Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Joseph Blenkinsopp

Quote by Joseph Blenkinsopp

“Rather than Jethro's conversion to Yahwism, therefore, [in Exod. 18] we are witnessing 'the first incorporation of the Israelite leaders into the worship of Yahweh'. (p. 135) (from 'The Midianite-Kenite Hypothesis Revisited and the Origins of Judah', JSOT 33.2 (2008): 131-153)”

Quote by Joseph Blenkinsopp

Author

Joseph Blenkinsopp

Browse famous quotes and profile details for Joseph Blenkinsopp. more

You May Also Like

“The opening invocation to Yahweh in the Song of Deborah presents him as proceeding in triumph from Seir, the regions of Edom (Judg. 5.4). Seir comes to be synonymous with Edom [Gen. 32.4; Num. 24.18; Judg. 4.5; Ezek. 35], but it can have a more specific reference as designating a region west of the Arabah [cf. Josh. 11.17; 12.7; 15.10]. The original Edomite homeland was east of the Arabah, but after the formation of the kingdom, Edom expanded to take in territory to the west [cf. Deut. 2.12, 22]. A much later composition (Isa. 63.1-6) also presents Yahweh as coming from Edom. (pp. 136-137) (from 'The Midianite-Kenite Hypothesis Revisited and the Origins of Judah', JSOT 33.2 (2008): 131-153)”

“[The] opening invocation to Yahweh in the Song of Deborah, a variant of which appears in Ps. 68.8-9, also hails him as 'The One of Sinai', less literally 'The Lord of Sinai' (זה סיני), which suggests that Sinai is the original residence of Yahweh and is also closely associated with Seir. The connection is explicit in another poem with an ancient substratum, the Blessing of Moses: Yahweh comes from Sinai He dawns upon us from Seir. (Deut. 33.2) The rest of the verse is textually corrupt, perhaps deliberately scrambled, so that any reconstruction will be speculative. It reads as follows: הופיע מהר פארן ואתה מרבבת קדש מימינו אשדת לנו After 'he shines forth from Mount Paran' we would expect a matching place name, as in the previous stich, which provides some justification for finding, with a minor textual alteration, a reference to Meribath-Kadesh in the second line (cf. Deut. 32.51) parallel with Mt Paran. [...] it may be permissible to suggest an emendation of אשדת to אשרת with the old feminine ending, based on frequent confusion between daleth and resh. [Blenkinsopp's emendation would give us: 'He shines forth from Mount Paran, and comes forth from Meribath-Kadesh, his Asherah at his right hand.] (pp. 137-138) (from 'The Midianite-Kenite Hypothesis Revisited and the Origins of Judah', JSOT 33.2 (2008): 131-153)”

“[Egyptian texts about the Shasu and the Land of Yahu] An inscription in a temple of Amon in Soleb, Nubia, from the reign of Amenhotep III (first half of the fourteenth century), lists several beduin (Shasu) territories including 'the Shasu land of Yahu'. The name also occurs in a copy of the same list in the Amara West temple in Nubia from the reign of Rameses II (second half of thirteenth century), and both could go back to an even earlier prototype. There is broad agreement that the name corresponds to one of the forms of the name of Yahweh, that it refers to a region in which the Shasu in question lived and moved around, and that either the deity could have taken the name of the region or the region could have taken its name from the deity worshipped by the beduin who lived there. (pp. 139-140) (from 'The Midianite-Kenite Hypothesis Revisited and the Origins of Judah', JSOT 33.2 (2008): 131-153)”

“as one utilizes the findings of modern scholarship, one renews an essential characteristic of Jewish learning. Biblical exegesis in rabbinic and medieval Judaism has always focused on debate and variety….[T]he post-modern Jew revels in the diverse voices and counter-voices [discovered by critical Bible scholarship] so reminiscent of Talmudic and contemporary dialectic. (from "The Scroll of Isaiah as Jewish Scripture, Or Why Jews Don't Read Books," in Society of Biblical Literature 1996 Seminar Papers)”

“In the past, scholars have focused overly much on subtle distinctions between purported J and E documents interwoven with each other throughout the Pentateuch, distinctions so subtle, in fact, that many, if not most, pentateuchal specialists no longer see them. Meanwhile, [...] it is becoming increasingly clear that there is another more obvious and important set of divisions between sources of the Pentateuch, that is, the divisions separating the major non-Priestly sections from each other: primeval history, Jacob, Joseph and Moses-exodus stories. (David M. Carr essay, p. 159)”

“I, like many, if not most, specialists working on pentateuchal formation now, do not recognize an 'Elohist' counterpart to the older 'Yahwist.' Whatever pre-Priestly proto-Pentateuch I would consider would be one that contains texts once assigned to J and E. Furthermore, I am inclined to date any non-P proto-Pentateuch no earlier than the late preexilic or (more likely) exilic period. My pre-Priestly 'proto-Pentateuch' is close to the older J neither in contents or context. The only way I am a proponent of a 'Yahwist' is if one reduces the definition of such a document as Jan Christian Gertz does to those who posit a 'running strand of pre-Priestly material in the Tetratech.' That definition, however, makes the term 'Yahwist' so different from the older use of the term as to make it functionally nonusable. In fact, no one on this panel, so far as I know, advocates a Yahwist recognizably like the J of studies up through the 1970s. (David Carr essay, p. 160)”