Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (JHS)
Not a member yet
1154 research outputs found
Sort by
Review of Mathews, Joshua G., Melchizedek\u27s Alternative Priestly Order: A Compositional Analysis of Genesis 14:18–20 and Its Echoes throughout the Tanak (Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement Series, 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013).
No full textReview of Van Hecke, Pierre and Antje Labahn (eds.), Metaphors in the Psalms (BETL, CCXXXI; Leuwen, Uitgeverij Peeters, 2010).
No full textReview of Seow, C. L., Job 1–21: Interpretation and Commentary (Illuminations; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013).
No full textReview of Silverman, Jason M., Persepolis and Jerusalem: Iranian Influence on the Apocalyptic Hermeneutic (LHBOTS, 558; London: T & T Clark, 2012).
No full textChiasm and Meaning in 1 Chronicles
Get PDFThis study proposes that chiastic structures encompass at least the first half of 1 Chronicles, helping to underscore the rejection of Gibeon and the Saulides in favor of Jerusalem and the line of David. This approach offers promising solutions to several long-standing difficulties regarding the Chronicler’s choice and arrangement of material. Of methodological consequence, it emerges that the Chronicler relied heavily upon design in order to generate new meaning from texts already in circulation
Review of Van Seters, John, The Yahwist: A Historian of Israelite Origins (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013).
No full textReview of Griffiths, Paul J., Song of Songs (Brazos Theological Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2011).
No full textAnalyzing זֶה Grammar and Reading זֶה Texts of Ps 68:9 and Judg 5:5
Get PDFThe grammar of ancient Hebrew זֶה straightforwardly accords to cross-linguistically attested patterns of demonstratives. זֶה and its feminine singular and common plural counterparts function primarily as deictic pronouns or deictic nominal modifiers. A small set of examples indicate that some stage of Hebrew witnessed the grammaticalization of זֶה as a relative marker and a copular pronoun. However, for over a century, another function of זֶה has been proposed and become entrenched within Hebrew grammatical analysis—that זֶה follows other Semitic languages in functioning as a “genitive” marker. By addressing all the relevant data, including the two most commonly cited examples of a “genitive” זֶה, Ps 68:9 and Judg 5:5, as well as the comparative Semitic argument, I demonstrate that there are no cogent reasons for assigning to זֶה the role of a “genitive” marker
