Tanach Thoughts

Another paper recommendation, this time a recent one by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein, who reviewed a volume dealing with the question of why Hashem is described in Tanach as uniquely greater and more powerful (and singular) than other (false) pagan deities, if in extra-biblical sources those other deities are described much in the same way as Hashem. I concur with him that this is a thorny, or at least somewhat thorny issue. I am weary of the whole topic of parallelomania - how far do the parallels between the Tanach (as well as later Jewish sources) actually go? I.e., are Jewish sources entirely unoriginal and are built in their entirety, or largely built on older pagan/non-Jewish sources? A popular modern explanation is that Jewish texts, particularly the Tanach, is built upon previous sources as a polemic technique to move Am Yisrael away from idolatry. However, as I said, I am weary of accepting that pretty much all of Tanach is just a tactic to get Yisrael away from idolatry, and tha...

So, exciting news, one of my papers has passed the first peer reviewer! He expressed interest in my general theory, but had a long list of issues with some of the specifics. Some I believe that I have to reject outright because these comments are unsubstantiated. The reviewer simply stated that he was uncertain about these points. I think that if I can sharpen other points based on the rest of the comments, then it'll be okay if I (politely) reject these. So, whilst searching for information that would strengthen the rest of my thesis, I came across something interesting: Both Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Yerushalmi to Devarim 1:44 translate "Seir" as "Gavla" (גבלא, Aramaic for Gebal). Now, Gebal is known as an ancient town in Sidon, and it eventually became known as Byblos. But Seir is in the south of Israel! So why would these targums identify Seir with Gebal? As it turns out, there was indeed a time when the region of Idumea (Edom) or Seir was known as...

Sadly my Levitical Cities paper was rejected once again from the first journal it was sent to. To recap, I first sent it during winter of last year. It was summarily rejected but I was given the option of improving it and sending it in again. It took an entire year, but I finally managed to send it in a little over a month ago. But it has now been rejected once again. Still, largely it went better than last time. Last time it was rejected on the doorstep by the editor. This time it was at least passed along to peer reviewers, so I received a copy of their reviews. Probably mistakenly the editor also passed along a slightly corrected copy of the paper which showed who one of the reviewers was. I always blow out some air with a "pssshh" when I recognize a name. And yes, I recognized the name of the reviewer. He actually complemented me, despite thinking that the paper wasn't a good fit for that particular journal. He thought it should be sent to a different journal, which i...

Or, "My uneducated thoughts on the "The Pentateuchal Dietary Proscription against Finless and Scaleless Aquatic Species in Light of Ancient Fish Remains" study by Adler and Lernau".  Last week, a study came out called " The Pentateuchal Dietary Proscription against Finless and Scaleless Aquatic Species in Light of Ancient Fish Remains " by Dr. Yonatan Adler and Prof. Omri Lernau, both Israeli archeologists. Naturally, the world was shaken to its core from their conclusion that ancient Israelites and even later Jews did not, it seems, adhere to fish kashrut laws. I read the study a couple of times and thought I'd put down my thoughts on the matter. But beforehand, I'd like to know how much of the conclusions of the study were written by Dr. Adler. Adler is a religious Jew who works in the University of Ariel, not necessarily one of those Tel Aviv minimalists. However, the study includes arguing for a Hellenistic dating of Nechemiah. What. Huh? C...