGINNING” + DAYS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

On the basis of “style and content,” Wenham, 5, sets 1:1–2:3 apart from the following narratives (chs. 2:4–3:24) and makes it “an overture to the whole work” (v. 1). This explanation, based as it is on a source–critical conclusion (style and content), misses the point that in the final shape of the text Genesis 1:1ff. is closely linked to what follows.

Wenham suggests that 2:1–3 is a chiastic inclusio to 1:1 by isolating the three expressions from 1:1 in 2:1–3, that is, “heaven and earth” (Ge 2:1), “God” (2:2), and “created” (2:3). If this were intended, we might have expected the events of the seventh day (2:1–3) to repeat those of the first day (creation of light) rather than what apparently preceded the first day in 1:1–2. Not only is the symmetry off, but also the content of 2:1–3 does not closely parallel 1:1. The title phrase in 2:4a has more the kind of verbal repetition from 1:1 that might be expected for an inclusio: “heavens and earth,” followed (chiastically) by “when they were created.” (Wenham, 49, acknowledges this point.) As such, Wenham connects 2:4a with 2:4bff. rather than with the conclusion to 1:1ff., as do most commentaries.

Wenham’s paralleling of days one through three and four through six overlooks the seventh day, which is clearly the focus of the narrative. He acknowledges this and takes it to be a way of setting the seventh day apart both formally and materially (rest vs. work). The parallel pattern, however, is not very well formed. The second day’s creation of the sky parallels the creation of the birds on day five, but not the fish, which seem to parallel the seas of water created on the third day. Yet day six does not have fish — only land animals and human beings. Thus:

 

Day 1 Light Day 4 Luminaries

Day 2 Sky Day 5 Birds

Day 3 Water Day 5 Fish, water creatures

  Land Day 6 Animals and humans

  Fruit trees Fruit trees, green shrubs

 

The interpretation given to v. 1 rests on the traditional reading of בְּרֵאשִׁית (bᵉrēʾšı̂t) in the absolute state rather than the construct state. A strong case, however, can be made for reading the phrase as a construct and subordinating v. 1 to vv. 2–3: “When God set about to create the heavens and the earth — the world being then a formless waste…” For a complete exploration of this issue, see the first edition of this Genesis commentary (21–23).

 

Indications within Genesis suggest that the author intentionally chose ‏רֵאשִׁית (rēʾšı̂t) in v. 1 because of its close association with אַחֲרִית (ʾaḥᵃrı̂t) and thus had the “end” in view when he wrote of the “beginning.” For example, rēʾšı̂t as an adverbial of time meaning “beginning” or “first” occurs only in v. 1 in the Pentateuch (Ge 10:10 — substantival, not temporal). Elsewhere in the Pentateuch the author uses בַּתְּחִלָּה (battᵉḥillâ, lit., “at the first”; four times, all in Genesis: 13:3; 41:21; 43:18, 20) and בָּרִאשֹׁנָה (bāriʾšōnâ, lit., “at the first”; ten times, three in Genesis: 13:4; 28:19; 38:28). Both tᵉḥillâ and riʾšōnâ differ from rēʾšı̂t in that they mark a “beginning” of a series in opposition to the “second” or “next” member of the series (see 13:3–4). Rēʾšı̂t, however, marks a “beginning” in opposition to the “end” (ʾaḥᵃrı̂t; cf. Job 8:7; 42:12; Ecc 7:8; Isa 46:10).

If the author had wanted only to say that the heavens and the earth were created first in a series, he would have used bāriʾšōnâ. The use of rēʾšı̂t in 1:1 strongly suggests that the author is motivated by its association with ʾaḥᵃrı̂t. If that is so, it suggests that an intentional anticipation of the “end” (ʾaḥᵃrı̂t) lies behind the author’s choice of the word “beginning.” In other words, the author’s depiction of creation is governed by a futuristic anticipation of the “end” (ʾaḥᵃrı̂t) described in the Pentateuch’s poetic texts.

Another indication that rēʾšı̂t was used for its association with ʾaḥᵃrı̂t comes from a consideration of the structure of Genesis and the Pentateuch. As noted in the Introduction: Compositional Shape of the Pentateuch, in the narrative style of much of the Pentateuch, the conclusions of minor and major units are marked by poetic texts followed by a brief epilogue. On these stylistic grounds, the conclusion of the book of Genesis is found in chs. 49–50, and the conclusion of the Pentateuch is Deuteronomy 32–34. Both narratives consist of poetic texts with an epilogue. In both of these “conclusions,” the poetic texts are framed by a short prologue (Ge 49:1; Dt 31:28–30) in which the “patriarch” (Jacob and Moses) called together the “elders” (Ge 49:1; Dt 31:28) and spoke his final words to them (cf. O. Eissfeldt, “Die Umrahmung des Mose–Liedes Dtn 32,1–43 und des Mose–Gesetzes Dtn 1–30 in Dtn 31,9–32,47,” Kleine Schrîten [Tübingen: Mohr, n.d.], 3:322ff.).

The function of both prologues is to situate the poetic texts within the framework of the future (bᵉʾahᵃrı̂t hayyāmı̂m, Ge 49:1c; Dt 31:29; NIV, “in days to come”). It is not important at this juncture whether the ʾaḥᵃrı̂t is intended to be read as eschatological (Hugo Gressmann, Der Messias [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929], 223) or historical (Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel [London: Allen and Unwin, 1956], 30). The important point is that the author of Genesis turns directly to the theme and terminology of “the end times” (ʾaḥᵃrı̂t) when he draws his narrative to a close in Genesis and the Pentateuch as a whole.

If the use of ʾaḥᵃrı̂t is intentional at the conclusion of these narratives, which appears to be the case, then it is likely that the use of rēʾšı̂t is intentional at the beginning of the narrative. Thus it seems apparent that rēʾšı̂t in 1:1 is intended to introduce into the “beginning” an anticipation of the “end.” Thus in consciously grounding the future in the past, the author of Genesis follows a “fundamental principle” in biblical eschatology: the last things are like the first things (Boklen, Die Verwandtschât, 136).

The phrase הַשָָּׁמַיִם וְאֵֶת הָאָרֶץ (haššāmayim wᵉʾet hāʾāreṣ, “the heavens and the earth”) is a figure of speech (merism) for the expression of “totality.” Its use in the Bible appears to be restricted to the totality of the present world order and is equivalent to the “all things” in Isaiah 44:24 (cf. Ps 103:19; Jer 10:16). Particularly important to notice is that its use elsewhere in Scripture suggests that the phrase includes the sun and the moon as well as the stars (e.g., Joel 3:15–16). They were all created “in the beginning.”

 

 

 

John H. Salihamer, “Genesis,” in Genesis-Leviticus, vol. 1 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Revised Edition. ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland; Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 50-54.